User talk:Debresser/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with 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 1

←

Archive 4

→

Current

Looks like a cut and paste. Note the "noinclude" section at the end? Rich Farmbrough 23:26 17 December 2009 (UTC). Test: {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User talk|[[Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]|}}{{Ambox | type = notice | image = [[File:Ambox currentevent.svg|30px]] | text = '''This {{#if:|{{{1}}}|article}} documents a [[Portal:Current events|current {{#if:|{{{2}}}|event}}]].''' Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. }}{{DMCA|Current events|from|}}

Looks good to me. Rich Farmbrough, 23:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC).

Not that current is ever a good template to use. Rich Farmbrough, 23:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC).

Category:Jewish American gangs

I don't know how to handle this, but it appears that someone or ones have removed all content from this category. Could you check on the propriety of this whether is should be repopulated as before and do whatever should be done. It may be a POV set of deletions as has happened before with several simlar categories. Hmains (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I. I think Good Olfactory might be able to help. I'll contact him. Debresser (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I found this edit of 11 December 2009 by Ioiowee. Debresser (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Bingo! I reverted all his edits. Debresser (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps his account Ioiowee (talk · contribs) should be blocked? Debresser (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the problem, which seems to be a temporary passing Hmains (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yo!

Hi! Happy holidays! I saw you had a question about that tag I added in a previous edit. I thought I should fill you in, if you even remember having questioned it a few days ago. When I was editing that section, I skimmed like 5 or 6 Google Books entries on the subject, and they all seemed to conflict with the Wikipedia page. Rather than saying the attack was that of a madman, this "notorious" radical fellow was saying that the killings were justified. So I sought out the quote on Google Books and in Google, and it does not appear anywhere. So I thought maybe it should be removed, but I didn't have much time for editing, so I thought at least I should register my doubt with the verification request. I'll defer to your judgment! Cheers, DBaba (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Good to be discussing with you, instead of arguing. :) Since the source mentions the newspaper, and the date and author of the article, it seems unlikely that this would be a false source. The only way of invalidating it is going through the paper archives of that newspaper. Debresser (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic stuff

If you want to put a hat on the thread to archive it I won't object. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt even that will help. Just make a statement that you are leaving the dsiscussion, because you do not think there is any point to it. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Digit time between‎

Thanks for the head's up on the template protection. I used the Time After template as a skeleton structure as this was my first template. So that was essentially just residual. I have no need to apply protected status to it. I'll make a note on the template talk regarding it. aremisasling (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I see. Nice work. No need for a note. Debresser (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. aremisasling (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for correcting my spelling. No offence given, none taken. Rebele | Talk ^{The only way to win the game is to not play the game.} 12:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the attitude. :) Good luck, Debresser (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ref names

Thanks for the fix over at Union College. Why is it that numbers in a ref name causes issues? This is how I always do it and I've never had a problem before. ❄ upstate NYer ❄ 15:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Numbers in references doesn't in and of iself cause problems. It is sometimes confusing for editors, which is what caused the problem here. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Analysis

Hi Debresser, to keep you informed :) the category is restored, i hope somebody with more brains than me finds the time to write on the article in 2010. Cheers Mion (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for helping! out Mion (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Fix

Thanks for fixing the reference in the Earle C. Clements article. Your fix was correct; the Jillson article definitely is not 200 pages long! Thanks again, and Merry Christmas. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ecology

Hi Debresser - thanks for stopping by the ecology pages, however, you have done something to the history section and I have to work it back to an earlier revision. I've tried to figure out through the history and to do a restore - but having a tough time of it. Please be careful.Thompsma (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I see something went wrong. Don't know how that happened. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem...got it fixed. Great to know that others are reading through. Have you read all of it? I've been putting lots of work into it the past few weeks.Thompsma (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit that I didn't. I did fix those pictures though. Debresser (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Taku Forts (1859)

All I have to say is I WROTE THE ORIGIONAL ARTICLE in the first place, it was MY OWN edits I reverted! The stub remained virtually the same for months I wrote the little article like a year ago under a different user name. There was a short paragraph someone added earlier today which featured all of the same edits I was writing on my computer notepad and preparing to add. When I was finished I added mine and deleted the small other which would have been a repeat of the same information. Now if you will happily respect me and not write to me in such a disrepectful way, I might feel inclined to give you a further response.

I should also mention that because you reverted some of my edits, you have now forced me to make more edits regarding the British commanders. XavierGreen and I had a web conversation about this earlier. I was confused and mixed up James Hope who commanded the british during the battle we are writing about and the Battle of Taku Forts (1860) commander James Hope Grant. --Az81964444 (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

I have seen you around, and I am impressed by your work, you maybe interested in a group of editors who try to source documents up for deletion.

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Hello, Debresser. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip 19:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time I get invited, but I have to decline as respectfully as the first time, and for the same reason: I am too busy as a wikignome. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

COI complaint and discussion concerning your pro-Chabad POV editing

A WP:COI complaint and discussion concerning your pro-Chabad POV editing and writing has started at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have offered my services there as far as possible. Debresser (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor removal of uncensured language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=BitTorrent_%28protocol%29&action=historysubmit&diff=334709285&oldid=334707686

Just a note to say that I think there needs to be something to replace the phrase you removed as the word 'suboptimal' is itself a technical colloquialism that often implies strong understatement. It was my understanding that "it sucks" is the non-technical equivalent in the American dialect of English and not particularly "harsh language" despite it's roots but I stand to be corrected by a native speaker. Robert@ 86.0.255.130 (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"It sucks" is not encyclopaedic. -- Zsero (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That was my reasoning also. But I have no problem with a replacement. Debresser (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your public remark at Categories

Your public remark at Talk:Categories today:

I really think you are editing things that were off just fine without you.

You were, the moment you saved that "without you" remark, out of line. At any other time I would have been proud for your attention, really. I will still respect you though. — Cpiral Cpiral 03:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that I said a nasty thing. Although not nasty enough that I think it warrant an apology. But that does not diminish the truth of the matter: that you are trying to impose some percieved order of yours on Wikipedia project pages without seeking consensus before you do so.

You do not seem to understand and/or respect that people have worked, sometimes for years and with considerable effort, to come to a certain version that should include all points that need to be addressed and in precisely the way they need to be addressed. Even if they failed, which is more than likely, you should consider that and post on talk pages first, before making any big changes.

Apart from that, your edits to these pages are less than perfect. You have been told that already on Talk:Categories, and on Wikipedia:Content you also added a lot of fluff (which I have removed). Which could have been avoided if you had discussed things first.

Now if I sould get that message through to you, that would in my eyes justify my nasty comment mentioned above. Don't you think so? Debresser (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If your question is sincere, then you will accept my answer. It is personal, though it seems editorial.

Discussion first is sometimes necessary, depending on the skill of the editor's judgment. The spectrum of skill ranges from spelling to existing logic, and beyond, even to conceptual evolution. It depends on the editor's past education and on the editor's dedication to their immediate education of the situation, or i.e. "their time spent". I agree that it is certain trouble for an average editor to continue to always avoid deliberations first, because of, as you point out, the delicate subtleties hidden in places. The reverting of the edit is sufficient to signal the sophistication of the watchers, which is, in all fairness to the bold, unknown. Natural stages of the development of articles contain these troubling, yet necessary articulations...

Now, I was not the person who added the "fluff" to Content. And it is my opinion it was not fluff, and it is Liefting's opinion ("the reader, who is by far the most common visitor to WP") also, that it is not fluff. The other "fluff" you "huffed" from Content ("Categories and templates are also used for the reader to find the content that they are wish to view.") is, to me, conceptual structural information, the only concept of it's kind in the Content article, (if only construction material), and is not "fluff". I like the word "fluff" when it is applied to irrelevant or redundant statements that erode lucidity and flow.

Perhaps there is never enough time for perfection, but hopefully and willingly trudge along on a never-ending journey toward it, occasionally tripping as we go.

— Cpiral Cpiral 17:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let me say that I appreciate your constructive approach to my criticism. One of the relevant essays concerning reverts is Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which basically says that a revert is a sure sign that discussion would have been in order. The "fluff" I was referring to was added by you in this edit. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I just learned that the red parts can be parts that were simply moved, and not necessarily added. "Diff" is amazing, but it's not perfect. See ya later. — Cpiral Cpiral 19:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Have fun! Do you mean "red links"? Those shouldn't be the result of a move, because a move always leaves a redirect in place. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I meant that the edit you referred to showing that I added something, has red colored text in a side-by-side diff that coincides with what you said I added. I did not add what is shown in red. Look at the left side. Bye for now. — Cpiral Cpiral 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you may have forgotten it, but the red on the left side is what you deleted/changed from/in the existing text, while the red on the right side is your additions. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Only now did I see what you meant. That is the problem with the red text: it works only inside one paragraph. But it is still fluff, regardless of who wrote it. :) Debresser (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I hear ya.

I have removed just my and your conversations between us from Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Templates_in_article_categories. I'm sorry for getting involved because it is not something I am directly experienced with. Now I hope you and the other experienced editors can restart the discussion and come up with a good solution. — Cpiral Cpiral 23:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Next time you want to remove somebody's comments from a userpage, you should really ask for their permission. This is very impolite, and actually against the rules. See e.g. Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace under "Unaccepted practices, unilateral action against policies or guidelines". After that is said and done, I have no problem with it in this specific case. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Only trying to help. You know, like eliminating fluff, like refactoring a discussion before an archiving. It is my opinion that your rude remark derailed the discussion. Besides, your Rulership said that my remark had nothing to do with the discussion. It just seemed to me like the right thing to do. That discussion has not gone past us, master Debresser. It stagnates. Later 'gator. — Cpiral Cpiral 21:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Always nice to do business with you. :) Debresser (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's. — Cpiral Cpiral 23:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Cfr

Are you sure this should be type=delete, not type = move? Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

Yes. 1. The others are also "delete". 2. A rename in category namespace comes down to a deletion of the old category (or a soft redirect if the old category is kept for some reason). Please correct me if I am wrong. Debresser (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I just wondered about box colour and what-not. And I don't know the reason for distinguishing the styles, so it's hard to say. Rich Farmbrough, 21:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

Idols should not confess to being mere mortals. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Lianna Nguyen

Thanks for your efforts to save this - I did look carefully at the numerous references, but they were all Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, model agencies... no independent reliable sources to indicate notability. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of to do's...

Any chance you could mention the article you have the problem with my editing? --SeanMack (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There were some 7-8- of them. Will reply on your your talk page. Debresser (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Catholic-cleanup

Hi Debresser,

I was wondering whether it might be worthwhile reconsidering whether {{Catholic-cleanup}} should by default be part of the NPOV category. I say this because I just read an article with the template added to it but it is quite neutrally written, though it should still be expanded. Could I get your thoughts? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that this template is like other cleanup templates: as soon as the cleanup has been done, you can remove it. As long as there is a doubt whether the article still contains outdated or POV information we should leave the template, and therefore both categories are relevant. Also notice that the template reads "may contain etc." Debresser (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Copied to Template_talk:Catholic-cleanup#Template_categories. I hadn't noticed that that is where the discussion is taking place. Debresser (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Gelehrtenschule des Johanneums

Thanks for editing, but unfortunately the other user was right, the article is somewhat self-referential, because I translated some of the fact from the German Wikipedias article. Other facts I translated from the schools homepage. So I did not really use autonomuse surces (nevertheless I am pretty sure the information on the article is accurate). I there another button one could use for that?I am sorry, english is not my native language, hope you understand my anyway--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The {{Self-reference}} template is for articles that talk about Wikipedia in inappropriate ways. For example: "It is also very interesting, and should be noted here on Wikipedia, that the school will celebrate its 500 jubilee in this century".

To indicate that the article was a translation of a page on the German Wikpedia you could use {{German|Gelehrtenschule des Johanneums}}, usually placed in the references section of the article, and {{Translated page|de|Gelehrtenschule des Johanneums}} on the talkpage (less common). Debresser (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. Is {{German|Gelehrtenschule des Johanneums}} also used if one did not translate whole the side, but only parts of it?--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Myers images

A minor cannot legally release an image's copyright, so those images were copyright violations and properly speedied. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I had just found that reason. Thanks anyway. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I didn't want you thinking that there was any other motive for the deletion. -- Avi (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Stevie Ray Vaughan

Looking through the recent history of the Stevie Ray Vaughan article it looks like the last truly good version is yours from way back on September 26, 2009. I know you have done some god work with this article previously. In recent weeks (and especially in the last 4 days) he article has but expanded with a lot of uncited content. This new content is full of poetic, non-neutral wording and glorious peacocking of the subject. SRV was a tremendous talent and deserves an encyclopedia Wiki page. Not the fluff fanpage the article currently sits in. Perhaps, if you have time, you could revisit this article and try to reverse the damage that has been done. Thank you and Happy New Year. 142.167.165.187 (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a second look, and made some minor edits a few weeks ago. I am reluctant to start deleting a lot of information from that article. There is such a thing as Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, but I doubt it will help here. Debresser (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried it anyway. Let's see where it will get us. Debresser (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale template

I was able to reproduce it: User talk:Pewterschmidt Industries --Pewterschmidt Industries (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Civility

This is a general warning to all users involved in recent COIN and ANI discussions. Please stop talking about other users mental status, mental health or their person. As the WP:CIVILITY policy says, "Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment" and WP:NPA which states: "comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people". I am drawing a line under what has been said to this point so you all right now have a clean slate, but I intend to start blocking users on both sides of the dispute who continue engaging in violations of the behavioural policies so please accept this as a final warning. Thanks, Sarah 05:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Chabad movement editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I only regret the time I am going to have to put into this, which will destract me from my usual editing on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

~~It's a clear content dispute, almost certain to be rejected.~~ Looking at the wrong one. Hmm, seems some problems exist, lets hope they get resolvved. Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC).

Reference problems

Thanks for pointing those out and I will watch for that. --Kumioko (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. I just ran into them while doing my daily wikignoming in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. Debresser (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I didn't know about that page. I am in the process of expanding refs for the Medal of Honor recipients so I will check that page to make sure I don't hose something up. --Kumioko (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It is easier to check the hidden categories at the bottom of the page. If there is a problem, "Pages with incorrect ref formatting" will show there. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching the 'Lien web' broken link. For these armorials, I copy the French blazons, and TRY to catch the templates that don't work in English. Occasionally I miss, like that one. So thanks for the catch. That was in 'Armorial of the Communes of Manche', I think it was. Todah.

Totally off topic, but looking at your main page, what is language is 'tmr'? --David V Houston (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll need some time, but definitely will post. Thanks again. Debresser (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen your request for advice. I can help you more as you start to edit, but one piece of advice now is that you should consider placing rebuttals on the evidence talk page. The talk page is much better suited for analysis, commentary, and discussion. That might help keep your evidence presentation shorter within the word limit. It will be read by the Arbitrators, don't worry about that. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do so. I haven't been in a hurry, basically because I dislike the whole idea of having to defend myself and Chabad against these baseless accusations. I don't like to have to do with these unpleasant matters. For the last few days I have not felt up to do my regular wikignoming, and just check my watchlist. Nevertheless, I'll do my best. Debresser (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re some other discussions

Hi, Debresser. I regret that I posted at ANI in the way I did without also saying something to IZAK in an attempt to have a moderating effect on the overall dispute. I had been planning to also post something at COIN (basically agreeing with Atama, SlimVirgin and DGG) but needed to think over some details and ran out of time, only realizing after I logged out that by saying nothing in the COIN thread I was leaving a rather unbalanced response at ANI; if I had responded at COIN my two responses on the two threads would have somewhat balanced each other. I'm truly sorry for any hard feelings or escalation of the dispute that may have resulted from my response. In the past, I've gone to Wikipedia dispute resolution processes looking for help and have been baffled and frustrated at receiving dismissive responses, and I'm dismayed to find myself now on the other side of the same fence. I'm afraid my comment may have appeared dismissive and hostile. However, the advice I gave you at ANI was sincerely intended as a description of what I think I would try to do in your situation. If you'd like suggestions on how to apply that advice in particular situations feel free to ask me, though I'm not always available to reply swiftly.

I'd like to suggest being more considerate when talking about other editors, for example avoiding saying things like "accusations ... laid out in a ranting and belligerent way" [1]". I'm also putting a comment on IZAK's talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this post. The matter is on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. Debresser (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help

I want to update this article but i cant because edit button is removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan So please add these in the article.And my request is please add the edit button in the article.

Afghan security forces losses in other time periods

2010

January 10, 2010 - An Afghan soldier killed alongwith a US soldier and a British journalist in an explosion in southern Afghanistan.^[1]

January 12, 2010 - An Afghan policeman has been killed and two others wounded in a suicide attack at a police station in south-central Afghanistan.^[2]

January 13, 2010 - Various Taliban attacks in the country killed five policemen and 4 Afghan soldier.^[3]

Afghan private security guard losses

On January 7, 2010, seven PMC's including the commander of Afghan security guards killed by a suice bomb attack in Gardez, the capital of Paktia province.^[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.68.189 (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) {{doing}} Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Done (talk page stalker) Alright, I've done this. Just to let you know, the page is currently semi-protected, which means that only users with registered and auto-confirmed accounts may edit it. To register an account simply go to Special:CreateAccount and fill in the forms, this is quick, free and requires no personal information. After registering your account will need to be four days old and have made at least ten edits before you can edit semi-protected articles. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been too busy lately to do any editing. Debresser (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2

Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 01:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm involved in an ArbCom case, which really messed my editing up. Sorry... Debresser (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Afghan security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan(Update)

Please add below this Add below information in this article.article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan

Afghan security forces losses in other time periods

2010

In 2010, 21 policemen and 16 soldiers were reported killed.

January 14, 2010 - A police officer was killed and six others were wounded Wednesday in a roadside bombing in Ghazni province.^[5]

January 17, 2010 - Various taliban attacks in country killed 2 Afghan soldiers, 5 policemen and an Afghan district chief.^[6]

January 18, 2010 - A policeman killed in explosions and heavy machine-gun in Afghan capital, Kabul.^[7]

Afghan private security guard losses

January 13, 2010 - An Afghan PMC killed by a gunfire during a protest.^[8]^[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.131.120 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to put the same information on four-five user talk pages, and on the article talk page as well. Just put it on the article talk page and add a {{Editsemiprotected}} template to it. Somebody will take care of it. Debresser (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this IP editor is Mujahid1947 (talk · contribs) trying to evade their indefinite block and get around the page protection. They're spamming dozens of editors talk pages. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I suspected something was wrong here. Debresser (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Userfy deleted articles

{{adminhelp}} I'd like to request to userfy three deleted articles so that I may add a synopsis of them to a list of characters I have created at Saga of the Skolian Empire#Main characters. They may be created on separate subpages, or in one page uniting the three.

Debresser (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is

Done. They should probably be moved back and turned into redirects once the material is merged and sourced (for attribution). –xeno^talk 18:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I had the same idea about Sauscony Lahaylia Valdoria Skolia before. I'll contact you when I am done. Thank you for your effort. Debresser (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In going over these articles I found another one, Tarquine Iquar. Please userfy me that one as well. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I won't userfy it if you're just going to copy and paste the content. See [2]. Make sure the merged content has sourcing and you properly attribution where the material came from when you paste it. –xeno^talk 18:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I didn't know this way was better. Could you do the same for Sauscony Lahaylia Valdoria Skolia, please? What do you mean by "attribution"? Debresser (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Attribution. Since you are cutting and pasting the work of others from these old articles and pasting them into another location, you need to make known where that information came from. –xeno^talk 18:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean I should try to find sources for the information from the articles? Debresser (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You should also do that, but that is not quite what I meant. Whenever you contribute content to Wikipedia, that content is licensed under cc-by-sa. For someone to re-use that content, they must attribution (give credit) when they do so. Since you re-used the content from those (now redirected articles), you had to give credit in the edit history when you pasted the content. See WP:Copying within Wikipedia. –xeno^talk 18:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right, and I forgot about that. Can anything be done to rectify this omission? Debresser (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a {{Merged-from}} template on the talk page? Debresser (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I also saw {{Copied}}, but am as yet unfamiliar with its proper use. Debresser (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, do that - also make a WP:Dummy edit to attribute after the fact like I did here. –xeno^talk

Done both, as you recommended. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. –xeno^talk 23:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping to fix this. I had just been taking over code from the existing {{prod}} and I suspect there'll be yet more details to fix. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And more thanks for fixing my maintenance template! LOL at the mistake I made, but that's just me. Minima c94 (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nnew template help

Hi Debresser. hey, thanks for your great help with my new template {{section-sort}}. could you please also add it to some categories? I'm not sure how to do that. I'd like to at least add it to the same categories which currently include the template entitled "sections." thanks for your help! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Done Debresser (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, most new editors. You wrote: "No reason to remove a lot of true and potentially verifiable information." So true!

You may also be interested in the WP:Article Rescue Squadron. We have been working hard to find sources for the 236 articles which were deleted with no notice by 3 administrators. Ikip 01:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have other priorities on Wikipedia, see User:Debresser/My work on Wikipedia. But send me one link, and I'll try to work on it. Debresser (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:ARS/BLP. request the articles here: Wikipedia:ARS#Restoration_of_articles better to request they be WP:incubated so the enter community will be aware of them, and can work on them together with you. Thanks for considering it! Good to talk to you! Ikip 09:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Many of those are sourced already. I took Yedidya Ya'ari, which had the {{BLP unsourced}} tag, and added something. Enough to remove the tag. My pleasure. Debresser (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Reference necessary/doc

Thank you for the work you did on Template:Reference necessary/doc. I was a little out of my element writing the syntax notes. Very much appreciated, thanks! — Spike Toronto 02:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Debresser (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Click here to
automatically
add this project
to your
watchlist

Hi Debresser/Archive 6, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.

These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

>> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 04:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your comments here:[3] and the subsequent ANI about the alternate account. Ikip 04:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Always glad to help a goodwilling editor. Debresser (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Award (chuckle)

		The Surreal Barnstar
		To Debresser, in the tradition of Leo Rosten as this gave me a good chuckle in what has otherwise been a grim few weeks at the 'pedia. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It was my pleasure.

Debresser (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Datefix for Without Seeing the Dawn

Hi, Debresser. Thanks for fixing the date in the tag I placed in Without Seeing the Dawn—I guess I forgot that January has 31 days. Oops… —Bkell (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It really was my pleasure. Every month there are a few people on this planet who forget this when editing Wikipedia. :) Debresser (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Route 27 Alternate (Florida) sandbox

I see you realized that I'm trying to fix the recently redirected article on U.S. Route 27 Alternate (Florida). Can you help me add all five shields to the nothern terminus? ----DanTD (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD for Category:American liberal organizations

Hi Debresser

Please revert your closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_1#Category:American_liberal_organizations. The category was last discussed 21 months ago (at CfD 2008 May 25, and that's quite long enough for another discussion.

I was just about to add my comment to the discussion, and was astonished to find that the discussion had been closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a sec. Debresser (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see I mixed something up. Good thing somebody already reverted me. Debresser (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hasidic philosophy image of Breslov

The image of "Imaginative aspects of Hasidism:" is necessary on the Hasidic philosophy page to compliment the other three images "Emotional aspects of Hasidism:", "Intellectual aspects of Hasidism:" and "Practical aspects of Hasidism:". Without it, the breadth and nature of Hasidus is not covered properly. If you objected to the wording of the caption, then I think you should have improved it to your liking. Because you instead deleted the image and caption, if I hadn't by chance just reviewed my edit of yesterday (and sometimes months go by when I'm too busy to visit the wiki pages), then there would have been a gaping vacuum instead of the required image of "Imaginative aspects of Hasidism"! Regarding your objection of biased POV, notice that just below this Breslov image, below the image of the Rebbe Rashab, I had written:

Intellectual aspects of Hasidism: Sholom Dovber Schneersohn called the "Maimonides" of Hasidut in Habad for his new systematic development. Habad differed from mainstream Hasidic fervour by seeking the philosophical investigation and internalisation of its mystical spirituality

Of course that's true, but I can imagine a non-Lubavitch Hasid, who had an unjustified narrowness of Hasidic taste, to perhaps be offended by its claims of "singing the praise of rabbi Nachman (Replace wording with "Chabad") than being encycopedical". To the enlightened Hasid, more Hasidus is..just that, more joy, more diversity, more love, more life, more God! The mature Hasid loves all other Hasidic groups all the more, the more he loves his own group. See the book I listed on the Books section of the page Hasidic philosophy, for a living example of this:

Souls on Fire - Portraits and Legends of Hasidic Masters, Elie Wiesel, Simon & Schuster. Well know for his personal testimonies of the Holocaust, such direct writings only comprise a small part of Elie Wiesel's output. In many of his books, he celebrates the great traditions of Jewish study that lasted until the War. Some of these evoke the ever present lives of Biblical and Talmudic Figures, while others dwell on the life of Hasidism in which he grew up in the Carpathian Mountains. Elie Wiesel distils this life of Judaism, that enveloped him before the War, with artistic mastery. In his retelling of traditional Hasidic tales, he displays the soul of a Hasid, infused with his personal philosophical interpretations. This book was followed by subsequent volumes of portraits (Somewhere a Master, Four Hasidic Masters: and their struggle against melancholy, and chapters in other books), and his other works are influenced by Hasidism, but here he imaginatively presents the lives and thoughts of many of the most famous Hasidic Masters. What this account lacks in straight presentation of the traditional stories, it gains greatly in the author's artistic vision of the poetry of Hasidic life, and can offer someone an introductory approach to Hasidism

As a spiritual "Vishnitz Hasid", Elie Wiesel devotes pages and chapters to each of his beloved Masters. See what he says about Rabbi Nachman, and "his Tales like no other Tales"! Read that, to see if I exaggerated in my caption to the image on the Hasidic philosophy page! A true Breslover would point out Likkutei Moharan as the supreme encapsulation of the uniqueness of Rabbi Nachman. Those with broader vision would point to his Sippurei Ma'asiyot (13 Tales). As a follower of Chabad, I believe that each of our 7 Rebbes uniquely articulated the innermost meaning of Hasidic thought. However, that doesn't prevent me from correctly recognising the unparalleled uniqueness of Rabbi Nachman! No other Rebbe held their own greatness as the very route to God for the followers like Rabbi Nachman. No other Rebbe had the particularly autobiographical spiritual path and mission in personally driven Cosmic rectification. No other Rebbe more fulfilled and expanded the imaginative dimensions of Hasidism. I have a regular book on general Hasidism that correctly calls Rabbi Nachman the "poet of Hasidism" (it likewise calls Shneur Zalman its Maimonides).
I could go on like this for ages, with sources that justify the carefully chosen words of the picture caption I used yesterday for Rabbi Nachman. It didn't exagerate, as its words were designed to bring out very precise and particular nuances. If it said particular things in the picture caption, then its only because they are true! But that's not my main point. You should have carefully adjusted it to suit your view, rather than wholy deleted it!
I think you should reinstate the image and caption of mine from yesterday, with your personal adjstment of its wording to suit your views. As I shall be away from wikipedia I may not catch your reply on my talk page, unless you post it quickly. Nonetheless, do reply, and I look foreward to further correspondence. I could write further posts explaining the correct justification of the exact caption I wrote, should you wish. Then there's also the unique greatness of other Hasidic thought: the Kotzker, the Izbicher, Ger, Sochatchov...etc.

P.S. I think it was the 13 Sippurei Ma'asiyot of Rabbi Nachman and their uniqueness that first attracted Martin Buber to Hasidism, and he went on to change the world's knowledge of Hasidus. See also what I wrote on Yiddish literature#Hasidic and Haskalah literature
P.P.S. My edit of yesterday to the Rabbi Nachman picture was caused by the previous deletion from Wikimedia Commons of the first picture, used on the page. I spent a long time finding a suitable replacement image that could intuitively capture the nature of Rabbi Nachman's Torah, particularly his Tales. The image I used is a little similar to the image I have seen on one English translation of the Tales published by Breslov. At the same time as replacing the image, I took the opportunity to clarify the caption. The new version, to which you objected hilights the particularly "autobiographical" nature of Rabbi Nachman's Torah exegesis. Eg. while in Chabad the classic philosophical problem of Divine Foreknowledge versus Free Will (Free will in theology#In Jewish thought is addresed in intellectual paradox of "Higher knowledge" and "Lower knowledge", Rabbi Nachman gives an autobiographically imaginative answer concerning the Tzaddik's knowledge of the reality before the Tzimtzum. My caption also more carefully distinguished the Tales from Rabbi Nachman's main Torah exegesis, as to insiders the Tales are not his greatest Torah expression. Since it was the new caption to which you objected, rather than the first one, this gives more reason why, if you wished, you should have merely changed the caption to its first version, rather than deleting the whole picture itself.

This post is from User:April8, but as I was writing it, the computer logged me out. I'll post it, then replace the signature with my own, as I would only wish to correspond on my talk page, rather than this internet cafe computer's one. With best wishes April8 (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the picture, but the text was just propaganda. Such should be removed, and will be removed on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss or keep the Chabad editors case

Hello Debresser: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Contemplated motion to dismiss. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw the firsts posts there as soon as they were written 2/3 days ago. Good idea. Debresser (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Merges and TfM

It isn't necessary to take templates to WP:TFD to merge. Filing a TfM there is usually overkill, not "the best way" as you put it at Davidgothberg's page. TfM can be used to settle particularly contentious template merge proposals, but a simple consensus discussion at the talk page of the merge target is the way almost all merge discussions are handled, regardless of namespace. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't true for category namespace, nor for template namespace. Just informing you. Debresser (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no relationship between the two. Categories aren't normal pages and anything to do with them is handled at CfD. Templates are normal pages, and they are frequently merged and redirected based on consensus on their own talk pages, with no involvement from TfD. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all you said, including the word "frequently". Debresser (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Prod2

Sorry! ADHD. Bearian (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Great Pyramid of Giza

If this article interests you, you might want to see the recent changes [4]. Someone has raised them on the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Current events from January 2010

I have nominated Category:Current events from January 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

These are just speedies: emptied monthly maintenance categories. Debresser (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Rabies

Hi Debresser

I don't know if you're expert in telepathy, ESP, and mindreading, but can you tell me why this page (created by me) exists in the first place?

Regards ^Bongo_matic 16:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably a relict of some undoubtebly good but never realised idea. :) Are you familiar with {{Db-userreq}}? Debresser (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep . . . will probably give it a few hours to seep back into my brain, but that's not long off. ^Bongo_matic 17:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

7-Eleven

In regard to your changes on the 7-Eleven article, I don't know if the cause was a problem reading and comprehending English or if it was simply that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing... Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You must be refering to my edit from 15 December, removing superfluous external links, but I have no idea what precisely you want to say. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Editors are reminded to keep in mind Wikipedia policies, and seek content-dispute resolution if collaboration between editors breaks down. Editors are also reminded to continue editing in good faith. No enforcement motions are included in the final decision, but a request may be made to reopen the case should the situation deteriorate.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC).

A "thank you" to all arbitrators and clerks who were involved in this case. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey bud

I'm sorry it has to be this way, but I took Cave of the Patriarchs to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. I just don't see any reason for your behavior but apparent religious/political beliefs. We'll work it out, man. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I welcome outside input. Debresser (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My ulterior motive, you say? I want to have some fun with the personal question, but it doesn't belong on the talk page of the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre.

Personally, I perceive your activity here to contribute to maintaining conflict in the Middle East, by perverting or curtailing the historical record to meet your religious goals. While there are elements to your activity which are at times so repellent as to drive me off, I feel a nagging responsibility to confront your activism. Because the people you are hurting can't defend themselves. I don't know if that counts as an ulterior motive, as I would have hoped it would have been transparent for all to see: I believe that Wikipedia, clean of political actors with sinister, stupid, or religious ulterior motives, will absolutely advance peace in the Middle East.

Also, 15,000 edits into Wikipedia, some fellow took me to a page called ANI, which I had never heard of, to say nasty things about me. Why did he do that? What was his angle? This is a puzzle I'm in the midst of solving, bro. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way. Given my propensity for adding too much detail and going undue weight, as you say, on Cave of the Patriarchs massacre; Did I do the same thing at Buchenwald Concentration camp?[5] It seemed to me that the more horrible causes of death, however exceptional or small in number, were significant by virtue of how horrible they were. Just like dressing up your children like Goldstein. But are you going to clean up Buchenwald of the details I brought to it over the years? Cheers, DBaba (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with solving it. And you may rest assured that I have no "religious goals" on Wikipedia, nor am I interested in "maintaining conflict in the Middle East". :) And if I took you to WP:ANI, then you deserved that. I see you maintain your insults even now. Not that it bothers me too much, but let it be noted. Now, I still think your personal POV should be noted. Are you Arab, for example? Debresser (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I never even saw Buchenwald, so I have no opinion here. Giving undue weight to anything is against Wikipedia policies and guidelines anywhere, if that is what you want to know. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I an Arab? DBaba (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. I am asking you. Please note that that was just an example of a likely POV. Please state others, if applicable. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Blanket reversions at Ketuba

What is your problem Dovid de Bresser. Someone is taking the article seriously. If you have a problem with certain statements, please challenge them on the talk page. Reverting ALL the changes is rather extreme, and will get you blocked for vandalism.--Gilabrand (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please check WP:ANI and the WikiProject Judaism section first. You seem to be unaware of the history of what is going on here. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition this editor ignores WP:BRD, and in general refuses to discuss his contested edits. BTW, the reason I didn't raise any specific edit, is because there is almost nothing good there. Debresser (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I haven't read all the changes, but the article certainly appears to be better than the previous version, with lots of references, better layout, and a decent standard of English. The article as it was before was a joke and a shanda.--Gilabrand (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Believe me that I would be happy to improve this article together with User:Newman Luke. Unfortunately, he doesn't engage in discussion. And his unjewish approach makes seeking consensus with him very difficult even with the best of communication. Debresser (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I have to admit you were right. This character has hijacked Jewish wedding entirely. Now anyone searching for this very common term (possibly because they are interested in having a Jewish wedding) will be directed to an unbelievably esoteric bunch of nonsense...What do you think of starting a new article by that name offering a simple summary of a contemporary Jewish wedding?--Gilabrand (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. Whether it is reconsilable with {{Howto}} is am not sure. Debresser (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Slipknot

This page was the target of move vandalism by a longtime serial vandal who, among other things, likes to move the pages of his favorite bands. I would rather leave this protected for now. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. And thank you for your reply. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You've been reported at the 3RR noticeboard

Hello Debresser. Please see WP:AN3#User:Debresser reported by User:Newman Luke (Result: ). You are welcome to comment there. The complaint states that you have made four reverts at Forbidden relationships in Judaism. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll go there forthwith. Debresser (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Breslov picture on Hasidic philosophy

Hello Rabbi Debresser! Very amusing my long post, and your short reply. I guess I will now learn not to exert myself in writing long, nuanced messages! Firstly, I would be most sorry if my post appeared intemperate/overly critical. If it appeared that way, it was unintentional, and because of haste before the internet cafe closed. Rather I only meant my post as affectionate, wry criticism. Secondly, here's my appreciation of your devotion and vigilance to editing and monitoring wikipedia.
Now, regarding the image caption, my criticism only concerned your a priori deletion of the whole thing. My long nuanced post was mostly to explain why I thought this wrong, as we are probably both in agreement that the page on Hasidic philosophy needs a good version of the image caption "Imaginative aspects of Hasidism-Breslov". My point is that everything would have been so much easier if you had slightly adjusted the caption to your taste, rather than to delete everything in total! Especially so, as the first version of the caption before image loss from Wikimedia Commons, was acceptable to you! However, as affectionate criticism, I guess for some reason you don't agree, and the page has therefore lacked something in the meantime that could have been avoided. So, here's the first version of the caption, that accompanied the deleted image, which you liked/didn't dissaprove of:

Imaginative aspects of Hasidism: Nachman of Breslov articulated the most creative and poetic interpretation of Hasidic thought. His personal mission, autobiographical accounts and mystical Tales began a separate path in Hasidism. His wonder stories of Royalty and Sages, animals and forests have Kabbalistic allusions

Here's the second version, which you did dissaprove of:

Imaginative aspects of Hasidism: Nachman of Breslov articulated the most creative and poetic interpretation of Hasidic thought. His autobiographical Torah interpretations began a separate path in Hasidism. In the Sippurey Ma'asiyyot Tales, he utilised a unique Wonder-Story form of Royalty and Sages, animals and forests to personify Kabbalistic meanings and the role of the Tzadik in rectifying Creation

The reason I made the changes between the first and second captions was:

To distinguish between Rabbi Nachman's Torah exegesis, regarded in Breslov as his main achievement, and the Sippurey Ma'asiyot 13 Tales, that most exemplify the imaginative quality of his Hasidic thought, and to which the image relates.
As the new image shows both a landscape that could feature in the Tales, and a King/mystical figure at the side, I related the description of the Tales to cover also the role Rabbi Nachman saw of the Tzaddik, as featured in the stories. (In one Tale a lesser Tzaddik is compared to the "lesser light", and the greater Tzaddik to the "greater light", and the Tale involves their attempted meeting)
This literary depiction I also emphasised relates to the particularly (uniquely) autobiographical spirituality of Rabbi Nachman's leadership. Eg. In the Polish Hasidic school of Peshischa (The "Holy Yid", his pupil Simcha Bunim, and his pupil Menachem Mendel of Kotzk) the role of the Tzaddik is dethroned from intermediarry to the humilty of example ("anti-Rebbe Rebbes"). Rabbi Nachman, in contrast, most represents the extreme opposite Hasidic position. Eg. He is the only Hasidic Rebbe who could say "All other Rebbes only come up to my shoulders", and in Breslov, this unique advocation of his stature (paradoxically opposite to his view that anyone can reach the level of a Tzaddik) becomes the very route of the followers to connecting to G-d through his unique greatness. I always find it inspiring, though I also believe Schneur Zalman was the essential Tzaddik/Mashiach of his generation, that Rabbi Nachman said of himself that he was the fifth innovation in new revelation (after Moses, Shimon bar Yochai, the Ari, and the Baal Shem Tov). I accept this as probably true in alternative aspects, as the new innovation of Chabad revealed the inner meaning of the previous revelation of the Baal Shem Tov, rather than a new aspect of independent spiritual innovation.

Anyway, here I've now written another long post! So here's my proposed new caption version, which I'll now put onto the Hasidic philosophy page. I hope you like it. If you don't, I hope that you yourself will subtly adjust it to your liking, rather than deleting it-please!-as all this subsequent delibration and messaging is so time consuming and hard work. I especially like the idea of quoting the Sippurei Ma'asiyot by name, as they are one of the extreme personifications on the spectrum of Hasidic thought (alongside the description of Sholom Dov Ber as the "Maimonides" of Hasidus-even more characteristically personifying than mentioning the Tanya, and the other extremities of the Kaliver Rebbe, the Izbicher, the Kotzker and the Rhuziner, all cited in the other image captions on the Hasidic philosophy page). The Tales of Rabbi Nachman are the most extreme literary personification of Hasidic thought, by seemingly extending the earlier forms of the Hasidic Rebbe story and Hasidic parable to a new innovation (See Yiddish literature#Hasidic and Haskalah literature). Therefore to quote the Tales by name could most capture the range, appeal and greatness of Hasidus. Proposed new version: (the first version text is printed in small case letters, my proposed new adjustments are superimposed in CAPITALS-where first version text is now redundant it is in brackets. I have aimed to keep changes from the first version to a minimum, while still fulfilling my aims above)

Imaginative aspects of Hasidism: Nachman of Breslov articulated the most creative and poetic interpretation of Hasidic thought. His (personal mission,) autobiographical TEACHINGS AND PERSONAL accounts (and mystical Tales) began a separate path in Hasidism. (His) THE 13 SIPPUREI MA'ASIYOT wonder (stories) TALES of Royalty and Sages, animals and forests GIVE ARTISTIC PERSONIFICATION TO HASIDIC THOUGHT AND (have) ARE STUDIED FOR Kabbalistic allusions AND DEVOTION

("Personal mission" not illuminative as the other great founders of Hasidism also had their own personal missions) In attempting to rewrite this, I undersood more clearly the particular difficulty of summarising Hasidic creativity, without losing all the nuances. As a result, I understood more clearly that the second version that you didn't like was not caused by unnecessary adulation, but rather because the imaginative is harder to summarise than the analytical. Removing the extraneous from the above:

Imaginative aspects of Hasidism: Nachman of Breslov articulated the most creative and poetic interpretation of Hasidic thought. His autobiographical teachings and personal accounts began a separate path in Hasidism. The 13 Sippurei Ma'asiyot Wonder Tales of Royalty and Sages, animals and forests give artistic personification to Hasidic thought and are studied for Kabbalistic allusions and devotion

With best wishes April8 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right on both points: 1. you wrote another long post :) 2. it would have been better if I would have altered only the caption without removing the picture. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

JCC question

Hi; do you know of any non-JCC "Jewish community centers" that could be added to Category:Jewish Community Center if it were renamed? If you know of some, I can support renaming. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I doubt they have Wikipedia articles. See e.g. http://www.mjcc.ru/ The site is in Russian, but the url tells you all you need to know. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, now I'm torn if they exist but probably don't have articles. Maybe I'll look around for some WP articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. Please don't hesitate to write. I am always willing to help where I can, and I am always open to hear somebody's good reasoning. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you call this a small-c "Jewish community center"?: Jewish Young Men's and Women's Association. What about Chabad house? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Young Men's and Women's Association probably yes, but Chabad House is too general. Debresser (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Another CFD question

Hi again (sorry I'm harassing you like this). I just had an edit conflict with you in this discussion, and I was confused by your vote here. "Keep" the Barian Fooians but the other form is more honest? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

More thruthful in the sense that it more accurately describes how those people feel about themselves. Debresser (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. I'm not trying to coerce you to change anything, but doesn't that logic mean they should be changed to "Americans of Fooian descent"? Or did you mean "Barian Fooians" was more truthful? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I got mixed up. Fixed it now. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What's your "take" on this "70.29.210.242" person?

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mission_of_Honor#Dear_70.29.210.242_:, and zip me a line will you? Later.
LP-mn (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'll write you on you talk page. Debresser (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Templates deprecated from December 2008

I have nominated Category:Templates deprecated from December 2008 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that all maintenance categories should be speedied, as I see somebody has done. I have long ago noticed you are working on unused templates, including previously deprecated ones, and I strongly support this. Feel free to ask my help any time. Debresser (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks You are probably right (and it certainly seems that way to me), but I have some level of apathy toward remembering or determining all of the criteria for speedy deletion of articles/categories/etc. It seems easier to me if I can't remember them to mark them for "XfD" and they will just get deleted anyway. Cf. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 17; two virtually identical nominations, one got speedied, the other didn't. The outcome is the same. If I can recall the criteria, I will mark them (I have three at cfr-speedy right now), but otherwise, it's simply too much of a hassle and I am a bit too lazy. I'll let you know if I think you can be of assistance and thanks for your message. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Done Debresser (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC-U opened for Newman Luke

As per WT:JEW, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke. -- Avi (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I am. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Avraham Debresser Newman Luke has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Avraham Debresser Newman Luke and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Newman Luke (talk)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Avraham Debresser Newman Luke.

For the Mediation Committee, Seddon ^talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Your message

Thanks, the ref seems to have been added when FURME picked up details for the rationale... Fixed (for now) by removing it. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cite press release/temp

Thanks for the touchup on Template:Cite press release/temp, of course this draft shouldn't be marked as protected because it isn't, and has not reason to be. The template was present because I startd by copying all of Template:Cite press release and the template is included there. I have returned it inside a comment to minimize the differences between the current working template and the proposed revised version.

Do you have any views on the merits of the revision itself? DES ^(talk) 21:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have before, but I'll have a look at it later tonight. Give me a reminder if I haven't replied here by tomorrow. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider this a reminder, please. i would really welcome your views -- or indeed anyone's views -- on this proposed change. DES ^(talk) 20:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The protection template should be deleted alltogether, since the documentation page takes care of that. The question is whether there is consensus to make publisher/agency mandatory. If not, and notice that in all citation templates almost nothing is mandatory, then this was all for nothing. If there is such consensus, and you'll add the error message, you should probably also add Category:Articles with broken citations to it. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

AS to the protection template, the current active template uses it, perhaps it shouldn't.

Note that in addition to making the publisher mandatory, my revision ads several features, which are independent of requiring that a publisher be specified:

support for the author, and coauthors parameters
support for the first/last, and first1-first3/last1-last3 parameters
support for the new parameter agency, to be used in the case where a Press Release is made via PRnewswire or a similar distributions service.

Thanks for the suggestion about the category, you are right that if the error msg is provided, it should be included. DES ^(talk) 21:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Any further comment? DES ^(talk) 22:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Newman Luke/dDb

User:Newman Luke/dDb, a page you are substantially part of, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Newman Luke/dDb and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --IZAK (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll comment there. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Templates deprecated from November 2006

I have nominated Category:Templates deprecated from November 2006 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tfd template

Hi there! I see you have reverted some changes in the template. Did you notice any problems with the new form? --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it wasn't inline any more. Debresser (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you show me an example of this? --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I reverted it, so not any more. Debresser (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What kind of a tfd notification was it, instead of inline? What was the template, where you noticed this problem? --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You are talking about the Tfd-inline tempate, I guess. It was on that template's documentation. BTW, why should we keep Tfd-inline and its documentation, now that they are merged with Tfd? Debresser (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You reverted the changes and now you are asking me that? :O We keep the inline version because it is still used in tfds that were made before the merger, plus twinkle hasn't updated. So we keep it as a redirect to tfd and we put an obsolete notice, so that people will use tfd instead. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the changes because they didn't work. Consider using {{Tdeprecated|old=Tfd-inline|new=Tfd}}. That is the way to designate deprecated templates. Debresser (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the doc. I guess we can leave the template as is for now, since it's working and delete it altogether when it is no longer in use. But I'll remove references of the template, so that we make sure that people will stop using it. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What about those tfm and tfm-inline templates? Are they in use or are they superseded by Tfd? --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Merging templates is less common than deleting them, but it happens. In fact it was me who created the Tfm templates. It would have no problem with merging Tfm-inline into Tfm, along the same lines Tfd-inline has been merged into Tfd. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tfd seems to be templates for discussion, not deletion any more. So I suppose there is no need for an extra template, is it? Discussions about deletion, merging, moving, whatever can all happen in there. In any case, if we are to keep it, I guess Tfm-inline should be merged with Tfm, yes. Anyway, it's up to you.

Read this btw: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Where_can_I_make_proposals_for_features_I_would_like_to_be_added_in_MediaWiki. Post there, if you have something to add. Cheers! Over&Out --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Tfm and Tfd have disctinct functions. It is precisely because of Tfm that Templates for deletion was renamed to Templates for discussion, since it wasn't about deletion any more, but about merging as well. Compare Cfd, Cfm, Cfr, Cfl etc. Debresser (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, it is up to me? I think you can merge them just as well as I can. :) Debresser (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, you may be emotionally attached to it, that's why I'm saying. :P Besides I have some work to do in RL and WP is draining my time :( --JokerXtreme (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I know the feeling. Good luck. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Debresser)

Hello, Debresser. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Debresser, where you may want to participate. Newman Luke (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC) .

Thank you. Can't say I care too much about your accusations. You have been a great nuisance to WikiProject Judaism. I am sure other editors will express their support shortly. Debresser (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Centrist parties

Hi Debresser

At CFD 2010 January 1, Category:Centrism was renamed to Category:Centrist political parties.

Since this was a recent discussion, I thought it fair to notify you that at the suggestion of PanchoS I have added Category:Centrist political parties to a group nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 8#Centrist_organizations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Agunah article

Debresser. I'm relatively new on wikipedia, and still learning! I saw you took out the "as early as" (1937) from the section of the article I wrote in the larger Agunah article, "Orthodox Judaism and the Agunah." I can certainly live with that deletion, but I wanted to explain what I meant and see if you might have a suggestion to reword it. The sources I quoted make a point that it was "early" in terms of the fact that it was 11 years before the establishment of Israel, and already an orthodox rabbi in Brooklyn was saying we should look toward Israel and already strengthen the Beit Din in Jerusalem. What do you think? Just leave it out as you did or try to reword? By the way, originally I had "as early as 1937, 11 years before the establishment of Israel" -- but I was trying to cut down the wording. I'd appreciate your opinion, and help!Floridarabbi (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

PS - Just went back and added a footnote basically saying what I wrote to you above. Please check it out and see if (1) you think it is appropriate as worded; or (2) you think the "as early" should go back, with this footnote linked to those words. Again, thanks for the help! I want to get this right! Floridarabbi (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I guessed you meant that. Then again, in the edit summary I stressed two reasons why it would be undue weight to stress that. The establishment of the state of Israel is a rather unsignificant fact in relation to halakha. Even the Chief Rabbinate of Israel is older than the state of Israel. So I think in this specific case I'd leave it at this. Debresser (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In view of that, it is my opinion, that the footnote, which insists on stressing the importance of the year 1937 in the way you just explained, should be removed. Debresser (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll check to see if you already removed the footnote. If you did not, I'll remove it! Thanks for all your notes! Floridarabbi (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Debresser, Just saw the pruning tag on the section in the Agunah article. Based on that, I did three things:

1 - removed the "Lieberman Clause" main article note, because the Lieberman clause was just one of the approaches the Conservative movement has used. 2 - pruned the article. 3 - enlarged the separate "Lieberman Clause" article. (Before today, there was not even a single reference in that article. The article I use as a reference, both in this article and for the Conservative Judaism section of the Agunah article, goes into great detail about the various approaches of the Conservative movement.)

Please take another look at the Agunah article (Conservative movement) section and see if you are satisfied enough with my three changes to remove the tag. Thanks!! Floridarabbi (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A connection that was expected to be kept alive etc

Hello! I use AWB and obtain the same problem as you have reported here last year (see my bug report). Could I ask you, have you solved the problem? --Vladimir Ivanov (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My problem somehow disappeared, yes. It don't remember how. Perhaps when I started using version 5. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's strange. I use just ver.5. --Vladimir Ivanov (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for discussion on erusin

I have some serious issues with your last edits on erusin. Can we discuss - I would prefer not to re-revert on my own. In fact, since you are reasoable, can we discuss edits beforehand? (Feel free to remove after reading.) Mzk1 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you could tell me what the problem is, please, I'll be more than happy to discuss. Here or on the talk page, as you prefer. Debresser (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I just had a look. Is it "biblical criticism" -> "the Bible"? Debresser (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That, and the note above the glass. This was originally a mess, BTW, where the original editor took an obscure custom (which he misread) and assumed it was the basis for all glass-breaking. Put simply, I do not believe any of his sources tie it with erusin, and in the U.S. the custom is not to do it with erusin. The main article is Jewish Wedding Customs - see the erusin history. Regarding the first, there is a technical question as to the nature of Kiddushin, but after it takes place, they both have monetary easements on the other (see discussion on prohibiting relations in Nedarim), but neither is the property of the other - a horrible thing to say. One of my sources spends pages attacking the concept. More on request - this is typed quickly at 10:38 PM Israel time and I am pretty sick.Mzk1 (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny: I am reading this at 23:49 Israeli time, and am also pretty sick. :)

About the note. We really can't have such notes inside articles. It would have to be either a tag like {{Mergeto|section}}, or a remark like .

About "biblical criticism" vs. "the Bible". The problem is that if one would only look at biblical sources, one would indeed come to the conclusion that a woman is like property in respect to marrying her off. So I prefered to catch two flies at once and 1. put it simple and 2. not give importance to biblical criticism in any way in connection with authentic Judaism.

I would have to look into the issue of breaking a vessel. I know that in most places a plate is broken at the erusin, and a glass at the wedding (famously, by the groom). I'd have to go over all the sources cited to check what precisely they are refering to. If you'd like me to, I'll try to do so tomorrow. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains that there is an unchallenged statement the the Bible considers a woman her husband's property. This is POV. And I disagree with that statement that the Bible reads that way; I gave a counter-example in the next paragraph, but the point of the paragraph was not to challange that. Look, this is the worst issue in the article (how do you think I got sick? The article disturbed me so much that I violated WP:SPIDERMAN and jeapordized my health to fix it.)

Regarding the second, a mergeto tag is fine. I do not know what Chabad does, but about every wedding in the U.S. has the breaking at the end. Also, as I said, there is no source. The JE is not bad if you actually write what it says. MY source is the same as the rest of the paragraph, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Made In Heaven, Page 201, a thorough and heavily sourced book. He actually says that the general custom is to break it at the end period (Machzor Vitri), and gives other opinions, including those opposed to it altogether. Because of what I know of Israel, I did not claim that.Mzk1 (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Side issue - how is NL mixing up erusin and nisuin? Erusin through consummation IS valid, even if discouraged.Mzk1 (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

But there is no Jewish wedding customs. So what would that mergeto tag refer to? Debresser (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You were right that erusin through comsumation is valid. Nevertheless, I think it is obvious enough that this does not apply in the case of erusin through proxies. The whole thing was making a tad of a frivolous impression there. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - Jewish Wedding Customs. If you will look at the history, this is where it was taken from. With all of the discussion on this, I thought it was obvious.Mzk1 (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Which brings us back to the original item, the "in the bible". I thing the issue is serious enough for me to revert, and I don't want to get into an edit war. Can we discuss further?Mzk1 (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You see that it is redlinked...

Sorry - Jewish views on marriage, formerly Jewish Wedding. See the Errusin history.Mzk1 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The plate is generally at the TenaimMzk1 (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course we can. I am all ears. BTW, another argument which I forgot to mention is that this article and the Jewish encyclopedia all bring bibleverses, not sources routed in biblical criticism. That argument is pretty decisive. We can not jump higher than our sources. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(I think this discussion belongs on the Erusin talk page, actually. I am not sure how much to move.)

O.K. I do not quite understand you, since we were just on opposite sides of the discussion before. O.K.

First, NL says that he does not use primary sources, that the primary sources are wikified footnotes from other sources. So I do not look at those.

The two sources are the JE and a Bible encyclopedia, both of which can pretty much be assumed to be representative of the critical view, or at least the non-traditional one. (See the page for the JE here, and the Library Journal acticle.) Particularly given that they say the property statement unequivocally. They do this taking terminology literally. Against this we have the traditional opinion, which at least considers the matter questionable. (As one of my teachers, I think R. Herschel Schachter, pointed out, if a man owned his wife he could dedicate her to the Temple.) Again, I am not talking about whether Kiddushin is a monetary aquisition as well as a Kinyan Issur (sorry, too hard to translate), but of the woman's status after marriage. To claim she is her hsuband's property is flat-out insulting to Judaism.

What I am saying is that we have conflicting opinions on what the Bible says, the critical one and the traditional one, which at least questions the first if not contradicts it. It should be presented this way.

As an example, I changed the list of Arayot to exactly match the text itself. I did not say step-sister(!) as the JE, or mother-in-law as Halacha says. Should I put back step-sister?Mzk1 (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I specified above that in the fact of buying the wife there is an analogy to property, but not in the subsequent status. After all is said and done, I also prefer saying something more palatable. But introducing "bible criticism" is even worse, and also untrue to the sources. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me, there is no imperative reason to move this discussion to the talk page at this point. Unless you'd like to have more input, in which case you could just copy it. Debresser (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what is "untrue to the sources". Saying the sources say a husband owns his wife, which is what it says there - not what you said - is POV, based on the JE and a Bible dictionary. Don't you agree they need to be balanced? But you can't balance if you start out with a blanket POV statement. You've a similar argument before; that's one reason for the current battle with the original author. If you don't like my phrase, please suggest another one.Mzk1 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the sources refer (in the Torah to a husband as ish much more often than ba'al. Plus, these do not mention erusin. Here a place that it does mention erusin - eiras isha vlo l'lkacha - if you wish to be literal, then this implies that eirusin does not cause ownership. (Of course, then it kills the source of kiddushin, but I am being literal.

Frankly, I don't understand where you are coming from. I thought you did not like primacy (or exclucivity) being given to non-traditional appraches in this sort of article. Do you have a traditional source that implies this?Mzk1 (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your objections. Let's go to the talk page. Perhaps some outside input will help. Debresser (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I continued on the talk page. I listed four questions for you; I think if you answer them we might understand why we are differing.20:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzk1 (talk • contribs)

Ok, see you there. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Conservative Judaism on Agunah page

Debresser, Just saw the pruning tag on the section in the Agunah article. Based on that, I did three things:

1 - removed the "Lieberman Clause" main article note, because the Lieberman clause was just one of the approaches the Conservative movement has used. 2 - pruned the article. 3 - enlarged the separate "Lieberman Clause" article. (Before today, there was not even a single reference in that article. The article I use as a reference, both in this article and for the Conservative Judaism section of the Agunah article, goes into great detail about the various approaches of the Conservative movement.)

Please take another look at the Agunah article (Conservative movement) section and see if you are satisfied enough with my three changes to remove the tag. Thanks!! Floridarabbi (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick PS. I just saw that you had reinstated the "main page" note about the Lieberman clause. I recommend that it be deleted, and that we just have a wikilink to that article, since the "Conservative Judaism" section in the Agunah article now includes information about three approaches to remedy the problem of the agunah, not (as was the case before) only the Lieberman clause. What do you think?

Floridarabbi (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

First, let me tell you that I admire your editing. It is always good to have somebody who knows what he is talking about. The problem remains that the section in Agunah is relatively large and is still 100% about the Lieberman clause. So it should be pruned and rely mainly on the note at its top referring to that article. Debresser (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words! Please look at this section of the article again, which I think has greatly improved from the way it was a few days ago, when (as you state) it was 100% about the Lieberman clause. Now it is only 25% about the clause in terms of the approaches described (and about 1/3 of the section in terms of actual space devoted to it). The article is not shorter, but the fact that it now describes four separate approaches employed by the Conservative movement justifies, I think, its length, because it does make the article as a whole much better. I hope you agree! (If you do, I hope you'll agree it does not require more pruning at this point, and remove the tag.) Floridarabbi (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Done Debresser (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- and not only for removing the tag, but for the push to make the section better. I think it is much better, thanks to your critiques. I'm learning a lot! Floridarabbi (talk)

Re: Falafel

Hehe, I was surprised there isn't a Hummus template. :) ← George^talk 11:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's because the hummus comes with the falafel. Debresser (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ownership behaviour

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#WP:OWN in Judaism articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

Thank you for the notification. This wouldn't have anything to do with Newman Luke, would it? Sigh... Debresser (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Niddah

Hi, the two links you just readded to this article fail WP:EL. The first link requires registration to use the site and the second is a blog site with posts from either nonnotable personalities or pseudonymns. WP:ELNO points 6 and 11 apply here. Could you consider reremoving them? Thanks, Them From Space 23:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Are there alternative sites that could be added? The article needs it. Debresser (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cite bivouac

I added a second tracking category to the template and waited weeks for the category to populate. The result of this tracking is that there are not invalid date parameters being used in any transcription of this template. I also checked all articles that transclude this template using AWB and found no invalid parameters. I think its is time to let this template go. I can't think of any reason for the tracking code to remain. So can I remove the code without being reverted? –droll [chat] 20:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you have checked it with that second tracking category, and since you have now removed deprecated parameters not only from the documentation but from the template code as well, it shouldn't be a problem really. Debresser (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Breaking references

Dear Dovoid, Thank you for browsing my page on Campolina (for whatever purpose). While part of the problem you identified stems from unstable internet service it is certainly true that references are a challenge at my stage of contribution. I am trying hard to provide the key supporting information for the article. If you have a good tutorial in mind or see obvious corrections that you would be willing to coach, I would appreciate the redirection. I have tried to do some research on how to correct my references but I often run short of time to develop a comprehensive handle on the matter. Tips appreciated.

Cheers, --Amazona01 (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yonoson3

Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Yonoson3_reported_by_User:Debresser_.28Result:_.29, I have not disregarded anything. Since the warning, I have made a very minor edit which there should be no issue with at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Elazar_Shach&diff=350513889&oldid=350415188 Yonoson3 (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You recently participated in a discussion here. This issue has been raised again here, where you may wish to comment. Best regards, –xeno^talk 15:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 06:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Levirate marriage

I could use a second pair of eyes on the Levirate marriage article. Two IPs have been adding extremely dubious material to the article, and I'm having difficulty keeping the info out. I have added notes on both IP pages, and opened a discussion on the article's talk page Talk:Levirate marriage#H8 and Cate not a Levirate marriage, but neither IP has responded, and I don't expect them to do so. Another user has been acitve, but has not been of any help with this issue. Thanks for any help you may be able to provide. - BilCat (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Passover vs Passover (Christian holiday)

See discussion at Talk:Passover (Christian holiday)#Merge with Passover. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about this discussion. I left my vote there as well. Debresser (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Living Torah

Can you add to the Living Torah, it is being questioned. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, but frankly I agree that there is an issue of notability here, and very little I can do. Debresser (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning about new edit war tactic.

User Newman Luke has created the section WP:OWNING. Luckily we live in Israel. Mzk1 (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What is so lucky about that? Debresser (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, now I see at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Newman_Luke#New_tactic_by_Newman_Luke that you meant the absence of the second day Yom Tov. Debresser (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Nazi human experimentation

As a participant of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_28#Category:Nazi_medical_atrocities, you may be interested in my proposed rename proposal at Talk:Human_subject_research#Human_subject_research_vs_human_experimentation_.28NPOV_title.29. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to this discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Honorverse

Where is the discussion which led to this statement of "consensus"? I saw this previous diff doing the same thing, but the rationale there is a complete non-argument. Hatnotes are for disambiguation. That hatnote does not point to any ambiguously-named articles, so there's no ambiguity involved. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That was what I was referring to as consensus. Since it has been there for over a half year, and everybody seems happy with it. Usually a hatnote tells you that there are other articles that are not discussed in the present article. In this case the hatnote tells you which subjects are included in the present article. The function remains the same: indicating what is and isn't included in the article. Debresser (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Silence only implies consensus until it's challenged. The article's lede is the correct place to establish the subject of the article; abusing hatnotes for this purpose is entirely unnecessary here. Do you honestly think this article needs a special hatnote for this purpose where other articles do not? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I could make a definite assertation as to whether other articles don't use hatnotes in this way. It seems to me that this usage is perfectly within the scope of the function of hatnotes. Furthermore, I do think that half a year of silence on an article such as this one, is an argument. All said and done, if you would be willing to work this spcific note into the lede, instead of simply removing it, that would be fine with me. Debresser (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NAMB. That I can even see an edit made six months ago on the first page of history suggests that this article simply doesn't get enough eyes for this to have been picked up on, although as that diff showed I'm not the first one to have raised this point. I'll move the comment into the lede, where it belongs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Christian Yom Kippur discussion

Hi Debresser: Regarding serious Christian content in the Yom Kippur article, please see Talk:Yom Kippur#Theological significance and Talk:Yom Kippur#Poll: Yom Kippur and Christianity. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look. Debresser (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dead end

"Dead end" is perfectly acceptable as an adjective. It depends which style guide you read. Fowler would say put hyphens in all adjectives except the last, but since "dead end" is essentially one word, it is very much open to question whether it needs a hyphen in it, and I am sure you would find many sources each way. But since Farmbrough says it has a hyphen, I suppose it must be so. The general trend in written English seems to be away from hyphens in these things. If you wrote instead of "dead end" (as adjective) "unpromising" (for example), you would not try to cram a hyphen into it. And since functionally "dead end" here is one word, some would argue you should not try to hyphenate that either. Si Trew (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is my opinion as well. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cfr-speedy

Rather than reverting each other, can we discuss at Template talk:Cfr-speedy#Format_of_text_to_be_pasted_into_WP:CFD.2FS?

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. Just notice that invoking WP:BRD was a little out of order, because it is you that are being reverted, so you should go to the talkpage, and not undo my revert first. Debresser (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Inuse-elapsed

I believe I merged it correctly with {{In use}}, but let me know if there is something I missed. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen it being used, but the code looks good. I'm happy my idea was easily accepted and implemented. Debresser (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

BRD

It would be great if you could comment here, thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'm there. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

TfD templates

Why have you reverted my changes to the boilerplate text in various TfD templates? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD. You introduced a new formula, and applied it at a few places. You indicated no good reason for your change, and I find it distinctly inferior. In addition, the old formula is used throughout most of the related templates. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest we take this to the pre-existing discussion indicated by Plastikspork, above. Perhaps you might indicate there in what way you find my improvements "distinctly inferior". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, see you there. Debresser (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"See also:" links on Mitnagdim page

Perhaps you're right that the list I added yesterday to the Mitnagdim page was too long. I certainly think that the full Non-Hasidic-Judaism wider subsequent developments part of the list, its majority section, would certainly be needed on a future "Lithuanian Judaism" Wikipedia page. (Its ridiculous that no such collected page yet exists, as the parallel alternative Eastern European tradition to Hasidic Judaism. The two articles would be comparative spiritual histories. Without it, half of Eastern European Judaism is dispersed across the pages Vilna Gaon, Chaim Volozhin, Volozhin yeshiva, Yeshiva, Mussar, Yisrael Salanter, Soloveitchik dynasty, Chafetz Chaim, Gadol, and the non-Lithuanian Hungarian Oberlander Jews, Moses Sofer, and the demographic political-social terms Orthodox Judaism and Haredi etc etc! When I have time, unfortunately due to major chaos in my life not soon, I'll colate the topics together on one page, linked to all the sub-pages. Lithuanian Jews and History of the Jews in Lithuania are broader topics, including non-religious history, while "Lithuanian Judaism" would focus on the spiritual history and thought of Non-Hasidic European Haredim.) You're probably right that the Non-Hasidic majority section of my list was not directly appropriate to Mitnagdim, but would instead be connected to the future "Lithuanian Judaism" page. However, in the meantime I wanted to demonstrate that the non-Hasidic stream of Mitnagdim developed its own unique spiritual tradition until today. For the same reason, I made the long "See Also:" list on Hasidic philosophy, as well as the full topic connecting list on Haskalah. I guess therefore, that the long Litvish section of yesterday's list should be put instead on the future "Lithuanian Judaism" page. Tell me what you think. Awaiting your reply April8 (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:See_also#See_also_section, that "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section". In addition, 1. the number of links was disproportionatly high compared with other articles 2. the links do not help a person understand the subject of "Misnagdim" in and of itself. They just elaborate details (who was that rabbi, who was the other rabbi). Debresser (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

How's that? I think it's good now! I can see now obviously what you objected to in the first, rushed version. Now its relevant, succinct and informative of the wider background and integrity of Non-Hasidic Judaism, by showing how this stream evolved its own unique spirituality, and was not just defined by its early opposition to Hasidism. (I forgot to describe the nature of this edit clarification in the description box!) April8 (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I'm happy together we made it the best way possible. Debresser (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the continuation of this discussion from my talk page to Talk:Misnagdim#Extended historical "See also:" list on Misnagdim page. Debresser (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Categorisation of the MoS

Why are you reverting my edits? Gnevin (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you making unneeded categories? I didn't see any consensus for that in the discussion you liked to either. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

They are needed to better organise the MoS and there is a consensus albeit not a strong one Gnevin (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have explained my point of view on this subject in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_24#Category:Category:Categorization_.28Manual_of_Style.29. Suffice here to say that it is a dim point of view indeed. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Question about old posting

As the continuation of our discussion about the extended "See also" list on Mitnagdim page was moved to its talk page, I adjusted the tone of my correspondence to make it more fitting for public posting. As a still relatively new Wikipedia editor, I'm now going through the discovery of how to correspond better, and feeling sorry and embarrassed by my sometime previous intemperance in earlier postings! Every (relatively) new editor is entitled to 1) occasional bad edits, and 2) misplaced intemperate tone in correspondence! I'm now realising how to constructively relate through understanding with alternative styles of editor, without my passion accidentally causing offence! This leads me to one question. There's one previous post I made to you that I agree with, but regret and am embarrassed by its poor tone. The touble is it is on an archived correspondence page of yours, warning "not to edit" this page. Am I allowed, with your direct permission, to tone down its style of writing, without at all changing its meaning, which I correctly intended? The old post is User talk:Debresser/Archive 6#Hasidic philosophy image of Breslov. I'm really sorry for its patronising style, or any offence caused, though I did mean its message! My mistake came from misplaced real sincerity. From now on I'll make sure not to repeat the mistake of intemperance in future correspondence! As I wouldn't really want others to read it, could I therefore (anonymously logged in perhaps) now adjust its style, without losing its meaning? Awaiting your reply here if you like April8 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you like, please feel free to edit it. But there realy is no need. First of all, because it is only an archive. Secondly, because the previous version will always be available in the page history. And foremost, because there is nothing to be ashamed of. We all learn through experience. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Template hatnote

I've learned from you in the past, Debresser, and hopefully you can help me understand why, in {{Template reference list}}, hatnoting that "This reference list does not appear in the article." is clear, while "This reference list template is not transcluded to the article." is less clear. The reference list does, after all, appear in the article when {{reflist}} or <references/> is used, correct?
— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 02:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Because of the word "template". After all, the template is transcluded, but the list isn't (as list), just the individual references. Agree? Debresser (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well now, that's a bit tricky and confusing, isn't it? The refs appear in the article, but the ref list doesn't. I believe you must mean that the main template is transcluded to the article, but the {{Template reference list}} is not transcluded to the article? I only ask because another editor, Gadget850 (ED), in this conversation told me that {{Template reference list}} does not transclude to the article because the article normally has its own markup. So just saying This reference list does not appear in the article. still sounds unclear to me, though I'm not sure how to make it clearer. Maybe say This reference list appears only on the main template page. or These references will appear in the article, but this list appears only on the main template page. or, I don't know, maybe not use a hatnote at all?

— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 06:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Tricky, yes, but you understand it well now, I see. Your second proposal (These references will appear in the article, but this list appears only on the main template page.) would receive my support, if you would like to implement it. Debresser (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your help. It is done. — Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 05:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Let others know you are prodding articles

Hi Debresser: Lately you have prodded a number of articles that may be of great interest to other Judaic editors who do not share your sentiments or perspectives and therefore out of all fairness and to avoid misgivings the right thing for you to do is to list them on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism which is also for instances of prods, and you could use the section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism#Proposed deletion --> "Proposed deletion = Prod". Thanks in advance for your cooperation. IZAK (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I announced it on WikiProject:Judaism [6]. That was more than enough, I think. But thanks anyway. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Debresser: You recently prodded more than one article and it was in the middle of other longer discussions and it gets lost in the shuffle. As a matter of fact it is incomprehensible why you are running about prodding articles all over the place when the correct, fair, least controversial and most justified procedure is to list articles you deem worthy of deletion on WP:AFD or on WP:CFD etc, especially if it is in the middle of being disputed and discussed at WP:TALKJUDAISM where opposing views are being expressed and there is absolutely no WP:CONSENSUS to justify a stream of prods. Therefore WP:AFD or WP:CFD is always the safest route to follow and with that, to make it fully fair and transparent so that Judaic editors especially can be informed of the fate of Judaic topics important to them, list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism noting as such at any AFD or CFD vote that you have done so with placing the {{subst:delsort|Judaism}}<small>~~~~</small> template there and making note of it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. As an active Judaic editor you should be above reproach and not rely on excuses and I say this because I know it can be tedious but there is no choice when one is active and often there are opposing views, and I try to follow this procedure each time myself. IZAK (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I prodded, if memory serves me, three articles from a list. This is not "running about prodding articles all over the place". You should really watch your tongue. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Debresser: What list? Prodding three articles close to together in a row is a lot. I am advising you to strive for fairness and transparency and to make a little extra effort and not to take short cuts. If you have trouble with any article and want to see it deleted go the official WP:AFD route and list it as I have advised. I don't see why I or anyone has to "watch their tongues" which is a so dismissive and inappropriately put and it borders on WP:NPA. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Either we are just not meant to like each other (which is strange), or you just have an attitude problem. Let's leave it at that. Debresser (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Debresser, avoid getting tangled up in hopeless infractions of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA regarding me that serve no purpose. Let's be positive, and my request to you is simple and has two parts: (A) If you insist on prodding articles with Judaic content then at least PLEASE post a notification at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism which is also for instances of prods, and you could use the section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism#Proposed deletion --> "Proposed deletion = Prod" and certainly let creators of the articles know about your intentions. (B) Prodding articles is tricky and can be based on subjective opinions. It is far better, if you really judge an article to be unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia to follow the procedures of WP:AFD and of course also list that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. IZAK (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am just not interested in doing so, nor do I see the need for it, regarding that I posted on WP:Judaism. Please stop trying to convince me. Debresser (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

^ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34790930/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
^ http://www.realclearworld.com/news/ap/international/2010/Jan/12/afghan_police__policeman_killed_in_suicide_attack.html , http://www.newsday.com/news/world/afghan-police-policeman-killed-in-suicide-attack-1.1694992
^ http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/01/blast_kills_two_american_soldi.html , http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100113/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_180, http://www.canada.com/news/Factbox+Security+developments+Afghanistan/2436264/story.html
^ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34752416/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
^ http://en.trend.az/regions/world/usa/1617428.html
^ http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/SHIG-7ZSJ7K?OpenDocument, http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SGE60G01W.htm
^ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100118/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
^ http://www.samaa.tv/News16129-2_US_soldiers_among_7_killed_in_Afghan_violence_.aspx
^ Extra refrence:The UN report also highlighted the "cultural insensitivity" of some foreign troops. The report's release comes a day after nine people were reported killed in a protest in southern Helmand province's Garmsir district. Violence erupted on Tuesday over rumours that NATO-led forces had defiled a copy of the Muslim holy book the Koran during a military operation. "Eight protesters were killed when the protesters attacked national security officials in Garmsir," deputy provincial police chief Kamaluddin Khan told AFP. http://www.samaa.tv/News16129-2_US_soldiers_among_7_killed_in_Afghan_violence_.aspx

[1] ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34790930/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

[2] ttp://www.realclearworld.com/news/ap/international/2010/Jan/12/afghan_police__policeman_killed_in_suicide_attack.html , http://www.newsday.com/news/world/afghan-police-policeman-killed-in-suicide-attack-1.1694992

[3] ttp://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/01/blast_kills_two_american_soldi.html , http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100113/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_180, http://www.canada.com/news/Factbox+Security+developments+Afghanistan/2436264/story.html

[4] ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34752416/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

[5] ttp://en.trend.az/regions/world/usa/1617428.html

[6] ttp://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/SHIG-7ZSJ7K?OpenDocument, http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SGE60G01W.htm

[7] ttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100118/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

[8] ttp://www.samaa.tv/News16129-2_US_soldiers_among_7_killed_in_Afghan_violence_.aspx

[9] Extra refrence:The UN report also highlighted the "cultural insensitivity" of some foreign troops. The report's release comes a day after nine people were reported killed in a protest in southern Helmand province's Garmsir district. Violence erupted on Tuesday over rumours that NATO-led forces had defiled a copy of the Muslim holy book the Koran during a military operation. "Eight protesters were killed when the protesters attacked national security officials in Garmsir," deputy provincial police chief Kamaluddin Khan told AFP. http://www.samaa.tv/News16129-2_US_soldiers_among_7_killed_in_Afghan_violence_.aspx

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]