User talk:Debresser/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Debresser. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Though not strictly true, yes. BBFC is the only source we consider reliable for runtimes. Note that I said "BBFC and the like", which would be other film classification sites. Exceptions could exist, perhaps the studio itself, a producer, the director, etc. I think the runtime listed on home media is also acceptable. What I meant with that is that sources that we would normally consider reliable for other things (like Comicbook.com in the edit I reverted) aren't reliable for runtimes specifically. These aren't considered reliable because they mostly take the runtimes from sites like IMDb or from theater chains, which aren't considered reliable themselves. El Millo (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

But the documentation does not say so. If this is what you feel should be enforced, then you should discuss it at WP:FILM and see if consensus agrees with what you say, and then change the template documentation of Infobox film accordingly. Debresser (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"Regal Cinemas has seemingly revealed the runtime for No Time to Die" That is the first line in the article from Collider that was used in No Time to Die. As it was taken from a theater chain, it isn't reliable, and that is the case from most of these sources whenever they talk about runtimes. If one of these reliable sites shows it hasn't got it from a theater chain but from somewhere else, then I guess it could be used. But I haven't come across one like that so far. Next time you answer me here please {{ping}} me. El Millo (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: I see. Thanks for your reply.

Please read the editnotice above my talkpage: "If I posted on your talkpage, that means I am watching it. To keep discussions centralized, I propose you post there.". Debresser (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

What about it don't you like? The source says there "could not have been". What do you think is the difference between that and "impossible"? There is massive gulf between "could not" and "unlikely", which you have interpolated into the sentence as though the reference supports it. We know Xerxes did not marry a Jewess, and neither did any Achaemenid king, and neither would they. It is therefore not possible that Esther existed in any sense resembling the narrative, none of which has any basis in historical fact. This is what multiple reliable sources say. GPinkerton (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Article talkpage. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Rather hypocritical of you to claim I "continuously make accusations of POV" and "play the personal card" when the fact is you reverted my edits and accused me of POV with your smear that I was "apparently under the false impression that this project is where you make your points and prove you are right" before I levelled the accusation at you, an accusation now even more manifestly supported by the facts now you've got all defensive about it. Just something to note. GPinkerton (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It turns out that my Wikipedia:Wales number was 1 already, see Wikipedia:Wales_number/Wikipedians_with_Wales_number_1/D, but this was to my recollection the first time I replied to him directly. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, just so you know that was copied over to the talk page, not directly edited by Jimbo. Did you by any chance edit the Stanley Milgram talk page? That is where Jimbo and I interacted years ago, so it could be there where you interacted with him. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

:( Debresser (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

From one Jewish editor (albeit a rather new one) to another — happy Wikipedia anniversary and happy Yom Ha'atzmaut! Rootless Cosmopolitan (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Rootless Cosmopolitan, since you walked right into it and using Talmud logic and humor, are you new to being Jewish or new to being an editor? :)

Ha, ha. I wanted to ask that same question. Must be you're Jewish too. :)

And Debresser, not sure if you are a Rambamist or where you stand on Hashgacha pratis, but yesterday the Northeast United States had a military flyover that took place after sunset Israel time. I wonder if someone, somewhere had an inkling of what they were doing or if it was 100% totally a coincidence. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

All I wanted to say is "Don't worry, America, we stand behind you." Debresser (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi I hope you can help me with putting in information regarding the transition from ottoman to British mandate rule.

Please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zarcademan123456#The_Ottoman_to_Britain_transition. and other relevant information I think on selfstudier page.

Most west bank village articles now jump from ottoman to British administration without any clarification as to how they got there. If you could help me start an RFC (that seems to me to be the most efficient (lol least inefficient)) way of getting potentially controversial changes made. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Was this deletion of my post inadvertent? Please restore it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Done.[1] Not that I understand what the nature of that consensus is we are getting closer to. I don't see it. Debresser (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't unnecessarily change the section headers on talk pages (as you did here) because it breaks links to that section. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

1. People should use capitalization at the beginning of headers. So I wouldn't call this change "unnecessary".
2. How many links were there already to that section?

I am sorry if you had a link to it that broke, but I really don't think that consideration should have withheld me from making the edit I made. Respectfully. Debresser (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you violated 1RR here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems you got me there. Hadn't noticed. In any case, please see the talkpage first. Since I basically agreed with what you would like to change, I propose you let me of the hook with this honest mistake of mine. Debresser (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you undo your last revert (or remove the photo). Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

In my first revert I reverted your vandalism. Reverting vandalism is allowed even on pages with restrictions.

Now if you could just agree that since I don't object to you moving the picture and placing another picture in its place, the tag isn't needed, then I could agree that your edit wasn't completely and unequivocally vandalism, but we still wouldn't need the tag any more.Debresser (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to your edit summary, adding "satirical" to the lead sentence was not discussed on the talk page, which is about the "horror" and "thriller" genres. Instead of simply reverting, are you going to provide a response to my question at Talk:The Hunt (2020 film) regarding your addition of new genres into the lead sentence? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I was definitely not "simply reverting". This is the version that came out of the discussion, whether or not "satirical" was mentioned there specifically or not, and if you want to change it, you should show some consensus. Unfortunately, you continue being confrontational. In any case, I am actually neutral on having "satirical", and if you'd discuss in a more pleasant way, you'd actually make it easier for editors to agree with you. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You gotta stop with the edit warring. Let the discussion run its course. Rusted AutoParts 18:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That is precisely what I am telling the other guy. After all, they are proposing to remove text is sourced. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring your content back into the article when it has no consensus for inclusion. Please instead use the article's talk page to present your arguments in favor of your proposal. Repeatedly reverting while refusing to engage in actual discussion about your changes is disruptive. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

A bit childish, no? Warning me 10 minutes after I warned you. Who should be warning whom really? Debresser (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, your diff in the block log is from April 17th. I think you're going to have to do a little better than that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Sir Joseph, that's the diff to the caution that this user has chosen to ignore. What improvement would you like to see? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, Just wanted to make sure. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: Yes, under the "het" of כוחלית there is a hataf patach, which can be rendered a an "a" or as nothing. By the way, you could add the Hebrew to the first sentence of the article. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Good morning, and thank you! Would you mind dealing with it? I'm illiterate in Hebrew, need Steve Morse's transliteration tool whenever I dare to to deal with it. Thanks!

I have copied my reply from here to the talkpage, and have added the Hebrew, with nikkud, to the article. Debresser (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Soap: Source this info, which is absolutely true, and frankly the removing editor could probably have sourced it easily had he tried

Have restored the information, and added a source. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sceptre: Regarding your closure of Talk:Islamization_of_East_Jerusalem_under_Jordanian_rule#Requested_move_2_May_2020. If "I don't particularly see the comments in opposition to such a move are particularly persuasive to move away from the much larger consensus that "occupation" is desirable in articles titles regarding the topic." then why was the article moved away from "occupation" to "rule"? Especially since I count more opposes than supports. Perhaps you meant to say "Not moved"?

@Debresser: You'll want to comment at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2020_May#Islamization_of_East_Jerusalem_under_Jordanian_rule once you get unblocked. The review will still be ongoing. What is interesting is that he says he doesn't have a bias yet takes a 3-3 !vote which is a no-consensus and then does a supervote from another page and applies that to here, yet Israeli occupation of the West Bank still exists. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I have commented there now. Thanks for pointing me to that discussion. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a thought based on your unblock request. You might be up against a stonewalling editor, they might not be listening to other people's opinions, they might be edit warring, they might be editing against consensus, and they might be unambiguously wrong in what they are doing, and unambiguously the problematic editor in the dispute. But unless they are deliberately damaging the encyclopedia then it is not vandalism. They might be stubbornly wrong, and you might judge their edits to be damaging, but unless they know their edits are damaging and they are damaging the encyclopedia deliberately, then it is not vandalism, and you do not have a 3RR escape clause. You really, really, should know that by now. You might want to modify your unblock request and drop the "vandalism" defence. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

PS: I count six edit warring blocks in your block log. You simply *can not* claim that you do not understand what edit warring is! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

What Boing! said, only double. Please! --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 15:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, nice touch, jabbing Wally in the unblock request. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 15:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: By all standards you should have at least reduced the block to 72 hours. As for the rest, whatever, I might even agree with you, but if you don't have the decency to reduce to 72 hours, I am not even going to try to show remorse. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about Deepfriedokra, but I'll tell you my thinking on the length of edit warring blocks. I don't necessarily base it on giving both sides in an edit war the same length block, but instead I will consider a participant's previous record of edit warring blocks and will escalate accordingly. Your record is bad. Also, "remorse" that's used as a bargaining tool isn't genuine and is not worth having. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I was wrong not asking for help when I got to three reverts, that is something I admit.

As I wrote above, I hold that it was the wrong call to block me for trying to protect the article from what clearly is a problematic editor in the process of removing sourced information, especially with the longer block. Regardless of my past, I was trying to do the right thing here. Debresser (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you were trying to do right (and it's my respect for your very significant contributions here that kept me from declining your unblock request myself). But you really should expect to be blocked if you violate WP:3RR (even if you're right) as that is one of Wikipedia's few bright line policies, and I suggest that arguing that the block was wrong is not wise. An unblock request that acknowledges all of this would, in my view, stand more chance of success. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't even go as far as to say it was wrong. What I do think was wrong was declining to reduce it to 72 hours. In any case, let's see if the following will go down better.

• I'm not going to answer this unblock request, but I strongly suggest per WP:NOTTHEM that this request is fine until you again mention the other editor in derogatory terms. You simply don't need to do that. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely see a big difference between an editor who is problematic himself or who made a mistake while dealing with a problematic editor. And if you look at WP:NOTTHEM again, you will see that there is nothing there that is at odds with this common sense distinction. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, please yourself, but the very first line of NOTTHEM is "Do not complain about other people, such as editors you may have been in a conflict with". Black Kite (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I know. I wasn't complaining. Nor making excuses. I was explaining my intentions. And intentions is what an unblock request is all about. My intentions were good and remain good, just that I made a mistake along the way. Debresser (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, there at least a couple of admins on this page that seemingly want to unblock you if you would just allow them to. They cant when your unblock request talks about how the other editor is the problem. Also, three reverts is not the sign that you are about to go too far, it is the sign you have already gone too far. If you got rid of the last sentence in your request and acknowledged you dont have a right to revert three times youd be unblocked already. nableezy - 23:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. However, I disagree with that. And please notice that my disagreement is based on the guideline and on common sense. I have been here long enough (over 11 years) to know the difference between a good editor and a bureaucrat. An admin who can't deal with a few words about another editor in my unblock request, is a bureaucrat who doesn't understand the guideline. I have clearly acknowledged my mistake, and would like to go on contributing constructively to this project, but if there are no true admins here, just petty bureaucrats, then I am perfectly fine doing that after 7 days. My opinion regarding most admins is no secret, and even though WP:NOTTHEM urges me not to irk the admins by stating my opinions, I past that bridge a years ago and at this stage really don't care. And again, the unblock guideline does not say that my general opinion regarding admins should have any influence on my request, although I understand that reality is a far cry from Wikipedia policies and guidelines. But again, you need a true admin to care, and those are few in number, just like the gemarra says regarding the righteous.

By the way, if you mean to say that 3 reverts is a violation of 3RR, then you are wrong. It is the 4th revert that is forbidden. Debresser (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, except that's not how it works here. You need to grovel and beg forgiveness. Even if you're 100% right, the way unblocking works is you can't mention the other person at all. You either need to sit out the block or get on your knees and promise to be a good boy. You need to make the admins happy. Then you'll be unblocked. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, most of them anyways. One of the more fair admins has commented here, so I make a point of saying "most of them" and not all of them. But see my reply to Nableezy, that I am way past caring, for years already. Debresser (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Its not about groveling. All theyre looking for is an acknowledgment that you understand what you did that resulted in the block and, hopefully, an understanding on how to avoid it in the future. Its up to you, but youre blocked because of your edits, not because of anybody elses. That person is blocked for his or her edits. And either of you can be unblocked if you understand and acknowledge that. nableezy - 03:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I acknowledged that.[4] Debresser (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just a comment on "if you mean to say that 3 reverts is a violation of 3RR, then you are wrong. It is the 4th revert that is forbidden", above: When Nableezy said "...you dont have a right to revert three times...", I suspect the reference was to WP:3RR where it says "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." (emphasis original) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought of that, and half expected Nableezy to write a reply to that effect. However, since there is a popular misconception, even among experienced editors, that 3RR means that one may not make three reverts, I though to make sure to get that misconception out of the way.

Thanks for doing the right thing, by the way, at least as I see it. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Nah, I meant that if you revert three times you are likely already edit-warring, even if you havent jumped over the bright line that will likely guarantee a block. You (all of us) are supposed to refrain from edit-warring, and if youve gotten to 3 reverts in a day you probably arent doing that. nableezy - 23:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I though you meant. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Commented there. Debresser (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries aren't for directing snark at other editors (c.f. WP:SUMMARYNO). If you want to direct snark at me, or better, constructive criticism, my talk page (or the article talk page) is a much more appropriate place. I'm open to criticism on my edits on that article (or any article). Oska (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind referring me to the offending edit, please. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it's this one. What I am drawing attention to is your passive-aggressive tone in the edit summary, clearly directed at me (as it's a revert of my edit). Again, happy to receive criticism, just that it's not appropriate in an edit summary. Oska (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, now you reminded me. Please prepare yourself, because I am about to repeat what I said there. Removing information that is true, relevant and ipse facto something this encyclopedia should have, just because it is unsourced, is really not helpful editing. You could put in some effort and source it yourself, but if you can't be bothered, for whatever reason, then tag it, write about it on the talkpage, approach a fellow editor whom you think might be interested enough to put in some work, but don't remove it. You do realise that we could remove about 40% of this encyclopedia, if not more, if we were to remove everything that is not sourced? I really find it very hard to respect editors who remove information which could easily have been sourced. Don't take it personal. You are not the first one to have aroused my ire thus. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

My main point here is that expressing your feelings about me, or your views on editors like me, is not appropriate in an edit summary. Ever. Did you review the policy link I included above? Might serve you to also click through on the links in that first link to WP:ESDONTS and WP:NPA.

Now to address your criticism of that edit (although it would probably be better discussed on the talk page of that article). I am very wary of articles about people on wikipedia being used for promotional purposes and/or giving an unbalanced view of a person (either one way or the other). When reading that article recently (for the first time) I saw a claim to Al Maktoum being a 'reformer' in the lead, with no source given. Now nearly every politician wants to be seen as a reformer, and may even use their power and influence to be written up as one. I'm dubious that such an uncritical claim should appear in the lead at all, even with a source. Perhaps he has made reforms in some areas while blocking reforms in other areas? That is the more typical profile of most politicians. Also, the criteria for what should appear in the lead are stronger than for the body of the article (and should reflect material more thoroughly developed in the body of the article). See MOS:LEAD. So I cut the unsourced and probably unbalanced claim from the lead without, no, going to look for supporting sources. Even with a source I don't think that claim belongs in the lead. I cut a fair bit from the lead in a number of edits as I saw it as somewhat unbalanced in including too many promotional claims (as could also be said about the body of the article). I'm happy to see criticism that I might have gone a bit too far in cutting but I would still stand by that particular edit. Oska (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, and wouldn't have said anything, had you moved the sentence from the lead to the body of the article. Moreover, I would welcome such a step, even now that the information is sourced.

Policy disagrees with me, but I too stand behind the edit summary. A bit of shaming won't hurt editors who don't try to find sources and prefer to simply remove information. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Shalom, Reb Dovid. You asked to see the source where Israeli law prohibits giving a name to a new settlement if its name cannot be shown to be connected in some way to the immediate area or region. I remember hearing this said to me many years back when Kiryat Sefer was being nominated for the name of Modi'in Illit. The name was rejected on grounds that the site is nowhere near the old site (ruin) known as "Kiryat Sefer", which place was also called Devir. See the History section in that article. The law is somewhere in the books (legal codes), but I'll have to find it.Davidbena (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dibol (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Top Gun: Maverick edits. Thank you. Dibol (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this report might well result in your second block over this issue. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries, already done: [5]. --Koreanovsky (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Well done. Thanks for the update. By the way, I had you talkpage watched, see the notice at the top of this page when editing. Debresser (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks mate! What do you mean with watched? Hehe --Koreanovsky (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a tab on top of the page, on my computer the one furthest to the right, which says "watch". When you click it, the specific page you are on is added to your "watchlist". The watchlist is a list of all the pages pages that you are watching. When you click the "watchlist" link on top of the page, a bit higher than the tabs I mentioned previously, you'll see if any changes were made to page on your watchlist. I added your talkpage to my watchlist when I posted there, so that I would receive an update when you replied there. It was therefore not necessary to reply to me here. Replying on your talkpage would have the advantage that the discussion remains centralized. You can read more about the watchlist at Help:Watchlist. Debresser (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your support at the Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_14#Category:Jewish_merchants. The category was kept, hopefully we can populate them. And as you note, the very topic of Jewish merchants may warrant an article too.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It was my pleasure to do a bit of work and find 8 more articles to populate this category. Debresser (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the edit that you reverted on the reason that we hold like Bais Hillel: The reason that we hold of Bais Shammai over Bais Hillel is because of the halacha of rov (that Bais Hillel had more talmidim so we pasken like him). In fact, biyimos hamashiach (bimheira biyamanu) we will hold like Bais Shammai because he will be the rov then. What was so wrong with this that you had to revert it? SamsonKriger (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

If you remove an edit of mine from a talk page I will report you for vandalism. You dont get to make repeated personal comments and then demand that nobody respond. Stop. Now. nableezy - 15:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

As promised, you now go to WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Good luck with that. nableezy - 02:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You broke it again at Islamization of Jerusalem. Here's a pointer on the math. This is less than 24 hours prior to this. nableezy - 02:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Oops. Well, a good thing you reverted then, I guess. Debresser (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Debresser, is there anything you can please do to clean up all the blatant inaccuracies in this abomination: Superstition in Judaism. Thanks so much, IZAK (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: Night and day! Take a look at the article, and the wonders of User:Ar2332 and User:Ibn Daud edits! IZAK (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Reb Dovid, shalom.

I sent Zero0000 this suggested edit, without response. This newer edit provides a better and more precise quote from Schürer.

The retentention of the Old Hebrew name for Cesarea Philippi, according to Schürer, effectually began in the 4th century, when the name Paneas was once again used.^[1] The names Lod, Beisan, and Sepphoris were preferred by Semitic groups over their Greco-Roman names, viz., Diospolis, Scythopolis and Diocæsarea, respectively.^[2] By the time of the Middle Ages, Hadrian's intention to banish the Jews from Jerusalem and to apply his own name Ælius to the city, and which was done, according to Philostorgius, "that they might not find in the name of the city a pretext for claiming it as their country," had no longer been realised.^[3] (END QUOTE)

As for Philostorgius, can we not attribute a quote to his name, and where there is a connection to our topic matter? Just asking. While the name "Paneas" may actually be a Greek name, it was used by the Hebrews before its name was changed to Cesarea-Philippi.

Davidbena (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not really into this article. You could probably try to make the edit, with an edit summary like "as suggested on talkpage" and see what happens. Debresser (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Concerning your removal of "unnecessary quotes" June 4 here. I use a lot of quotes to try and stay close to what the author I'm citing says and to avoid copyright infringement --Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

IOW, if you want to be pretty exact about what your source says and avoid copyright infringement you end up using quotes. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

My understanding of the relevant policy has always been that there is no copyright infringement for such short statements (2-3 words). I would have understood you if you had copied a sentence or half a sentence, that you would add quotation marks to avoid copyright infringement, but just a few words is allowed as Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Would you disagree? Debresser (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I actually was not that aware of policy in that regard and thinking on it I realized that the nature of the article does better suit to CE in that area due to the topic and how many different groups view it as sacred and that does seem to be the best way to not offend some. I am used to some people use CE as a scholarly hammer in other contexts. So thank you for inadvertently helping me realize it does exist for a reason and not merely for a discrediting or revisionist purpose. --71.47.11.146 (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I am happy you agree with me here. Debresser (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, can explain more why you reverted this edit here? Per WP:TRAILER, we should not be reporting trailers without some sort of analysis or reception of the trailer. The source is just a youtube link to the behind-the-scenes trailer, not reception of it. BOVINEBOY2008 14:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out to me. You are right, and I have undone my revert. Debresser (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! BOVINEBOY2008 14:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This infantile behaviour of yours has got to stop. I understand that you are sensitive about this subject, but you have to understand Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and thus will inevitably conflict with your beliefs if your beliefs are not based on historical evidence, upon which, and not upon traditional scriptural hearsay, Wikipedia is built. You do not own these articles, and neither does your belief system. Please devote your time to some more fruitful pursuit than endlessly reverting all edits that make you unhappy. GPinkerton (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You repeat your baseless and underhanded accusation. You also repeat your tu quoque behavior (calling me childish, which is actually precisely what you are being). Please do not post here any more. Debresser (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57 Fair enough, I guess. Even though saying that a version that was introduced in April and was disputed as early as May is already a stable version in June, is not something I agree with. Also notice that I am the one who opened the discussion in the end. Debresser (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@331dot I can't believe the other editor is unblocked, because he was taken for his word that it won't happen again. I have seen that editor edit warring twice with me and once with another editor, and not discussing anything. Debresser (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, why not request an unblock then? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I can easily sit this out. I was struck by the fact that anybody believed him, and expressed my incredulity at his claim of being able to edit without reverting to edit wars. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Reb Dovid - Shavua Tov! You'll read this in Beitar Illit mo'tzash. You're welcome to edit the pages on Jewish items I also edit! Do not undo at once all revisions - that's problematic and appears to be a regular "challenge" for you. You are welcome to make individual and specific edits! In the spirit of 'achdus before the 3-Weeks, I wish you much hatzlacha with your prodigious editing! PHILA19147 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, nice to meet you , PHILA19147. And thank you. Please understand that I wouldn't have reverted, if I hadn't though it necessary. I am not suffering from sinas chinom. :) Debresser (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Communities Digital News (commdiginews.com) was blacklisted because it's a fake news website. It is about as unusable as you get. Guy (help!) 17:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. But in this case the information was correct. Debresser (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, for some obscure reason this category was deleted many years ago, will you help recreate it? Thx. עמירם פאל (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Moved from the email notice Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Thank you. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see these discussions: 1, 2 and 3, which all reached the conclusion that this category is problematic. Number 3 recommended to concentrate on List of Jewish mathematicians, which I agree is a good idea. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Please observe Category:Mathematicians by ethnicity and all the sub categories there. Don't you think it justifies the proposed category as well? עמירם פאל (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That argument was mentioned in those discussions as well. Debresser (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Those discussions were held in 2007 and before. Category:African-American mathematicians was created in 2013, Category:Medieval Arab mathematicians was created in 2011, Category:Ethnic Armenian mathematicians was created in 2015, Category:Kurdish mathematicians was created in 2011, Category:Sinhalese mathematicians was created in 2018, Category:Tamil mathematicians was created in 2013. Don't you think that it's high time to finally give the Jews equal rights too? עמירם פאל (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

So let us create Category:Muslim mathematicians, Category:Christian mathematicians, Category:Buddhist mathematicians, Category:Hindu mathematicians, Category:Sikh mathematicians, Category:Taoist mathematicians then? Uh, no thanks. StonyBrook (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

StonyBrook, In addition to religion Jews are ethnicity so if the are Kurdish mathematicians why its not OK to have Jewish mathematicians category? Shrike (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Jews are an ethno-religious group, but I suspect the religious aspect is the dominant one; that is to say, even the ethnic aspect is inherent to the religious nature of Jewish society, since rabbinic law strongly influences how people marry and produce offspring. Politically, Jewish mathematicians are already covered in the national categories, such as Category:American mathematicians, Category:Israeli mathematicians, Category:British mathematicians etc. And while there is usually no distinction for Jews in these categories (there is a Category:Jewish American mathematicians), if someone wishes to identify Jewish mathematicians, they can still scan the categories for Jewish-sounding surnames and investigate further. StonyBrook (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

One of those discussions was held in 2018.

Stonybrook's argument is not necessarily correct. It is all a question of which intersection of mathematician and ethnicity is relevant. Debresser (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter whether a Jewish person is observant or not as concerns inclusion in Categories for Jewish mathematicians. Bus stop (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course, but you miss my point. Any Jew is an embodiment of the Oral Law of the Torah that caused his ancestors to remain Jewish. Take away that religious element, and you will cease to see any Jewishness survive, over the long term anyway. StonyBrook (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Jews are an ethno-religious group. They are an identity. That identity is arrived at by birth or conversion. Yes, we compare Jews to Christians to Muslims and so on and so forth, saying all are "religions", but that is just common parlance. The "Oral Law of the Torah" creates an identity. From where do you derive that the "Oral Law of the Torah" creates a "religion"? And while we are raising big questions—what is a "religion"? Bus stop (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

This article has all the answers you seek. Especially the first sentence. StonyBrook (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Now you're just being silly. The first sentence reads "Jews or Jewish people are an ethnoreligious group and a nation, originating from the Israelites and Hebrews of historical Israel and Judah." Bus stop (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Redirecting the discussion back to its original topic, Debresser, I repeat Shrike's question - if there are Kurdish mathematicians why it's not OK to have Jewish mathematicians category? עמירם פאל (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

If I understand those discussion well, because sorting by country is a common way or organizing that is non-trivial, while ethnicity is trivial. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Kurdish is an ethnicity, not a country, so a better answer to Shrike's and Amiram's question is required. Making the question even stronger is the existence of the Category:Jewish scientists, which contains many subcategories which consist of the same problems the discussions that Debresser referenced above tangle with. I believe the reason the Jewish mathematicians category was singled out for such ire was because a) it was one of the first created b) people in those discussions were lobbying for inclusion in light of the existence of other categories such as Category:Medieval Arab mathematicians, without understanding the significance of this group to the evolution of mathematics as we know it and c) eminent mathematicians such as David Eppstein were against it. StonyBrook (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

This "they get a category so we should get one too" argument will not fly. The question is whether the intersection of these two seemingly unrelated properties, being Jewish and being a mathematician, is itself independently notable. Please note that that is currently under debate for the African-American mathematician category and it is unclear what the eventual outcome will be. It is definitely clear for Kurdish mathematicians: there are not multiple book-length studies of Kurdish mathematicians as a special sub-class of mathematicians (or Kurds), no major national associations primarily aimed at the development of professional mathematicians who are ethnic Kurds, etc., as there are in the African-American case. So I think the Kurdish category should be deleted. I don't know about the situation for the Jews and my guess is that it would be somewhere between the two in strength of arguments; certainly there have been times and places when Jews were heavily discriminated against within mathematics (most notably in pre-World-War-II Germany and in Soviet Russia) and published studies of the history of that discrimination, so there might be a case. It would have to be very clear whether Jews here are being considered as an ethnicity or as a religion; a lot of people in these situations try to have it both ways and that just muddles the issue. An extremely serious problem with the Jewish categories, in particular, and one that has made me personally very wary of these categories, is that historically a lot of partisans (I don't know or care whether pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish, but one of the two) have added a lot of people to those categories based on very weak evidence such as "I know that people with this name are Jewish". If it is intended to be a religious category, then it needs to be only for people for whom we have reliable sources that they were religious Jews, and even if it is intended to be a category for ethnic Jews, we still need valid sourcing that its members are of Jewish descent, and we would then also need to be clear whether we are only considering matrilinear descent or any form of ancestry. The fact that we've already had a category of Jewish mathematicians that was deemed under a discussion to be non-notable is going to make it harder to persuade people a second time, as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein, reading you carefully, I don't see that you're against it as StonyBrook seems to think. Also, may I refer you to all the other subcategories, only two of them you've mentioned - Why Category:Arab mathematicians (on top of the Category:Medieval Arab mathematicians StonyBrook refers to), Category:African-American mathematicians, Category:Ethnic Armenian mathematicians, Category:Kurdish mathematicians, Category:Sinhalese mathematicians, Category:Tamil mathematicians and so forth, why all those and not Category:Jewish mathematicians? Don't you think that it's high time to finally give the Jews equal rights too? Not to mention their unproportionate percentage in this field, far above their percentage in the population at large, a phenomenon so unique, till it got many studies especially concerning the Nobel prizes they earned. עמירם פאל (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

While we're referring people to things, may I refer you to WP:WAX? Again, an argument of the form "those other categories exist so this one should" will go nowhere; the immediate and obvious counter is "those other categories should be deleted too", and most of them probably should. Note however that despite the modern connotations of "Arab", the Medieval Arab mathematician category is one of membership in a broad cultural milieu, not of ethnicity; it includes many Persians and other ethnicities, not just Arabs. The name for our articles on the mathematics of the medieval middle-Eastern world has been a matter of considerable debate, with "Islamic" being another suggested term, but again many of them were not Muslims. And if you think Judaism is unique in making catalogs of its Nobelists and in claiming kudos from people who may not want their kudos to be so claimed, I refer you also to List of Christian Nobel laureates. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

But since the other categories are far from deletion? On the contrary, they're only multyplying every year? Also, you're only referring to Category:Medieval Arab mathematicians, not to Category:Arab mathematicians which exists by its own. And finally, a List of Christian Nobel laureates doesn't answer the arguement that the Jews unproportionate percentage in this field, justifies the existance of Category:Jewish mathematicians. עמירם פאל (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Um, it's fairly easy to compile a mass Cfd. StonyBrook (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Are we going to create more than one Category for Jewish mathematicians? I don't think so. So, why not have one Category for Jewish mathematicians, whether they are religious or not? Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The other categories are not far from deletion. One of them has a deletion discussion underway. The others could easily be nominated. And disproportionate representation is not even close to a valid justification for an ethnic subcategory. See WP:CATGRS and WP:OCEGRS. And to respond to Bus stop: the name "Category:Jewish mathematicians", under the way our Jewish categories are currently named, would imply that it is a religion-based category, for people who are practicing religious Jews. If you want an ethnic category, for people who have some Jewish ancestry, it would be "Category:Mathematicians of Jewish descent". I don't think we have categories that are for ethnic Jews but only of matrilinear descent. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You refer to "ethnic Jews" in an earlier post. If you mean nonobservant Jews, then why don't you say that? I am unable to understand why there would be objection to a Category for Jewish mathematicians. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

We have no categories for mathematicians by religion. "Jewish" is ambiguous: it can mean either someone who observes the Jewish religion, or someone whose matrilinear descent is from Jews. The second of these two meanings is neither a religion nor an ethnicity. "Of Jewish descent" means something different from either of those things, someone with recent Jewish ancestry on either the mother's or father's side, and is a more accurate description of people whose ethnicity is at least in part Jewish. We need to be precise in specifying who we are talking about. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is someone with matrilineal descent less of an ethnic Jew than someone with patrilineal descent? Shouldn't it be as least as much? StonyBrook (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You must not be a Jew or you would know this. To a Nazi, anyone with Jewish blood is a Jew. To a Jew, it has to be by matrilinear descent. You are a Jew if your mother was a Jew, and not a Jew otherwise. For instance, I have a Jewish surname but am not a Jew; my matrilinear descent is Irish Catholic. Therefore, our categories for people who are descended from Jews, but might not be Jews by this definition, use "of Jewish descent" rather than "Jewish" to describe these people. I assume you would rather side with the Jews than with the Nazis over this. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

For an Irish Catholic, you are pretty knowledgeable in Talmudic law. I didn't mean to go off on a tangent or stoke your ire. You made a statement which does not seem correct to me, that The second of these two meanings is neither a religion nor an ethnicity. I suspect that many non-practicing matrilineal descent (or full-blooded) Jews would disagree, as they consider themselves very ethnically Jewish. It is practically what the entire state of Israel was founded on, so I am just wondering where you were coming from, that is all. No need to descend into Nazi-talk. Or is this just a case of Godwin's Law. StonyBrook (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(I'm not actually Catholic myself, either, but never mind that.) My point is that we can have categories based on the religion of the subject (what they actually practice, according to reliable sources), but not subcategories of mathematicians by religion. We can have categories based on the ethnicity of the subject, as commonly understood: what subgroup of people do they descend from, in all lines of descent. We do have some such categories for mathematicians, although I believe we should have many fewer than we do. We do not have categories of people by matrilinear descent. So my point is: if a convincing argument can be made for subcategorizing mathematicians with some ancestral connection to Jews, I think it should be Category:Mathematicians of Jewish descent (allowing patrilinear connections), not Category:Jewish mathematicians (ambiguous whether a forbidden religious/occupation intersection category, or a category only about matrilinear ancestry). That would also be more consistent with our existing category hierarchy, which uses "Jewish X" categories to indicate practicing/observant Jews, and "of Jewish descent" for the ethnic categories. It's perhaps also worth noting that Category:Jewish mathematicians has been salted (protected against re-creation) because it was repeatedly re-created in violation of its deletion decision, so any re-creation would have to go through proper discussion channels rather than something that could just happen by deciding to do it; the same would apply to variant names for what is obviously the same intended meaning. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are saying that a patrilineal-descent X can be confidently placed in a Mathematicians of X descent category, but a matrilineal-descent X cannot be an X mathematician, how can you explain Mayor Bill deBlasio's daughter, whose mother is Black, identifying herself as Black, not white? StonyBrook (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

How African-Americans define themselves, and are defined by others, is another complicated story based more on social history than genetics. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

"Jewish" very emphatically does not mean "religious", rather "belonging to the ethno-religious group". Debresser (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

We categorize people by religion, or by ethnicity, not by some self-defined hybrid of both. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I find those words almost insulting. In any case, it is what it is, and "Jewish" has been a common way of categorizing here on Wikipedia for as long as it exists, so I am afraid your argument is not accepted by this community. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

"The community" is non-uniform and sometimes over-enthusiastic in classifying people. Take for example Herbert Busemann whose article makes clear that he was of Jewish descent but not Jewish (his nearest Jewish ancestor is stated to be a grandfather). Nevertheless he had to leave Germany to escape the Nazis, and nevertheless some editor has decided that he should be included in Category:Jewish emigrants from Nazi Germany to the United States. Would you include him in a supposed Category:Jewish mathematicians? William Feller (Catholic mother, Jewish father) is another prominent example, currently better categorized. Would you maybe prefer a category name that better supported their inclusion? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Some are over-enthusiastic, others are exclusionists. In any case, my point stands with the full force of consensus. Your suggestion makes sense, but becomes a moot point after a generation or two, which is probably why most categories are "Jewish" and not "of Jewish descent". Debresser (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein—you are saying Jewish is "ambiguous". If reliable sources support that a person is Jewish, then we should be Categorizing accordingly. The rest of these considerations are extraneous. Bus stop (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If reliable sources support the intended meaning of the category, we should categorize by that meaning, even if they do not use the precise word "Jewish", and if reliable sources support some other meaning but not the intended meaning, then we should not rely on them for that categorization, even if they do use that word. See WP:NOTDICT. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "intended meaning". Bus stop (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

If you don't know who you intend to include in a category and who you intend to exclude from it, you shouldn't be creating the category. I certainly can't read your mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein—in response to your earlier statement that "If reliable sources support the intended meaning of the category, we should categorize by that meaning, even if they do not use the precise word 'Jewish', and if reliable sources support some other meaning but not the intended meaning, then we should not rely on them for that categorization, even if they do use that word", we have to be cognizant of WP:BURDEN which says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed". What this means is that if there are no sources supporting that a notable mathematician is Jewish, and an editor adds that name to Category "Jewish mathematicians", another editor can remove that name from Category "Jewish mathematicians". Bus stop (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The arguement tends to steer aside, but to me it seems, that no one has found any reason to differentiate, why should there be Category:Arab mathematicians (on top of the Category:Medieval Arab mathematicians, Category:African-American mathematicians, Category:Ethnic Armenian mathematicians, Category:Kurdish mathematicians, Category:Sinhalese mathematicians, Category:Tamil mathematicians and so forth, why all those and not Category:Jewish mathematicians. The answer - "The other categories are not far from deletion" is feeble at best, since they're existing since wiki's creation and only multyplying. עמירם פאל (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think is steering aside. You might want to clarify. It doesn't matter if reliable sources say a notable mathematician is very religious or not religious at all. It doesn't even matter whether or not sources say anything about their level of observance or nonobservance. We should only require that there be a reliable source supportive of an assertion that the notable mathematician is/was Jewish. It wouldn't matter an iota if this was by matrilineal or patrilineal descent. It wouldn't matter if this was by conversion. We shouldn't care one way or another whether the conversion was kosher or not. If the source thinks they converted, that should be good enough for us. Inclusion in a Category of Jewish mathematicians is not certification of meeting any standards. It is just a convenience for any reader wishing to peruse a Category containing supposedly Jewish mathematicians. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Amiram, because the Wikipedia community has not found consensus, on numerous occasions, to include it. Your attempt to relitigate it here has run into opposition yet again, and that is mainly because Jewish defies the normal way of categorizing people, i.e. it doesn't fully mean by religion nor fully by ethnicity - it is somewhere in the middle, and that creates problems. This is especially since it is an intersection of a rarified group with a professional category that it has no obvious relationship with, such as Category:Hertz Gold Plus Rewards member mathematicians. Continually bludgeoning the thread by bringing up other stuff is not productive. StonyBrook (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That said, the existence of those other categories mentioned above, is a bit of an insult to Jewish mathematicians. Either have all, or have none. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

StonyBrook—you would have to explain to us what "rarified" means, as you are using it, if your argument is to make any sense, bearing in mind that sources almost never identify individuals as being Hertz Gold Plus Rewards members and frequently identify individuals as being Jewish. This is in response to your argument that "This is especially since it is an intersection of a rarified group with a professional category that it has no obvious relationship with, such as Category:Hertz Gold Plus Rewards member mathematicians.". You don't seem to understand that it is not editors who are concocting exotic intersections; it is good quality, reliable sources. That is to say that sources must support this intersection, or it should be removed per WP:BURDEN. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

If a source makes a strong case that a mathematician is a Jew or a Hertz Gold Plus Rewards member, by all means, include it in the person's article. But we are discussing creating a category, which is a whole other ball of WP:WAX. BURDEN and ONUS refer to someone having to have proof of something before inserting it into an article. It also means having proof that Jewish and mathematicians is a notable enough convergence to create a category, which consensus has not found to be the case. StonyBrook (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You refer to "notable enough convergence to create a category". For Paul Erdős we have Category:Jewish atheists and Category:Jewish agnostics. He is not terribly "notable" as an atheist or an agnostic but he is quite "notable" as a mathematician. Bus stop (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Notable convergence refers to the proposed category, and Erdős doesn't prove anything. László Rátz was a Hungarian mathematician who is also a Lutheran. Should we create Category:Lutheran Hungarian mathematicians? No, because his Lutheran identity is immaterial to his notability as a mathematician. He was also an ethnic German, so should we create German Hungarian mathematicians? No again. So tell me why does there have to be a Category:Jewish American mathematicians or Category:Jewish Hungarian mathematicians, that Amiram has so graciously "multiplied" for us? (Notice that Erdős is not even in that latter category, apparently because he doesn't exactly qualify; this just goes to show you how unworkable that category is). This is what we mean by not notable convergence. It has nothing to do with how many people can populate those categories, they should never have been created in the first place. Same thing with Category:Jewish mathematicians, Category:Lutheran mathematicians or Category:Catholic mathematicians, all three of which could be referring to people who identify as such, not necessarily that they practice those faiths, such as in Lapsed Catholic. StonyBrook (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Relatedly to this discussion, I have nominated for deletion those other modern ethnic categories (but not Medieval Arab mathematicians, which has good reason for existing and is not really about ethnicity). So far, they look headed for likely deletion. But (to answer a comment above) if you can only see the existence of stuff about other ethnicities as an insult to your own (not even particularly positive stuff, just stuff), something is wrong with your vision of the world. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I have felt before that your comments here were overly brusque, but after this last reply of yours, I kindly ask you not to post on my talkpage any further. I don't feel you have the right to criticize my "vision of the world", especially not on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I too was absolutely stumped by the "vision of the world" reference. I thought we reflect reliable sources but I guess we also have a "vision of the world". I didn't know that. Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It took a while but FWIW about 2 weeks ago, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 12#Category:Mathematicians by ethnicity closed as delete for all those cats as may be obvious from the redlinks. Participation was very limited participation however I think that's not uncommon for CfDs. Meanwhile about 2 weeks after that CfD was opened, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 13#Subgroups of African-American scientists was closed with one of the results being keep for Category:African-American mathematicians. If editors still want to create the titular category they IMO should taken on board the feedback from these differing results, along with that from the earlier discussions. In particular, editors should work out if it better fits with the reasons editors felt the African-American mathematicians category was worth keeping, or with the reasons editors felt the other categories weren't worth keeping. If it fits in the former, then it may be worth creating and if there is any dispute, use the evidence you gathered to help argue for keeping it. If it fits with the latter, then IMO there's even more reason not to create it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here. Yes, Cfd's tend to have few participants, although I am a bit surprised and disappointed that I received no notification, which is what should have been done in case of nominations that have broad effects. The fact that those two discussions had contradictory results is a bit funny/sad, and unfortunately all to indicative of the reason why these categories are so controversial. I myself am half of a mind, that Jewish mathematicians is a valid category.Debresser (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds great. Some say a State of Palestine already exists in Jordan. Palestinians and Jordanians alike beg to differ, as do I on sober days. But now Pakestine comes up! Great development. Not sure it can be substantiated with scientific arguments, but when did that ever deter anyone? Anyhow: too bad you didn't restore that imaginative edit. Tisha b'Av is over, why not have a laugh. And please, do let our friends @Nishidani and Zero0000: take part in it. Take care, Arminden (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to the discussion (which I started, after I was reversed once) on this talk-page, cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

In general, discussion should be on the article talkpage. Debresser (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

At that page you discuss a larger issue, while my issue is only with the specific edit I reverted. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The same edit was done on ~70 articles, it is a bit cumbersome to start a discussion on ~70 article talkpages. And your issue was similar to a lot of those pages, Huldra (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Where would you suggest we discuss this. That editor's talkpage can hardly count as a serious place for that discussion. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Why not? Huldra (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, I’m uninvolved, so maybe I could help with some of the valuable material to be restored in one or few articles that was recently removed? I’ll use my judgment, and I’ll try to be as unbiased as possible. If you want me to do that, please let me know (and which article). GizzyCatBella🍁 19:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It's okay. My observation on Nableezy's talkpage was of a general nature. I had no specific edits in mind. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

What did this edit do in the end? What benefit was there? Imzadi 1979 → 20:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

That edit made no changes to functionality. Only removed spaces. Debresser (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Then that edit, and others like it, should not have been made. Removing the spaces, one could argue, made the template code harder to read and provided no other benefit. I see you've made similar edits to a number of citation templates I've helped to create or maintain, so that also clogged my watchlist with a few dozen cosmetic edits. Please don't do this in the future, ok? (Also, the script for standardizing the spacing in citation templates adds those spaces, so you've essentially standardized away from a standard.) Imzadi 1979 → 20:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It can be argued, and I would argue indeed, that the spaces make it the template harder to read, since the space can be said to set apart parameters, not parameters and their values. I don't know what script you are referring to, but would like to know, since the documentation of all (!) citation templates does not have those spaces. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The script is at User:Waldyrious/formatcitations. It's widely used to standardize formatting. Visual Editor also similarly spaces templates. Imzadi 1979 → 20:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking into this. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I see. That script goes against the formatting on Template:Cite web/doc and all other CS1 template documentation, which has no spaces before or after equal signs, only before the pipe character. I raised this issue with Waldyrious here. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Except that documentation doesn't require, or even recommend a specific spacing. Even if that script were changed, Visual Editor inserts the spaces into template coding when it is used to edit articles, so as that method of editing increases, spaces will become more common as well. (I think VE even adds spaces before and after the pipe character.)

The bigger issue though is that you're "standardizing" templates maintained by others, many of whom may prefer the spaces. You're changing dozens of templates in a cosmetic fashion, in an almost bot-like manner. Such editing is basically against the rules. (Bots are not allowed to perform purely cosmetic edits, and human editors editing in bot-like ways in terms of speed and repetition are supposed to be held to the same rules as bots.) There are a few dozen of your edits showing up on my watchlist since I help maintain most of the Category:United States highway citation templates.

I doubt you'll ever have to deal with {{Cite MDOT map}} again, but when it's time for me to add the next installments of that map, I will be restoring the spacing because it aids my reading and maintenance of the template and its coding. Imzadi 1979 → 21:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

(Also, bots are supposed to stop editing when there are objections to the edits they are performing. I've noticed that even since I raised an objection, you've continued along with your standardization project, even restoring edits to templates, which goes against the spirit of WP:BRD, which is that when someone objects and reverts, we stay at the status quo ante during the ensuing discussion.) Imzadi 1979 → 21:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

"Except that documentation doesn't require, or even recommend a specific spacing." That is correct.

"Visual Editor inserts the spaces into template coding when it is used to edit articles" I'll look into that as well.

"I doubt you'll ever have to deal with {{Cite MDOT map}} again, but when it's time for me to add the next installments of that map, I will be restoring the spacing because..." You are probably correct about that as well, and I understand. I will respect that.

By the way, in many templates in Category:United States highway citation templates there were no spaces before the pipe characters, and I added them. Which I suspect you will consider a good thing. And let me use this occasion to tell you that those templates are maintained a lot better than many other citation templates I have seen, where spacing is sometimes completely random.

In some instances I added code to add functionality for both "access-date" and "accessdate". Which is actually the main reason I came to those templates, while the spacing was only something I added. I will expect you to keep that functionality, since that is already more than just a matter of opinion regarding aesthetics.

I do think you are taking the comparison with bots too far, and I would appreciate you not comparing my editing to bot editing in the future. I may be working fast, but I am definitely not a bot. And, as I said, most of my edits are related to functionality, while the number of edits where I only removed spaces is actually very limited. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I activated Visual Editor, and it seems that you are wrong, and it actually does not add spaces. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You accidentally removed the invisible comments when you removed the long plot tag. You also messed up an outstanding AWB bot request I had on a linked page that used this tag as a working example. I restored the invisible comments. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That was no "accident". I removed the comment on purpose. We do not intersperse our article with countless reminders of relevant guidelines. Find yourself another example. Or better even, don't. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I do apologize for sounding a bit bitchy. That was not my intention. Debresser (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The invisible comments are used to help editors keep the plot section length in sync with MOS:FILMS so that articles can remain in the improvement pipeline towards GA and FA quality. Can you explain your rationale for twice removing it from the article without discussion? Please use the article talk page to make your case. Your behavior and rhetoric is impenetrable. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing nothing on the talk page of the Tenet article explaining or discussing your two reverts, however, I do see you wikistalking me to an unrelated discussion. Is there a reason I need to ask you not to wikistalk me and to get back to discussing the subject of this disagreement on the talk page? You seem to waste a great deal of people's time that could otherwise be spent improving the encyclopedia. Is this your intention, to waste people's time and generally make their experience on this site a bad one? Because you are succeeding in that endeavor. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

You presume too much. If you review the discussion at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks, you will notice that the previous editor mentioned me, which made the discussion pop up on my notices. Debresser (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Can I explain? Yes, and I did so twice. See the edit summaries of the reverts. Please notice that Primefac in his comment at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks showed that he understood my explanation very well. Are you one of those editors who will never understand what others explain them and continue to ask for an explanation? Debresser (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, the Long plot template was added two days ago.[6] You can hardly claim that having it is the consensus version. Debresser (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This will be my last comment on your talk page, as I've asked you to take your concerns to Talk:Tenet (film), which you still refuse to do. You clearly think there is some kind of dispute, and you've felt strongly enough to edit war over it. However, I do not see the same thing you see, and I think you are operating under several flawed assumptions. For example, the plot length invisible comment has nothing to do with the long plot template, and has existed in the article prior to the tag. That's only one of many of your errors. I invite you to further discuss your concerns on the film talk page. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not "refusing" to take this to the talkpage. "To refuse" implies failure to perform a required action. I don't see any such requirement. If you want, feel free to take this to the talkpage yourself, and I will be happy to reply there, just as I did here. Debresser (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Please do not revert my edit back to BCE. I wish to convert everything from BCE/CE to BC/AD, as it concerns the Holy Land. Furthermore, you are Jewish, and I am shocked that you still support a secular calendar format Speedbirdconcorde001 (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Little_Western_Wall#Editing. Debresser (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I created the following article Tamil loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, any help in making it better is appreciated. The article is more important to Tamil language than Hebrew as it demonstrates the earliest attestation of that language. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this link. Interesting. I don't see how the word "etrog" is related to the Tamil word "matulamkam" though. Debresser (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Debresser reported by User:Aquillion (Result: ). Thank you. Aquillion (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Debresser. Please consider reverting yourself at Hamas. You give grounds in your edit summary, trying to justify your revert, that don't satisfy WP:3RRNO. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, There was another user that broken 1RR [7] Shrike (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston Will look into this shortly. If what you say is correct, I have misunderstood something. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Debresser. Please let me have your answer on whether you will self-revert.

20:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC) "Revert again, despite 1RR. 1 this editor doesn't know how to use references and breaks code, which allows the 1RR exception 2. this editor made a wholesale revert of my edits, including the completely unjustified revert of typo fixing and copyedits, and I have trouted the editor on their talkpage.."

If you think you are protected by an exception to 1RR, you should say what that is. If you don't do the self-revert, it would be logical to block your account. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, There were further edits to the page. I don't think there any point of reverting as everyone agree on current version also Did you look at Nishidani edits that were presented? Shrike (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Still waiting to hear from Debresser. See WP:NOTTHEM. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, Yes but I am asking on my own behalf without connection to Debresser edits .Should I make separate report.? Shrike (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, if you are going to continue to edit without responding I will proceed with the block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston Please calm down. I am working through the pages on my watchlist. I have a real life as well.

Also, what point precisely do you see in blocking me? There is no ongoing conflict I am participating in. There is a discussion regarding my edit on WP:3RR, so simply let that discussion come to its conclusion. As you may have noticed, I have already acknowledged that you were correct in your comment above.

In any case, as I understand it, subsequent edits have made a revert unnecessary. Please let me know if you agree with my assessment of the situation, because if you think there is still what to revert, I am willing to do so. Debresser (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dovid. I'm not going to make a case out of it, it's to marginal for that, but please consider this: The very Manual of Style you are invoking clearly leads by example and at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Headings and sections uses no spaces between = and name: "=Heading=", "==Heading==" and so forth, in all the given examples. It explicitly advises against "too much white space" when referring to lines (here it's about blanks / intervals inside a line, but the principle remains). I know very well, other Wikipedias, like the German one, have different rules, there it's the other way 'round, but that has no bearing here. The English spirit is more austere. Please check. Thanks and happy holidays, Arminden (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I just saw it goes further, if you go to the specific page for headings: "==Title==" & 4 more variations, not once written with spaces, and then "Spaces around the title (== Title ==) are optional and ignored." So optional and ignored, while the manual never uses them. Definitely not a base for correcting others. But again, far too minor for wasting any more time on it. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. That means there is a contradiction between the guidelines and the software. interesting, You are right, this is very minor, but still interesting. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

A gutn tog, Debresser. I’m contacting you because you’re a template editor and because you recently edited the Cite book template. I noticed the template adds a period after the title even when the title already has its own terminal punctuation like an exclamation mark or a question mark. Adding a second terminal punctuation mark is contrary to MOS:CONSECUTIVE and other style guides such as the MLA style guide and the Chicago Manual of Style, on which Wikipedia’s is modeled. Would there be a way to have the template check first whether the title already has terminal punctuation and omit the period in cases where it does? -- Rrburke (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

If you write |postscript=none, then no terminal period will be added. Debresser (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I find [8] the description of this Apache helicopter as "funny" in very bad taste. You have put one statistic about it - perhaps you might add the number of innocent lives they have extinguished as well. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for posting here. As a matter of fact, another editor has made a similar remark some years ago. I am sorry you don't appreciate my sense of humor. I am Dutch, and my jokes tend to be rather specific, so to say. Please accept it as such. By the way, I found the picture with the text elsewhere, it is not my invention. If that is of any consolation to you. Debresser (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I saw you reverted my reversion of a sockpuppet, which is fine. The issue with that these more specific categories are now redlinked. Per WP:REDNOT either the category should be changed to a blue linked category or the category should be created. If you want to recreate the category, you can, but could you either recreate the category or restore the categories to the original (still existing) less specific category? Thanks, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

These categories were deleted only beacuse they were created by a sock? What a capital waste. In that case I prefer to undo my revert, and wait for another sensible editor to redo these good edits of User:Drones101. Debresser (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The calculations in this article is rounded, I wrote the exact calculation. yoisef yitzchok-talk, 23 Tishrei 5781. 20:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I reverted, again. As I explained in the edit summary of my second revert: 1. The new source is just an index page, and does not contain the claimed information. 2. Your claim that the source contains rounded numbers is original research, and does not detract from the fact that the source says precisely like the stable version. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, besides which, the original source was also included in an academic journal, not on a blog. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, how are you?

Just wanted to let you know that the discussion going on about Jews and Ashkenazi Jews has also trickled into the List of Jewish Nobel laureates and Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Maxim.il89 (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Debresser. The discussion is about the topic Template:Jews and Judaism. Thank you. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You have added biased information to a page with a "source" that's in essence one man's opinion. As such, I have removed that sentence as it's in no way "objective fact" but rather your opinion on people not coming to terms with someone's death. For you to put that back in would require a "consensus" as you put it, I don't need one to remove it.

Topic: Chabad. User:User1wik1 1:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I already replied on your talkpage. Debresser (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Are there any parts of my suggested addition that remain unsourced? --Crash48 (talk) 18:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Ping again; back in November, I had uploaded an image of the page in question. --Crash48 (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This subject is not of interest to me any more. I do remember that in my opinion, parts of the statement remain unsourced. Debresser (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at New Schubert Edition shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Discussions are ongoing on the article's talk page, so the the page has been reverted to the version before your changes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The 3-revert rule was not involved, so the header is exaggerated. In any case, I already understood that you are an unpleasant editor. So be it. I don't think our paths are very likely to intersect in the future, and wat mij betreft is dat ook niet gewenst. Debresser (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The word “gentile” is often capitalized as “Gentile”. See Merriam-Webster: [9] Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I see. Do we have a Wikipedia rule about this? Because that is the first place we should look for guidance regarding Wikipedia articles. In any case, "often capitalized" means that you should not go around capitalizing them if you happened to find them uncapitalized. Debresser (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

We have MOS:GOD, named rather inappropriately, if you ask me. :) It says there that "Names of organized religions, whether as a noun or an adjective, and their adherents start with a capital letter." It says nothing about "gentile", although per definition a gentile is one who does not answer that definition, so I am tempted to say this means it should not be capitalized. Debresser (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I apologise in advance for my poor/bad English. Maybe it was a vandalized modification of 10 years ago in Italian wiki, it has been corrected by an IP only now [10] (which I have verified). I do not think Primo Levi was called Michele (but I could be wrong). Link to alleged vandalism edit and tomb [11] and [12] - tombstone. --Scalorbio (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I see. Don't know what to say. Debresser (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Wallyfromdilbert. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Tenet (film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS. Debresser (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert Also, what content precisely you are referring to? I still see everything that I added in the article, unless I am missing something. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. Debresser (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Tenet (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. nyxærös 22:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, you yourself are deserving of this very same template, so you will receive it now. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Debresser , please how is a metadata wiki item created? I want to create some for my articles such as this one, National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Africa. Whenever I check the page information of many articles I see this wikidata item number as well as "a description". Please is there a procedure for acquiring this? Kwesi Yema (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kwesi Yema. Please see the short explanation and the examples at Wikipedia:Wikidata, and try to move forward from there. Debresser (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was able to meet the original goal and even create more wiki data pages. However, the wikidata link doesn't appear on the tool bar of some of the pages whiles it is otherwise for other pages I created a wikidata for. Maybe a bot or administrator systematically inputs the meta link in the toolbar. Anyways, God richly bless you. Kwesi Yema (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Be successful and have fun. Debresser (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I noticed you recently came into contact with this editor on Siege of Jerusalem. User:Avilich, who seems to specialize in Roman history, has been highly antagonistic on Siege of Jerusalem (63 BCE) by insisting on enforcing BC/AD era conventions instead of CE/BCE dating conventions favored by both mainstream scholarship and institutions such as the Jewish Virtual Library, and I notice that in the past many editors of presumed Christian (cultural) backgrounds reverted moves put in place in part by Jewish editors (for example, in 2011, User:Steven J. Anderson converted Siege of Jerusalem (63 BCE) to an era style friendlier to Jews, only to be reverted by User:Nyttend). I would like to solicit your contribution to consensus on both Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (63 BCE) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history.

Thanks for the notification. I posted my opinion at those discussions. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Debresser. If Dutch Wikipedia needs the article on Jewish religious movements, you could translate the English page, possibly with the addition of Dutch-language sources. DayakSibiriak (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I could, but I have a life, so I don't do translations usually. In general, I hardly edit outside the English Wikipedia, just sporadically in Dutch, Hebrew or Russian. Debresser (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Enforcement request: [13] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousness: You should probably withdraw the AE report. Taking an editor to AE for a single 1RR violation without even asking them to self-revert first is way too aggressive. I don't think you would like it if someone did that to you. I wouldn't like it if someone did it to me. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Welp, SD didn't take my advice. Maybe Debresser will take Nableezy's. Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Debresser, you violated the 1RR, in addition to NPOV. Kindly self-revert. nableezy - 01:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Self-reverted. Now that 28 hours has passed, I'd like to redo my revert. Any 1RR-based objections? Debresser (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No, just the usual gaming the system and NPOV objections. nableezy - 14:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty. How, after so many hours (another 4 hours have past since my last visit to Wikipedia and my previous post), can you still accuse me of "gaming the system"? Debresser (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Well edit-warring while at AE is not the smartest move. Good luck with that one. nableezy - 14:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy Gloating much? :) Well, no hard feelings from my side. Debresser (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I posted that before you were blocked. nableezy - 19:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

El_C 14:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Somebody please also fix my post there "with explicit permission expressed on my talkpage and in view of objections here" to "with explicit permission expressed on my talkpage and in view of the lack of objections here". Debresser (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 18:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Debresser. Just making a note that I have copied your appeal to the AE noticeboard as you requested. Allow me to also thank you for the kind words. I appreciate it. And I also think that your courtesy and good manners during this difficult period reflect well on you. Regards, El_C 18:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for posting my appeal there. Yes, I really meant it: I have always found you a more than reasonable admin, including in the WP:ARBPA area. I feel that perhaps you were overly irritated by what you called "I'm pretty much beyond sick of the over-bureaucratization of ARBPIA." and might have interpreted my action as "gaming the system" from that point of view. I, however, am lawyer in real life, and in my book 24 hours is 24 hours, not 28, and surely not 32. If I would have waited 24 hours and 5 minutes, or even let's say 26 hours, I would have agreed with you: that is wikilawyering. But I stayed far away from such dubious behavior. Especially since I was completely open and upfront about my intention to revert again, and even waited another 4 hours to see if there would be any objections.

If I could bother you just once more. I'd would like to tweak a certain sentence in my appeal. If you could please change 'I think that calling such upfront behavior "gaming the system" is doing an injustice.' to 'I feel that calling such upfront behavior "gaming the system", is doing me an injustice.' Debresser (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Debresser, will do. Anyway, as I've mentioned to you in the past on several occasions, a lawyer-like approach to the edit warring policy, especially, is likely to be interpreted as gaming the system. Like here, with you self-reverting and then a mere 2-minutes later seeking to undo that very same self-revert(!) — which, to me, common sense-wise, is just a plain absurdity. I really do think you ought to know better by now. Thanks again for the kind words. For my part, I've always admired your breadth of knowledge and your commitment to the project. So, I do truly hope you are able to get over this particular hump. Best, El_C 21:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Either somebody will disagree with your decision, or I will have to sit this out. I self-reverted as a sign that I acknowledged my mistake in forgetting about 1RR, but that was already after 28 hours, and I waited another 4 hours after that, so there is really no reason I wasn't completely within my rights to redo the revert. And no, 32 hours is by no stretch of the imagination a "lawyer-like approach" to a 24-hours limit. A fact that even Nableezy had acknowledged on my talkpage. As I mentioned when making the edit. I mean, how careful must one be? Debresser (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Debresser, look, I don't want to belabour the point, but what is the point in self-reverting when you intend on undoing that very same self-revert a mere 2 minutes later? I realize the action itself happened, as you say, 4 hours later... But still, the absurdity of that notion, I'm not sure how, short of getting the sanctions ball rolling, I could meaningfully convey to you that, as an approach, it is not okay. That it has led to problems in the past and that it is likely to lead to problems in the future. בברכה, El_C 22:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It is fine you mention this, since this is actually precisely the point where we disagree. As I said, I self-reverted only to acknowledge that I was initially wrong when I forgot about 1RR. But since at that moment 24 hours had already passed, with a safety margin, I could indeed have reverted my self-revert that very same moment. That is IMHO the meaning of 1RR in such a case that 24 hours have passed. I do not consider that "gaming the system", rather simply applying the rules. I decided however not to take any changes, put my intentions on the table and waited for reactions. I actually remember having seen an editor who argued once that since 24 hours had passed, it is enough that they acknowledge their mistake, and they don't need to actually self-revert, and frankly, I would agree with such a point of view too. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems that already two other editors there, not admins, agree with you that this is called "gaming the system", so I guess I am on a two-week Wikipedia leave. :) A bit a shame of a good resource (meaning myself), but then again, I am recuperating from a pneumonia, so I can use the time. Unfortunately, I am not the one to role over and play dead, so whatever other stupid restrictions they'll decide to bestow upon me I'll simply have to live with. Debresser (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Debresser, above all else, best wishes for your health and to a speedy recovery! But, no, if a restriction is to follow, it will likely be imposed by me, unilaterally, with it involving an indefinite broadly construed topic ban from the WP:ARBPIA topic area, overall. As mentioned, I am hoping that you will take it upon yourself to offer persuasive assurances against further edit warring. Specifically, that you will cease from employing justifications for these that are plainly based on wikilawyering and on gaming the system. But you should take note that this ought to serve as a sort of last chance saloon. Again, hope you get better soon! El_C 22:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.

I have long ago lost my trust in Wikipedia admins in general, and at WP:AE specifically. Not interested in last chances or anything that has to do with WP:AE. I see no reason for a ban, a deny any intention of, or interest in, "gaming the system". I understand the system the way I understand it, and believe me that the system is highly flawed. There is no restriction you can impose on me that will meet with my understanding or even respect. You just decide whatever you deem necessary. Rest assured, it will not reflect on my opinion of you. Debresser (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, Debresser. I can respect that. But if I may also gently point out that Wikipedia is, ultimately, a collaborative project and that, having reviewed your appeal, multiple editors and admins seem to view things as I do. Maybe something to take into consideration...? Again, your continued courtesy and good will toward me, specifically, is greatly appreciated! Hope you're feeling better. Best, El_C 18:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am feeling better, thank G-d, slowly but surely.

I respect other opinions, without letting them replace mine. This is true regarding my personal convictions on many issues, ranging from my religious believes to my stance on general questions about society, as well as regarding my understanding of my position as an individual in this online community. I feel that I have done nothing wrong, and if the community disagrees with that, including if the community will act upon that conviction, that will not change my point of view in the least. This has happened before, which is one of the reasons I am so disenchanted with Wikipedia adminhood, and although I am well aware this community is not fond of criticism, that is simply another unfortunate fact. Debresser (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we can respectfully disagree, if nothing else, Debresser. Very pleased to learn you're feeling better. Onward and upward to full recovery! Best, El_C 19:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Never noticed, but it seems a block excludes only a user's talkpage, while my userpage and other subpages of my userpage are also blocked. Something that I find strange. Debresser (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it has always been that way, I think. Anyway, with the appeal likely on the way to being declined and with my topic ban therefore forthcoming (and since you have your farewell address ready to go in the hidden note below), I'm going to try a different tactic in the hopes of persuading you to stay. It may not be that gentle this time, but maybe bluntness can turn the tide...? Honestly, I doubt it will, but I'm going to give it a valiant try. So, with that preamble out of the way, here goes. You speak about an unjustified decision inspired by considerations of bureaucracy, seemingly irrespective of and not at all addressing the points made by multiple editors and admins in that appeal. That it was you who approached the rules bureaucratically in a way that went against the spirit of WP:NOTBURO and WP:GAME, which frankly, doesn't really look like you have a firm appreciation for. Maybe stop to consider that other people may have a valid point when they see things differently than you do...? That whatever sense of unshaken exceptionalism you might subscribe to with respect to your own views, that may not square with a collaborative project until you are able to round some corners — at least in how you operate, even if not in how you think. So, there you go. I tried to articulate this axiom as best I could. בברכה, El_C 22:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The subsequent ban has made this post outdated. In any case, I understand why other editors disagree with my point of view. I a, however, not interested in changing mine. Which would not mean I would continue editing in the same vein, but if it is any formal assurances you, or anybody else for that matter, is waiting for, these will not be forthcoming. I understand and respect your point of view, bureaucratically speaking. It is the bureaucracy I disagree with. Debresser (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

So the topic ban is punishment for filing an appeal? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

So this question asks if I'm a vindictive person? El_C 05:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Please, there is no need for this, nor, Sir Joseph, is it justified. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Debresser, your arbitration enforcement action appeal has been declined at Special:Permalink/1001791356 § Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Debresser. Please review the policy on edit warring and the guideline on gaming the system, which outline some of the expectations for editing in controversial topic areas. — Newslinger talk 10:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is that this was not gaming the system. I respect that other editors think differently, although I find it hard to agree with them. Thank you for the notification. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry it has comes to this, Debresser, especially seeing as we are likely to lose you over this. Unfortunately, with the appeal now having been declined, this is the next step. Which sucks. Again, I implore you to reconsider your stance. If you do commit to addressing the concerns expressed by several editors and admins in both the AE request and appeal, the ban may be rescinded. If you do end up leaving: thank you. Thank you for all that you've done for the project, not least of which for your humanity and grace. בברכה, El_C 16:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

You said he's not being punished for an appeal, yet he's still blocked and you are now tbanning him for the same action. Had he not filed an appeal he wouldn't be tbanned. You can't tban someone for speculation that he's going to do bad stuff. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No, Sir Joseph, El_C had expressed his intention to tban me from the beginning. Debresser (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I have been topicbanned from the WP:ARBPIA area for no good reason. Since that area is, in a natural way for a Jew and citizen of Israel, about half of the articles on my watchlist, I see no further point in editing Wikipedia. I have always strived to have WP:FUN and to further this project. It s unfortunate that an unjustified decision inspired by considerations of bureaucracy, not in any way connected to considerations of furthering this project, has put an end to over 12 years and over 100,000 edits. May that be a lesson for all those admins out there, who have long lost view of the big picture. Respectfully, Debresser (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I must say I am still shocked by this. We have been on different sides of a thousand arguments, but one gains respect for editors who are willing to discuss and – sometimes – to really hear one another. And I feel strongly against longstanding constructive editors being hit with sledgehammers, no matter which side of any given argument they sit on. As an editor who disagrees with you on many topics, I want to see you back here because I believe passionately in what is written at WP:IPCOLL, specifically that our project only works if people from all sides are working together.

What frustrates me most is that there are so many more insidious forms of gaming the system which take place within the IP area, all of which go unpunished. But the bright lines are much easier to prove and therefore to enforce.

Although I really don't think you meant to game the system, your action was not consistent with the "spirit of the law". We all make mistakes – I was hauled to AE just before you with my own – and then these mistakes get magnified.

So you have been given a lifetime ban from driving, because you refused to acknowledge the wrongdoing which led to your parking ticket. That might sound like a huge travesty of justice (an admission of guilt is not required in any criminal justice system I know of), but I don't think it is one that is worth martyring yourself on. I say that because El C has strongly implied above that if you fully acknowledge your mistake then all will be forgiven, so I don't think you can really blame him or the system.

Too many experienced editors have left because they were too stubborn to reconsider their long-held principles. Please don't be another one.

Onceinawhile (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile I really appreciate your post. I too have noticed that the two of us can work together productively.

I am not willing to roll over and play dead. The system has rules, and I was not playing them; I was abiding by them, and even that only to be fair and acknowledge that I had forgotten about the 1RR rule. The thing that strikes me the most, is that there is nobody who holds that my edit itself was wrong. Yes, some disagree with it for content reasons, but reverting a contended edit in the face of a lack of consensus is in itself undoubtedly a good thing, not a wrong thing. So bottom line I was punished only because of a (perceived) violation of some bureaucratic rule. That is so wrong in my book.

I meant what I said above. About half of the articles on my (now trimmed over 90%) watchlist were Israel-related, for natural reasons (certainly not because of any great interest in the IP-conflict itself from my side), and it will absolutely take out all the fun from editing if I can't edit articles I care about. I have a real life; a wonderful family, a job as a lawyer in which I help many people, so I will miss Wikipedia, and I am sure "Wikipedia" will miss my edits, but no thanks. Again, thanks for posting here. Debresser (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The only fault I would find with Debresser, El C, is that they are too polite. I think the Wikipedia environment calls for more incisive input. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Bus stop, please do not ping me to this page with terse comments of that nature. I don't appreciate it, nor do I think this is the time and place. El_C 18:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear Debressor,

I noticed that you have a specialty in Judaism and Israel related topics. Wondering if you could help me edit Messiah in Judaism.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I endorse this request, for probably a slightly different reason: The above editor, albeit enthusiastic, needs sympathetic guidance in learning how to make high-quality contributions that meet encyclopedic standards. So far the response from editors such as Warshy and me has been somewhat adversarial. Ibadibam (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not actively editing Wikipedia any more. Apart from that, I have a lot of things to do in real life, in this period before Passover. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Chop head and tail has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 22:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I posted my opinion there. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You may not discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area anywhere on Wikipedia. Kindly remove your comment or I will ask that your ban be enforced with a block. nableezy - 00:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:AE#Debresser. nableezy - 00:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Your edit at ANI advocating for an ARBPIA topic ban on another editor was a violation of your own topic ban. Please be scrupulous in following your topic ban until you are successful in appealing it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Cullen I posted at WP:ANI in violation of my topic ban not on purpose, but because I hadn't checked. Had I checked the ban notification, as I have just now, I would have seen that it includes not only articles and article talkpage but also all other discussions.

In addition, I agree with those editors at WP:ANI that feel that even though technically you were within your rights to block me, it would have made sense to give me a change to reply. If given the chance, I would likely have struck my comment.

Also I agree with those who feel that a two-week block is a bit heavy handed, since it is not as though I said anything that hadn't been said there by others before me.

In short, if you could find it in your heart to revoke the block, I'd appreciate it. Debresser (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixing the ping for you, @Cullen328:. nableezy - 14:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Debresser, please follow the instructions in the block notice to file an unblock request for review by another administrator. I will comment if asked to by whoever responds. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Debresser, the appeal can only be copied to AN, AE or ARCA (AN means uninvolved editors get to decided, AE mean uninvolved administrators get to decide, and ARCA means the committee would decide. I would advise going to AE or AN in the first instance, and then ARCA if that appeal is declined and you want to appeal to the committee). It can't be copied to ANI. What would you prefer as your mention of ANI isn't possible? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I must've crossed over with you, as I've copied it to AN. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. AN is just fine. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the unblock request that is currently at WP:AN. Yes, I can agree to striking my comment when unblocked. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

By the way, @El C:, I am not back to editing. I removed over 90% of the pages on my watchlist, left just a few articles that I need updates on for my real-life interests, and once in while make a small technical edit or copyedit, just because I am a nice guy. This was one exception, and see where it got me. Add to my previous low opinion of admins, that once you are banned/blocked, you are a black sheep, and they will always say that this was not your first transgression etc., even if you make an honest mistake. Debresser (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Im actually sorry I didnt give you more time to self-revert. Kinda messed up that the only thing that came out of that was you getting blocked for two weeks. nableezy - 02:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice of you to say that. In any case, I hold no grudge against anybody involved. And I indeed did not return to editing, so it does not make a big difference to me, just that sometimes when I see something that I can easily improve, I do so, being the nice guy that I am etc., but not as part of any active editing here. Debresser (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Appeal denied by the community at WP:AN. [14] starship.paint (exalt) 08:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Templates for merging requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Templates for merging requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion on Talk:Revelry of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai which I think you may be interested in seeing.Davidbena (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, your ANI post violates your topic ban. I dont know if I should even give you a chance at self-reverting honestly. nableezy - 13:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:AE#Debresser nableezy - 13:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a technical difficulty here. Depending on European or Israel time zones, this notification may have coincide with Shabbat preparations, if not Shabbat itsslf. Debresser at 13:43 certainly had some hours at least to see this and revert, but on the other hand, what does that time work out in Israel? Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Who cares really? Not waiting for a self-revert for repeated, and unrepentant, violations of a topic ban, especially when the violation is a personal attack. Id expect a several month long block at this point, and it is entirely deserved. nableezy - 16:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I do, sort of. Unless I am mistaken 13:43 wikitime would be 16:43 in Israel, 13:43 in Europe. In the former case, that would mean the notification arrived roughly one hour before the lighting of Shabbat candles. That would not leave him much time, even if he were on line of which there is no evidence, since Shabbat preparations themselves would probably engage Debresser as a rabbi certainly for more than an hour, disallowing him to see the notification. It's true that he has repeatedly asserted that he doesn't make mistakes, and is upset if errors he makes are questioned, but, nonetheless, one must allow for the possibility he did not sight this, or note the case at AE (which, by the way, would require a note that Debresser, certainly now, cannot respond for religious reasons, until tomorrow evening. I'm even breaking one of Debresser's rules that I never edit this page, but I can't note this at AE, because, I don't know why, I am permabanned there also as a congenitally disruptive presence.Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I imagine he will be given a chance to respond at AE before anything is done. nableezy - 16:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

1. My edit was indeed a violation of my topic ban 2. My topic ban is unjustified. 3. The edit I made was a good edit, in that it states the truth. 4. 4. Ibn Daud is a net good editor, Nableezy isn't. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, that gives admins at AE no alternative but a drastic sanction. I did my best to give you leeway. Pity.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

They should do whatever new travesty they think necessary. I all but stopped editing Wikipedia after the last (but not the first) injustice they did to me, so I don't really care that much. Believe me that it is the loss of this project, not any personal loss of mine. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)