User talk:Debresser/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Your recent edit on the Elazar Shach page

Regarding your recent edit on the Elazar Shach page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=553061965&oldid=552963784

This was already discussed at length here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_147#Quote_from_book_.22Israel_and_the_Politics_of_Jewish_Identity:_The_Secular-Religious_Impasse.22_regarding_Rabbi_Elazar_Shach

Fladriff already concluded that it's reliable. If you have a problem, raise it on that page. Thanks. Yonoson3 (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You are not reading the edit summary. The problem is not the source. The problem is the info itself. If you have a look at the talkpage, you'll see that there is consensus that the info I removed can not be true. Debresser (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

All I see there is an anonymous I.P. editor saying that the info is, in his words, "not believable". Don't see any consensus that the info is not true. This issue was discussed at length here. Fladriff concluded there: "Resolved: Clearly a reliable source. Underlying disputes should be raised at another DR board." Sounds pretty clear. Reliable source, so it belongs in the article... Yonoson3 (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As a Religious Zionist, I fear to tread here. Still, Yonoson, with all due respect: Have you ever taken a course in formal logic? Any statement that "All A are B" can be refuted by a single example of "A is not B". See Haredim and Zionism: Clearly there have always been some haredi leaders that support the State of Israel, and at very least those rabbonim would never compare joining Zahal to committing murder, idolatry or gilui arayot, which is what that quote is indirectly saying. The source may well be a reliable source, and Johns Hopkins a reliable publisher. That does not mean that the authors necessarily meant that phrase absolutely literally. In fact, if in context the author did not intend to go off on the subject of which haredi rabbis disagreed, that would perhaps even have been a reasonable simplification. But literally true? If you insist on the sentence staying there, I think you must attribute it as the opinion (or at least the words) of the author. StevenJ81 (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Yonoson, but the reliability of the source is not enough when a statement is so obviously exaggerated. Debresser (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Ashkenazi Jews talk page - should Sholem Aleichem be in the collage

Hi :-) Due to the fact I saw you interested in the topic, I thought you might want to take part in it.

There is a discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews regarding should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage or not. The discussion is called "Ones and for all, should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage".

Please take part in the vote and state your opinion on the topic. Thank you! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Ashkenazi Jews". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 07:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I went there and posted. Thanks for the notification. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Halakha may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Debresser (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Serge Gainsbourg

Hi Debresser. I'm writing this message to you because of your reverts on my edits about the category "Russian Jews" in the article about Serge Gainsbourg. The main problem that appears in this case is the understanding of the whole concept beyond the Russian Jews. Unlike many other ethnic groups or nationalities that are purely based on the region where the person was born or his or her predecessors historically lived, the "Russian Jews" represent an ethnolinguistic group of Jews with Russian being their native language. You can check the article about the Russian Jews to note that this includes not only the Jews that live in what nowadays is called Russia, but as well Jews that use Russian as their native language regardless of the territory of their residence. It mostly refers to the Jews from the territory of the Russian Empire, but in recent times many other Jews that populate many other parts of the world. One may say that it is so simple and you can refer to the Jews from Ukraine as "Ukrainian Jews" or to the Jews from Belarus as "Belarusian Jews", but these two designations broke the concept of the Russian Jews and tend to follow most of the other definitions about the ethnic groups, such as those about the English people, the Dutch people, or the French people. But even if we agree on the usage of "Ukrainian Jews" or "Belarusian Jews", then it doesn't restrict the usage of "Russian Jews" simply because the Jews that inhabit or descend from the territories that are now parts of Belarus or Ukraine use or used Russian as their native language. Similarly, Serge Gainsbourg is a Russian Jew from a territory that is now part of Ukraine because the language that was used in his family was Russian and the territory was once part of the Russian Empire. There are many other Russian Jews that have no association with Russia, such as Vilna Gaon, Léon Bakst or Isaac Levitan. Finally, the people are called "Russian Jews" because of the language and their historical homeland, not because of Russia today. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You convinced me. Debresser (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Move template over redirect

Some time ago, Rich Farmbrough moved EngvarB to {{Use British English}}. I didn't object to it at the time as it seemed eminently sensible. However, as I broadened coverage of the script action, I have been experiencing increasing frequency of complaints such as this and this from 'nationalists' (used advisedly) because the tagging does not conform to their code of English. I'd like to have this template move reverted, but before I start the process, I'd like you advice as to how I might execute a potential merger of these templates (except Canadian and American), and what other factors I may need to consider. As I wrote the script offering only 'vanilla' British English and have no intention of creating more variants to cater for the different codes, it would be ideal if I could bring all these tagged articles back to a single repository, but with different tags tolerated, so they can be maintained centrally. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for posting here. I personally am of the opinion that those complaints were correct. We should use the more specific tags where possible. Therefore, where an article regards Australia we should use {{Use Australian English}}, where South Africa {{Use South African English}}, etc. Debresser (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In other words, I feel it is better to change the documentation of Template:Use British English. That template should not include all the other varieties of "Australian English, Indian English, Irish English, New Zealand English, Pakistani English, Singapore English, South African English" as the documentation currently says. Debresser (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand and I'm actually fine with that, and I am merely thinking along the lines of the common spellings 'controlled' by the Engvar script I created and maintain.. The script has a basic vocabulary set that are words common to the abovementioned codes of English. It's not always practical for me to tag an article with the 'correct' English variety tag because it would weigh heavily on productivity (and because there is no difference between the codes' vocabularies vis à vis the script). I was thinking along the lines of henceforth using the {{EngvarB}} as a 'generic' or umbrella tag in its own right and not one currently redirecting to {{use British English}}. Anyone could come along and make the tagging more precise if they wish. I would then regroup all the articles currently tagged with the various varieties under a new 'supercategory' without actually moving them, and any article with a EngvarB tag would remain in the super category until it is reclassified. By doing so, I would hope to avoid future complaints of nationalistic nature whilst continuing to maintain all the articles with a single script function in the simplest manner. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 13:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea (regarding the autonomous use of the EngVarB template). Debresser (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

How do I get the total to update correctly in Template:EngvarB progress? this seems to be stuck at zero. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Still thinking about that. Please restore Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month to the category pages where you added Category:EngvarB. Debresser (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you probably guess I was experimenting with just two. I was heading off to reverse them but it seems you have already done it. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 13:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That's quite alright. I didn't revert, i just added the old categories to the new one. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please take part in a new discussion

Hi :-) I started a new discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews page I thought you might want to take part in. It's called:

"Which 2 people should be in the collage - Botvinnik, Gershwin, Bernstein, Von Neumann" ([1]).

Hopefully after that discussion it will be totally clear what the consensus is and what people want! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I added my opinion there. Debresser (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:New page/doc

Hi. I'm just wondering why you reverted the changes to this page, because you didn't leave an edit summary. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Because it said "Please update this template to reflect recent events or newly available information." which didn'tmake sense to me. Just now did the same on Template:Incomplete/doc. This seems like some drive-by tagging by IP users. Debresser (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

An edit you made may have broken a reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=La_Femme_Nikita&oldid=556797040 removed a closing <noiwiki>"</ref>"</nowiki> tag, which I repaired and then got a less than well considered message on my talk page, because in other edits you seem to have refactored content in the article.

I'd like an explnation, as I don't appreciate getting messages of concern or telling me to read policies, when the relevant contribution in question was neither iniated or performed by myself.

Closing a reference tag, should not be controversial.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please review the history of La Femme Nikita, and you will see that I reverted edits by User:AnEyeSpy only. And then please review your talkpage, to see that I never posted there till today. So what are you referring to? I of course am sorry that I forgot a closing ref tag, but it seems that you are complaining not just about that. Debresser (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It was the editor you reverted that complained , assuming apparently that I was somehow responsible. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. Which you weren't, as a matter of fact. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Read Wiki Policies & Guidelines

Nikita needs work. Comments inside text started before Talk page post, before problems added up to major, for editors who do not check Talk. Like you? That was the first time I tried inline comments, after seeing warnings in movie article where differences in endings and more in DVD extended versions had obviously caused contention, so inline comments prevented future trouble. Your massive "undo" was NOT helpful.

Please be constructive, not destructive. Fix a problem or leave for someone else. Removing comments and sources that can help other editors, does not remove a problem or the need for sources.

Wiki Policies and Guidelines are helpful, to refer, and remember. After another kind, helpful, senior editor gave link, I have word count tools and wiki style, format, and guidelines all bookmarked. Quotes and source follow.

• "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy

"Instead of deleting text, consider:" a long list including

• "requesting a citation by adding the tag, or adding any other Template:Inline tags as appropriate"
• "adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you cannot fix yourself"

• I like the show. Nikita deserves better, best.

AnEyeSpy (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here. Actually, I think the article is not in bad shape. Yes, it can be improved upon, as can be all articles. Just tagging and adding comments and then say "don't remove them - do something about it!" is a little simplistic. Your tags and comments were making things worse, rather than helping. I think we can address some specific issues ourselves, without doing too much tagging. If you would want to discuss them, let's do so (here or on the talkpage). I am willing to help. Debresser (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Greeting... and relevance

Greetings Debresser. Just a quick note to let you know I agree with your reversion of my reversion over at Rape by gender. Mine was really just a knee-jerk reaction to seeing the removal of content which had 3 pretty serious-looking references, but as you rightly point out, not relevant. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for posting here. It is always pleasant to know that the editor you reverted doesn't hold a grudge. And it really was out of place there. Even though in another article it would have been very well written and sourced. Wish you much success and pleasure in editing Wikipedia further. Debresser (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Herodotus/Book of Esther

I added a brief section to the historicity of Esther, specifically regarding historical evaluation of Esther in light of Herodotus. The article which I cited questions the historical validity of Herodotus'work. This is relevant to the historicity of Esther because Herodotus' writings offer some conflicts with what is recorded in Esther. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elantz73 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not clear enough, imho, but after making an effort, i now understand what you mean, so I will the text intact. I do think it should be explained more clearly, though. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about a recent edit

I'm curious as to why you made this change?

Also, how was "(Minor.)" as an edit summary supposed to convey this information to other editors?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"Minor" described the character of the edit. I removed an unneeded external link from the middle of an article. Also, why translate a name?? Debresser (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you even bother to follow the link before deleting it? I'm assuming you did not, as it didn't lead to a translation of a name.

IMHO, something like "(removed link)" would have made a more straightforward/honest/informative edit summary. Perhaps "(removed in-line external link)" if one wanted to get technical/precise about it.

In the interest of providing information to readers—and facilitating a red wikilink's evolution into a blue one—I inserted a link to de.wikipedia.org's Sylvia Hoeks article via google translate. While certainly not an optimal solution, I figure it's more helpful to readers than nothing.

If you'd be willing to assist with a better solution (i.e. getting a "Sylvia Hoeks" article started on en.Wikipedia) I'll happily share research links that I've bookmarked. As she's red linked in a number of other articles as well, it seems it would be of benefit to the wiki. I was looking into doing such, but then got sidetracked doing work at the Photography workshop.

In the mean time, I'll go ahead and restore the link and place a quote from this thread on The_Best_Offer's talk page so others know 'what's up'.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I replied on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ramadan (calendar month), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatima (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Undone edits

Hi! Why did you undo my edits in Template:Examples, Template:Elucidate and Template:Ambiguous? Did the cause any problem? By the way, please also provide a reason for undoing edits in the edit summary field in the future, so one won't have to go to your talk page and ask why you removed them. —Kri (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason is usually (to the best of my knowledge always) kept hidden, visible only when editing the source. We do not want every reason to be there in the open. That is why there are standard formulas. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Well, maybe it can be considered undesirable to have the reason displayed as a mouse-over text when reading the article. However, that is the case for a few other templates, like {{Citation needed}}, {{Cite quote}} and {{Clarify}} (for which the source have been locked), so my edits were an attempt to make this kind of templates more uniform. —Kri (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I made a mistake. I though that would be the text displayed. You remind me that it is only mouse-over text. I'll undo my reverts. Debresser (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Chabad messianism

I repeat Kri's request above: Please provide a reason for undoing edits in the edit summary field, so one won't have to go to your talk page and ask why you removed them. When I undid your revision, I provided my reason: To match source. So please explain why you disagree. I'm also not so sure about this capitalization business, which is why I recommend following the source. In an article about a doctor, for instance, would you also capitalize the Doctor each time he's mentioned? -- -- -- 21:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What edit didn't have an editsummary in Chabad messianism? The word "Rebbe" should always be capitalized as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Titles_of_people. In this regard it does not matter if the source followed Wikipedia rules or not (except when that is possibly on purpose). Debresser (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

1. I didn't say that there was no edit-summary. Although you did provide an edit-summary, you only wrote what you did, but not why; which is why I had to go and ask on your talk page. I do appreciate the answer you gave me here.
2. I think that in this case, since the source is quoted within quotation marks, we should change it from "the Rebbe" to "the [R]ebbe". Would you agree? -- -- -- 20:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC) (Fri. 4:56PM local time)

I understand your point, but imho that is not necessary here. The difference is so minor. And "the [R]ebbe" doesn't really make it clear that there wasn't a capital in the original. I think leaving it the way it is now is the easiest way out. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

OK for now.

By the way, please excuse me for giving you musar, but perhaps now in honor of Elul and the upcoming High Holy Days, it would be a good idea to remove that last Babel-userbox of yours, once and for all,

ובזכות זה תזכה לכתיבה וחתימה טובה און אסאך חסידיש נחת פון חנה שתחיה

-- -- -- 02:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Jewish holidays; Shemini Atzeret

Jewish holidays

I take your point (mostly) re Rosh Hashanah and Reform Judaism. It turns out not to be particular to North American Reform, but goes back to the early founders of Reform in Germany in the 1840s. On the other hand, the article does not discuss this issue explicitly with respect to any other holiday; instead, it covers it briefly in the section on Yom Tov Sheni. So my solution is to add two sources that cover the whole issue, to address the whole matter in the Yom Tov Sheni section, and to leave it out of the Rosh Hashanah section entirely.

I saw your edit, and agree with your solution.

I did need to edit out half of a reference that you left in the Rosh Hashanah section. None of us are perfect, of course. But I mention this because I thought your edit summary about "as usual, spacing and punctuation" was a little snarky. We've worked well here over time, and I didn't see a need for that. And forgive me for learning as a schoolchild that commas and periods always go inside quotes, and that periods get two spaces after them. MoS deprecates the first and is indifferent to the second, but you didn't need to be snarky about it.

We have, and I didn't mean it snarky, just matter-of-factly. Sorry, if I offended you. Debresser (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem settled and done. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Shemini Atzeret

I was thinking of putting this up for GA. Do you think it is missing any important content?

• It has Ashkenazic pronunciation, but not Sephardic/common Israeli.
• "In Israel, as well as in Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism" I wouldn't mention Reform etc. in the lead, or at least Israel and they should be mentioned separately, somehow.
• "This dual nature" should be sourced, or removed as original research.
• "Observances and Custom" should be "Observances and custom", as wp:mos doesn't allow a second capital in headers.
• I'd remove the commentary of the Vilna Gaon.

Will look further after 9 Av. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks on both matters. Have an meaningful, but not-too-difficult, fast. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and you too. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Copying discussion to Talk:Shemini Atzeret#Aiming for GA, which will be a more appropriate place to resume after 9 Av. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'll go there. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

613 Commandments

Regarding [2], do you have a secondary reliable source to support this? I would venture that any secondary RS, even Catholic research into their Jewish heritage, better comports with WP:RS than the raw text of the Torah in English literal translation, which remains a primary source. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is a list of commandments, not of anything else. This commandment is very well explained as "Not to offer animals bought with the wages of a harlot or the animal exchanged for a dog". Because that is precisely what the commandment comprises! No need for metaphors, and in any case this article is not the right place for them. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, please review the source I cited before reverting my edit. And the article should translate metaphors into their intended meaning, to avoid obvious nonsense: If I barter my dog for another animal, said beast cannot be used as a sacrificial offering. Rather, "price of a dog", in the CSB translation, is a reference to the fees of male temple prostitutes, a practice which Moses regarded as an abomination. Judaism and Christianity generally continue their opposition to "sacred prostitution" to this day. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What you call "obvious nonsense" is what Jews consider to be the Will of God. If I change my dog for your cow, then that cow may not be brought as an offering to God. What do you find to be nonsense about that? Debresser (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

In any case, Wikipedia is written on the basis of WP:VER and WP:RS, not one's subjective perception of truth, even insofar as concerns the Will of God. I have supplied a secondary RS for my position: an explanatory footnote in an Oxford University Press publication of recent vintage. You are relying on a primary source: a quite literal translation of the Torah. Secondary RS > primary source. My version is superior in its conformity to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Q.E.D. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Also note [3] no 559 describes the "price of a dog" as "apparently a euphemism for sodomy". Q.E.D.^2 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Still not relevant. This is the meaning, as expounded by Rashi, Ibn Ezra among others. Any source that wants to bring other non-literal meanings, is not relevant in the context of a list of commandments. Debresser (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

How is the actual intended meaning of the commandment not relevant? Your proposed "no interpreting metaphors, even when we have >= 2 RS" rule leads to absurd results. When the source says "Proposition 121 says it does Y, but I believe that it won't cut the mustard", do we write in the article about shearing (physics) and mustard (condiment)? And remember that's with no interpretive RS at all, but merely a common metaphor. For the commandment, the "price of a dog" metaphor is more obscure, but multiple RS tell us what this specific usage means in this specific context. What more evidence could we possibly need? DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest: (a) leave literal meaning in place, adding Rashi and Ibn Ezra there as secondary sources, and (b) add footnote to DLE's preferred interpretation? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Good enough, iff Rashi and Ibn Ezra actually are correctly cited as secondary sources for Debresser's position. To be clear, <ref>Rashi</ref> doesn't count. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Pray tell me why ref>Rashi ad locum/ref> would not be acceptable. Debresser (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I do not think that a Christian book can be used to explain a commandment in Judaism, where it offers an interpretation that is not sanctioned by sources in Judaism. Not to mention that it deviates from the literal text, and I find it strange that you insist on adding this interpretation when it is so blatantly a deviation from the original Hebrew text. So no, this compromise will not work for me. Debresser (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I gave you a "Jewish source" that says the same thing: http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm item 559 Yet this you have ignored, and instead concentrated on my citation of "a Christian book". You can't use "Rashi ad locum" as a reference, because it's blatantly ambiguous. "Ad locum", as in, find it yourself, I won't tell you what the title, date of publication, or publisher are. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, that I wouldn't use "ad locum" unless the verse were specified. Debresser (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I only just now noticed the Jewfaq source. This source is not very reliable, and in this case might have your source or the likes of it as its source. I'll do some extensive search tomorrow among Jewish sources, and will post them here, obviously including any sources that would support the interpretation you mentioned, if such will be found. Debresser (talk)

Explanatory note just in case

I am not going to reply to the last post of this editor on the talkpage of 613 commandments. Not because I agree with him, but because I hope he will see that he is not correct. Unless he'd pursue his line of reasoning and make an edit accordingly. Debresser (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

My arguments? 1. practice is always as I stated, that the sources are not accompanied by publisher and date of publication. 2. the dispute involves some Christian source, which sources are themselves unclear, by the way, and Christian sources are irrelevant concerning the meaning of commandments in Judaism. Debresser (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Update 17:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, a bot pulled the RfC template. So I went ahead and archived the discussion as "closed without prejudice" along the lines of the discussion near the end. Keep me posted if you hear anything. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed. But thanks for the note. Will do. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

[4]

Hello, I'm DavidLeighEllis. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:613 commandments that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that was not very civil. But then again,you are an annoyingly arrogant editor. Debresser (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You strive to please? :) Debresser (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Jewish holidays (ethnic holidays)

Hello, Debresser. You have new messages at User talk:StevenJ81/sandbox.
Message added 18:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I appreciate the post. I am confident you'll appreciate my reply there. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I did, and thanks. Will correspond over there on this issue hereafter. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the current version in the sandbox. If you're good I'll publish, and transfer the whole discussion from the talk page over as well. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Miła 18

Debresser, because what happened there on May 8 1943 is often called Masada of Warsaw [5] or second Masada Boston9 (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not mentioned in any of the articles, so can not be linked. Debresser (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Palestinian political violence

Under the heading "Edits by and on behalf of banned editors" the policy quoted by User:Sean.hoyland states that "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule". Which means that his removing it was in accordance with the rules. But the policy also says that removing such edits is not mandatory, so if you feel it belongs in the article, and is properly sourced, you're free to re-add it. But not in the form of a revert with an edit summary that is factually incorrect. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "That policy bans editors, not edits. Please now consider this additional of sourced info my edit". Well, it's not really your edit is it, so I can't really consider it as such. It's the edit of a blocked (on both Spanish and English Wikipedia) racist ultranationalist who compulsively lies and unethically exploits a charity for ethno-nationalist reasons through extensive sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. My concern is block/ban enforcement in ARBPIA, not the nature of the edits by people who are not allowed to edit. Blocks and bans have to be enforced and someone has to enforce them. If they can't be enforced there's really no point imposing them.

Here, by the way, are some quotes from the real world by the person whose block evasion you are, in my view, facilitating and encouraging by restoring their edit whether or not that is your intent. You can google him.

• lol "palestine" does not exist, never did and never will
• Yes, you are in this struggle and you will be defeated like all the enemies of my nation. I'm a Jew from Argentina who soon will make Aliya and join the IDF in order to kick, destroy and fight against bullshit scum like you. Fuck off you fucking marxist. Leave Israel with all your fucking Arab ape friends. We don't want people like you in Medinat Israel. AM ISRAEL CHAI VE KAIAM ISRAEL WIN
• Don’t worry bitch, nobody wants your fucking Arab Keffiyeh. Nobody wants to look like an ugly terrorist monkey, except for Purim.
• Down with Islamoapes

If you have any ideas how you can help make policy enforcement in ARBPIA more effective so that people evading their blocks can't profit from their lack of ethics and are not encouraged to continue evading their blocks by other editors, let me know. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, both editors, for your posts. I will check his sources carefully, and if they are correct, I'll make the edit, not in the form of a revert. Of course that does not mean an endorsement of his real-life points of view from my side. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sources checked, and references improved. Debresser (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the policy more carefully, I found that it says also "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor". So, Thomas.W, I was correct when I said that "That policy bans editors, not edits." And a little further that same policy said clearly "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." With my editsummary of "That policy bans editors, not edits. Please now consider this additional of sourced info my edit" I did precisely that. So your revert of my edit was based on two misunderstanding of the policy. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• No, my revert was not based on a misunderstanding. You reverted User:Sean.hoylands removal of an edit made by a banned user with an edit summary that implied he was wrong in doing so. He wasn't, what Sean did was in fact in total accordance with the policy. Or in other words, he was right and you were wrong. Which I pointed out when I started this thread. At the same time I also wrote that removing edits made by banned users isn't mandatory, but that reinserting material removed in accordance with the policy should be done as a normal edit, made by you and with you taking full responsibility for it ("if you feel it belongs in the article, and is properly sourced, you're free to re-add it"), and not as a revert with an edit summary claiming that you're simply correcting someone else's mistake. Meaning that your "more careful review" of the policy confirms what I wrote when I started this thread. So what's new? And why the message on my talk page telling me to self-revert something? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 06:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your say my editsummary "implied" that he was wrong. I did not say that, nor did I imply that. You misunderstood. But don't apologize, if you feel you are right. Just know that you are wrong. In any case, it is in the past. Debresser (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)