Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

What I do on Wikipedia.

My rewards.

What's up?

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

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

I collect favicons. I have over 8,000 of them. A few of them are my 'orphans': I do not know the sites they came from.

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

My 'orphan' favicons

Thanks! Debresser (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried using Google Images' search by image function. benzband (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC) _{Please leave me a {{talkback}} if you reply}[reply]

Yes. But thanks for the suggestion. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I now have over 10,000 favicons onwebsite, and the number of orphans is down to 11! Debresser (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Please take a minute to look at the nature of the content that is removed from an article before blindly reverting another user as you did here . Saying that an article is 4k characters shorter is not an argument. Moreover, try to avoid putting words in other people's mouths, such as stating that I had made the "unexplained claim that this is not connected to the subject of the article". I never said such a thing. I said that the content in question wasn't connected to the ethnic cleansing of Germans from Central Europe, which it isn't. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this was over 4,000 characters is an indication that this is a major edit (read: major removal), and as such needs a better explanation than a minor edit. This is surely nothing new to you.

I agree that that information was not about Germans, but why not simply create a new subsection? Why remove it altogether? Debresser (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for intruding on your page, but I require some input I think only you could provide (it has nothing to do with wiki). I heard from an old man that in reciting the incipit of Genesis, 'elohim' must be pronounced 'elokim' out of respect for the name of God. This defies everything I know and have heard. Do you know of any Jewish community where this kind of phonetic alteration is practiced? or is it just an individual's idiosyncracy Sorry for the bother. Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome here. When reading the Torah "Elohim" is pronounced "Elohim". When quoting the Torah in a lecture e.g. it is common to use "Elokim" instead, so as not to use God's name in vain. Even though this would not be truly in vain, as it is part of a lecture, still, many are careful about this. Others are not, as indeed it is not in vain. I hope this answered your question. Debresser (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks indeed, Dovid. Much appreciated. I just wondered whether it was specific to Ashkenazi usage or a general substitution practiced by all communities. The important thing is that the old man reciting it thus was using lecture style, not Torah reading style. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is more common for Ashkenazi rabbis to be careful about this than for Sefardi rabbis, yes. Debresser (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You're currently at 3 reverts. Just FYI.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're now over the 3RR limit. It would behoove to stop gatekeeping and using semantic stop signs. See WP:CCC The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see 2 reverts on October 13, and 2 reverts on October 14, and I kept Shabbat in between, which is an over 24 hour observance. So how can this be a 3rr violation? Debresser (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, 27 hours can easily be seen as gaming 3RR, so I would be wary about that. El_C 16:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours should be 24 hours. I understand 24 hours and 5 minutes is gaming the system, but 25-26 hours should be the limit. In any case, this is a known edit warrior, who is fighting against consensus to keep an edit he made recently, so it is plain and simple disruptive editing. Feel free to block him for 24 hours for that. Debresser (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the consensus is and am not about to block anyone on the basis of it being disputed alone (!). As for your view advancing a strict interpretation of 3RR's 24 hours, I just wanted you to know that, regardless of what you think it should be, that view is not generally shared by admins, myself included. El_C 16:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:El_C Irrespective of that, it is still quite clear that he is edit warring (having reverted at least 5 times in the past 2 days, and 3 times today). In addition to violating a host of other rules, notably WP:AGF, WP:Personal attacks, WP: Bully, and ignoring WP:CCC in favor of enforcing a "consensus" that is now at least 2 years old. For instance, I highly doubt leaving messages like this on another person's talk page is in any way acceptable. [1] The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, indeed, that is not a manner in which to conduct oneself. You need to stop referring to the editor and focus on the edit, instead. El_C 17:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that most admins will freely add as many hours to 24 as they see fit. I have never in my life had respect for people who apply the rules as they like. In any case, since I was over 24 hours out of editing because of my religious adherence to the Jewish Shabbat, it should be clear that I was not gaming the system. Debresser (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the issue on the category talkpage. Which does not mean that the editor is not the problem here. The editor is very much part of the problem here. If editors weren't ever part of the problem, we wouldn't have WP:ANI. So please stop lecturing me. In any case, I moderated my comment.[2] Debresser (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but enough is enough. He is clearly not heeding WP:El_C's warning, or anyone else's.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Debresser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@NinjaRobotPirate I ask to rescind this block for the following reasons. :# You could at least have waited till I had the chance to defend myself. After all, I am a 10 year + editor, and this is not the level of courtesy I'd expect. :# I did not violate 3RR. I know that edit warring is not limited to 3RR violations, but if I am guilty of edit warring, so is User:The Human Trumpet Solo. It takes two to edit war. :# The category page in question was recently edited by User:The Human Trumpet Solo, who changed it from the consensus version of many years. Per WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD that means that he is the one that should show consensus. In other words, I hold the higher moral ground here. "# See my explanation above that I was not gaming the system when editing after over 24 hours.[3] Debresser (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This edit summary is unacceptable. You need to observe our rules concerning civil discourse and refrain from edit warring, especially after having been warned about it (including by myself). Further battleground behaviour and edit warring in the future may result in increasingly lengthier blocks, so please be wary of that. El_C 19:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@El_C And the previous edit summary was OK?[4] Because apart from the "ignorant", they are the same. And really, calling a Jew "Middle Eastern" is ignorant. I mean "of Middle Eastern descent" I could understand, but "Middle Eastern"? Not to mention that that page's history shows that User:The Human Trumpet Solo was stalking me when he reverted my edit. Is that OK too? Debresser (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into how they ended up there. But calling someone "ignorant" and continuing the edit war was the wrong call. Did it ever occur to you to bring the matter to an admin's attention first? El_C 20:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not much rattled by such edit summaries. So no, I didn't see any reason to take the edit summary to an admin. I took part in the discussion on the talkpage, but User:The Human Trumpet Solo insists on repeating his edit in complete disregard of that discussion. I was probably going to report that tonight, but User:NinjaRobotPirate didn't give me time for that. He even didn't give me time to defend myself, which really offends my sense of justice and is quite unusual when dealing with long-time editors. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I think that upholding my block because I called an ignorant edit "ignorant", is a good call. I mean, as far as uncivil language comes, this is not the worst of it, now is it? As a matter of fact, since you had previously mentioned that I was at risk of being blocked, I would not have expected you to review my unblock request. You were hardly neutral on this issue. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The matter (in its entirety) — not the edit summary. And you are more than free to list your contention that I lack neutrality in another unblock request. I, of course, disagree. El_C 20:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can you even disagree with that? In any case, I am not expecting anything remotely like justice on Wikipedia. But that both you and NinjaRobotPirate would be so blatantly one-sided in your decisions, that disappoints even me. Debresser (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply strikes me as unresponsive — so I'll reiterate: why did you not bring the matter to an admin's attention first? Also, just because The Human Trumpet Solo also erred, does not immediately absolves you of responsibility. El_C 20:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule on Wikipedia that says I can't try to reason with an editor myself first. So I really don't understand the question. Most editors are responsive to explanation. User:The Human Trumpet Solo wasn't. He is not the only one. If we were to go to admin forums as a first resort, Wikipedia would be bogged completely. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except, that your so-called attempt at "reasoning" with that editor is why you were blocked. El_C 21:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Human Trumpet, please leave Debresser alone. Debresser, if you agree to use dispute resolution (for example, an RFC) to resolve this, I'll unblock you. Name-calling and reverts obviously aren't doing anything to resolve it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Debresser mentioned dispute resolution to Human Trumpet two days ago, but neither of them seem to have seriously pursued it or any such related requests. El_C 21:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I though to ask for additional input at WT:JUDAISM for starters. I also envisioned the option of an Rfc, but afterwards.

And since you are here, I do think User:The Human Trumpet Solo should self-revert, since he was a much edit warring as I was, but he is edit warring for his recent change, and that is not how things work on Wikipedia. New edits should receive consensus first. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was defending myself, User:NinjaRobotPirate. And my edit in both cases was already reverted, and I have not reverted since. Nor do I plan to.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's no longer possible for The Human Trumpet Solo to self-revert since their edits have, themselves, been reverted. El_C 21:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His last comment here, that he won't revert any fursther, is good enough for me to feel there is with whom to talk.

@El_C Di you investigate my accusation that The Human Trumpet Solo was stalking me when he reverted me at Category:Canadian Jews? Debresser (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C is correct. My edits were undone and I have not reverted since, and I am more than happy to resolve this through discussion. The last thing I want is conflict with another editor, especially now when my health isn't exactly the greatest.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May you go back to good health soon! Debresser (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes from me, as well. El_C 21:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Much appreciated!The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, I did investigate this. My finding is that hounding of you by The Human Trumpet Solo did take place. El_C 21:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you mentioned it on his talkpage. OK. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Effective immediately. I am encouraged by the discussion above and I think the blocking admin would agree. El_C 21:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will work on this tomorrow, as it is 00:50AM here, and I too fell ill this morning (thank G-d nothing more serious than a virus or food-poisoning). Debresser (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sounds good. Hope you feel better by tomorrow. El_C 22:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I came home at 4AM because of Simchat Beit HaShoeivah, so this will have to wait just a tad longer. Debresser (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Human Trumpet Solo. Can we agree that Middle Easterners means those who live in the Middle East at present, and therefore agree that Category:Canadian Jews should not be in Category:Middle Eastern Canadians? Just like a New Yorker is somebody who lives in New York now, not somebody whose ancestors lived in New York.

Let's leave open the question whether Category:Canadian Jews should be in Category:Middle Eastern diaspora in North America, which is the same issue we'll deal with at Category:North American Jews, but I think we can at least agree that Category:Middle Eastern Canadians is incorrect? Debresser (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late response, User:Debresser.

1. I wouldn't be against categorizing Middle Easterners in that way. But if we do that, we'll have to define Europeans, Asians, Americans, et al in the same manner, or else it'll be too difficult to navigate. We would also need to leave a brief note at the top of each of these categories explaining what types of categories belong (e.g. that only people who reside in the Middle East can be included under "Middle Easterners"), and what types of categories don't.

1. The Middle Eastern Canadian category presently functions as a parent cat for Middle Eastern diaspora populations (be they ethnic or national) in Canada. That's how most of the other descent and diaspora categories are arranged right now, and that's why I tried to include Canadian Jews there. A category for Canadians who resettle/resettled in the Middle East would be called "Canadian Middle Easterners" (which does not exist), or "Middle Eastern people of Canadian descent" (which does exist).The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think it is completely clear, and needs no explanation, that Middle Easterners, means precisely that: people who are at present nationals and citizens of states in the Middle East. Please notice that Middle Easterners is a redirect to Ethnic groups in the Middle East, Europeans is a redirect to Ethnic groups in Europe, Asians to Asian people, while Americans is defined in the first line of that article as "Americans are nationals and citizens of the United States of America."
2. That is of course precisely the point of our disagreement. Jews should not be in a Middle eastern descent category. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Asian people article looks fine. It makes the meaning of the term "Asian" abundantly clear. However, Middle Easterners and Europeans are not as clearly defined, and these terms remain open to misinterpretation until they are. For this reason, I support renaming Ethnic groups in Europe to Europeans and Ethnic groups in the Middle East to Middle Easterners.

But even with that problem out of the way, that would still leave the categories (which is what this discussion is about). The categories in question pertain to diaspora origin and descent, not citizenship or residence. Nevertheless, I am still not convinced that these cats do not belong under a Middle Eastern parent. If we were to ignore or downplay the ethnic (specifically Levantine/Judean) component of Jewishness, there would be no point to having the Jewish descent or Jewish diaspora categories. So why have them at all? How do you "descend" from a religion? And if we head even further down that slippery slope, where does the Jewish diaspora originate? Nowhere? Did it emerge out of thin air? Obviously not.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing worth noting is that anyone can become Assyrian, or Maronite, or Shawnee, etc. But we still categorize the first two under Middle Eastern people and the third under indigenous peoples/ethnicities of North America.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You just violated the 1R rule governing the page at Jewish stone-throwing, and should self-revert.

• Ist revert 21:47, 23 October 2019‎
• 2nd revert 17:42, 24 October 2019‎ Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is now by a few hours more than 24 hours after that edit, so please consider as though I self-reverted and redid the edit. But thanks for the reminder, and I'll try to be more careful in the future.

And you please stop being a pain in the behind and don't make bad edits. Even your own edit summary read like an admission of the fact that there was no real reason to undo that part of my first revert. Not to mention that I disagree and think that removing that link was a clear improvement, since the link should be to a location. West bank is a location, while Israeli occupation of the West Bank is not, and is in addition so clearly POV motivated, that you should be too ashamed of yourself to come and complain on my talkpage. Where, by the way, you know very well that you are not welcome in general. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is now by a few hours more than 24 hours after that edit, so please consider as though I self-reverted and redid the edit — What? That is simply unacceptable. I have blocked you for one week for this blatant violation of 1RR. I'll try to be more careful in the future — there was no better time to do when given the opportunity to self-revert. Wow. El_C 22:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked with apologies. Page is not actually subject to 1RR. Still, had it been, your response would have constituted a gross violation of the first order. El_C 22:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani is back to his usual seeding controversy. A shame he came back from his umpteenth retirement. Nothing good ever came from his edits or comments.

I have seen that argument used and being accepted. You may call it a "gross violation of the first order", but that is a huge exaggeration. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, don't you want to unfollow my talkpage, El_C? It looks as though you are hounding me as well. Or was this reported somewhere? Debresser (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, not an exaggeration. Also, I am acting in my capacity as an uninvolved admin, not hounding you. Please refrain from such aspersions. Thanks. El_C 23:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still don't see what is wrong with it. Can you point out a place where it says specifically that such a construction is unacceptable? I doubt it, since, as I said, I have seen the argument being used and accepted.

I don't think that following my talkpage is fitting behavior for an uninvolved admin. I think it constitutes or comes close to a violation of the second paragraph of WP:HOUNDING. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to bring any of this up to review in any forum you see fit. El_C 23:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please read MOS:VAR and stop edit-warring. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it, I've self-reverted. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I did read MOS:VAR, by the way. Debresser (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/929895745 It is a PDF file.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, even though technically a PDF file is somewhat like a picture, see our PDF article. But the problem is that it is not a reference. It is a link to the original. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are trying to accomplish on Gathering of Israel, but it would be helpful if you'd stop wasting both our time. The IP editor User talk:195.60.233.179 added non-English and unsourced descriptions to the article on 25th. But I didn't notice that User:CLCStudent had already reverted the first of those containing the non-English. So my edit summary described both issues. But the end result is exactly the same. Reverting me just because you don't follow what happened, restoring twice unsourced, and suspiciously POV, material is not helping create a good article. Perhaps you could revert what you have again restored, and stop edit warring? Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the argument that "the existing stuff isn't sourced" is not a good argument for justifying that further unsourced material can be added. If we head in that direction, unsourced gets stacked on unsourced, and nothing ever get sourced. If you have concerns about what's already there, and not sourced, then please either add cites to it, or challenge it. Thanks.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is like this. I can base myself only on what you communicate. You communicated that you saw non-English additions, and unsourced additions. The first was definitely not true, and the unsourced additions seemed true, relevant and helpful. So I could only come to the conclusion that you made a mistake, so I reverted your edit. This happened twice.

Now for the unsourced additions themselves. Since they seem true, relevant and helpful, as stated above, I would oppose their deletion. If the statement without the additions was sourced, then of course I would agree with you that a sourced statement can not be changed without another source. But since that is not the case, and, I repeat this, the unsourced additions seemed true, relevant and helpful, I think that the correct thing would be to tag the resulting statements with a Citation needed tag, rather than undo them and leave inferior but likewise unsourced statements in their place. I hope you can appreciate my logic.

I will therefore tag these statements, and after the weekend will make an effort to find some source for them. Thank you for your cooperation. Debresser (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a borderline case (as the wording in the article to me isn't specific enough about his mother being the person in his lineage who was Jewish, so simply saying of "Jewish descent" would appear to be a WP:SYNTH issue as his father could be of entirely different descent based on the sourcing used). Even still I don't see how it isn't UNDUE to be mentioning, and how it isn't a partial violation of WP:BLPCAT and related community standards to be mentioning his religion ("not religious" is still a form of stating the subject's beliefs) without a preponderance of reliable sources also doing so. Can you explain why it needs to be there and how it isn't a violation of WP:BLPCAT to place a religious diaspora category/data on their page? I'll note this is all stemming from an OTRS ticket on a different BLP. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your willingness to discuss. I am not familiar with the OTRS ticket. Let me review your questions to be able give you an even more serious reply than I had in mind when reverting this, and I'll be back here soon. Debresser (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To give you even more backstory (note I can't go into the specifics of the ticket we got from an article subject)... we've also had several tickets this month from various people baffled as to why this is mentioned so much on so many different articles where as other people's religious/ethnic origins are rarely mentioned. I conferred with 3 4 other OTRS members about this (one an OTRS admin, the other two are English Wikipedia admins) and we came to a pretty clear consensus these descriptions were being over-used and needed to go unless they were clearly being covered that way by multiple reliable sources. So, do take that into account here as well here. I'm not just doing this of my own arbitrary volition. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee, Can you point me to where the discussion with OTRS agents took place? S Philbrick(Talk) 00:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) After a re-read of the source it is now clear that Brin's parent were both Jewish, as well as his wife's mother.

That makes both Jewish, by the way, obviously with Brin being the relevant person for the categories of this article.

Religion is not relevant to the question of being Jewish. There are Jewish atheists as well. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the background story. Interesting. Perhaps some sort of anti-Semitic campaign?

I think your (all three of you) conclusion is based on the mistaken notion that Jewish is a religious description, while our Jews page is clear that "Jews or Jewish people are an ethnoreligious group and a nation". You might want to take this back to the OTRS group, and discuss this some more, and perhaps even consider asking an expert opinion. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A good point (in regard to this particular source's statements about the parents), I must have missed that it said his parents were in my reading of that source somehow (I am capable of mistakes). However, as to whether religion is relevant or not: there is such a thing as being ethnically Jewish, but the current categories used point to "religious diaspora" as is expressly stated in the related categories like Russian-Jewish says in it's first paragraph. So my contention isn't that we can't categorize people as ethnically Jewish, it's that we don't currently have a specific enough category doing that in pretty much any listing right now (among basically all of the categories you just reintroduced this problem arises). Wouldn't it be a better idea to fork the categories properly before reintroducing them to BLPs? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) By the way, I might agree that the fact that people are Jewish is sometimes overly stressed, but usually this is done by sources. Somebody being Jewish is statistically speaking more interesting than being of let's say being of German descent or belonging to the Protestant faith. Debresser (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. The difference is between the categories and the articles. Will expound after looking into it, in a short while. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Further: basically using the categories as they stand runs into issues of WP:BLPCAT/WP:CAT/R/WP:LISTPEOPLE even when we'd be trying to use them properly until they only refer to ethnicity... I suggest categories like "people of Jewish ethnic descent". Thoughts? (I'll also note I have several times been conferring with another admin who I would consider an expert on the religion). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I get us wanting to properly list people's ethnic backgrounds, and even religious (when the latter is part of their notability)... I just want to make sure we're not enabling veiled anti-Semitism on our site by having such broad categories that encompass/confuse both religion and ethnicity (making them prone to being used as loopholes around the very strict requirements at WP:BLPCAT etc). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually, Category:American people of Russian-Jewish descent doesn't refer to Russian-Jewish. Which link is itself indeed a redirect to History of the Jews in Russia, but on the other hand even a cursory reading of that article will make it clear that it is by far not about a "religious" diaspora only. Moreover, the sentences "The history of the Jews in Russia and areas historically connected with it goes back at least 1,500 years. Jews in Russia have historically constituted a large religious diaspora.", when read carefully, don't actually say that the article is only about a religious diaspora. Debresser (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to boost my credentials here a bit, I have been actively involved with Jewish descent categories for quit some years, and there have been quit a few discussions there.

It is my opinion, and so far I have not seen other opinions, till now, that he word "descent" implies "ethnic descent". Surely "descent" does not imply "religious descent", as religion is not something that is considered to be hereditary, as opposed to ethnicity, which is per definition hereditary. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the continuation of this discussion can wait till tomorrow (23:44 PM here). Debresser (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I get that it isn't only a religious diaspora... the problem is that it also covers that while it can be used to describe ethnic origins and as such basing a category off the same type of grouping can run into some big issues (mostly the loophole I described above). Is there a good reason to not fork the categories to specify whether we're referring to ethnic or religious Jews? Wouldn't that entirely prevent the issue of potentially calling someone religiously Jewish when they aren't? As you brought up above there are certainly atheists who are of Jewish ethnic decent... and other religious affiliations as well... surely we wouldn't want to potentially label someone as religiously Jewish when they aren't? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your last point about descent, I would agree that it could indicate ethnic background, but I feel we aren't aiming specifically enough yet with it. As while you say there isn't such a thing as religious descent, there very much is religious descent in Judaism (for instance if I and my wife were to convert, not having any Jewish ethnicity ourselves... any children we would have after such a conversion would be considered now to be of Jewish religious descent even without any actual ethnic change between my wife and I [neither of us could be considered of Jewish descent regardless of the conversion]). If the entire descent category is being used to only refer to ethnic origins (first it would be good for the category to state that at the top of the category page) can't we simply make some category moves to "people of X Jewish ethnic descent" from the current "people of X Jewish descent"? Is there any good reason not to considering how contentious many of these labelings have been (especially considering the violent targeting that frequently occurs to these people)? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That would be a rather drastic step. Something that should be discussed, probably at WT:JUDAISM, with input from people at WP:CATEGRS. One practical problem being that till a few hundred years ago (varies per region) the two went hand in hand in almost all cases (with a few notable exceptions, e.g. Spinoza). Debresser (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your point regarding your Jewish children (lol) is not correct, as being accepted into the religion means being accepted into the nation, while the opposite, leaving the religion, does not mean leaving the nation. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think you or anyone else gets to decide whether someone considers themselves a part of a nation. If someone wants to leave Judaism I don't believe any policy allows you to tag them as still belonging to it, regardless of your personal beliefs or even "the nation's" beliefs. I don't believe a single policy on this site permits others to decide for them what they believe or what they want to be a part of. I would also warn you not begin your edit warring behavior again (how many times have you been blocked for that now?) by going back through my edits I see you already took upon yourself to do with an entirely unrelated article. I would point out to you this discussion has been made aware to my fellow admins working this serious issue, so do try and keep this professional and do not try and subvert policy with your beliefs. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong here. And let me explain this with another example. I hold dual citizenship. If I decide today that I don't want to be a citizen of The Netherlands any more, that simply won't work. There are papers to fill out to relinquish a citizenship. If I don't fill out those papers, I can give interviews in which I can state that I am not a Dutch citizen any more, and those statements of mine will not make the least difference, as long as the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not agree with me. The same is true about being part of the Jewish nation. If I were to decide that starting today I am not Jewish any more, that would simply not be true. I can decide not to be religious any more, but I can not decide not to be Jewish any more. Debresser (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please also take into account, that this is not just my point of view. This is simple logic. Your opinion as stated above is not the accepted point of view, not in academics and not on Wikipedia. My edits are based on more than 10 years of editing, including on many Judaism-related articles. As I said before, I really think that you and your colleagues at WP:OTRS should consider my arguments carefully.

If I am reverting your edits, so are you. It takes two to edit war. The fact that you are part of WP:OTRS and talked this over with some colleagues does not mean you are aware of all aspect of the real-world issue, nor does it mean you have consensus on Wikipedia. I say this with all due respect, but I really do think I am knowledgeable regarding this issue both in real life and on-site. Debresser (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the administrators Coffee is reffering to in this thread, I'll further note the tickets we got were not part of an "anti-Semitic" campaign and your framing them as such is ”not” appropriate. If anything, the mass additions of this description are actually enabling anti-Semitic behavior in the mainspace as it is singling out one type of people who happen to have been disproportionately targeted for their religious beliefs throughout modern history. These additions are in no way protecting or assiting Jewish people (or people who are not Jewish but who people [including yourself] seem to ”think/believe” are), they are adding potential issues of contentious information without proper sourcing (in violation of our very clear policies on this matter). The Jewish religion has complexities to it that other religions don't when dealing with anyone considered to be potentially a member of the ethnic/religious diaspora. As such it must be dealt with precision and proper cateogorization that does not confuse religion and ethnic backgrounds (otherwise it would be impossible to enforce WP:BLPCAT and WP:LISTPEOPLE to prevent mislableing of persons' beliefs). I have also noticed that Coffee previously blocked you for Arbitration enforcement violations (specifically edit warring). Combine this with the recent re-addition of a removed BLP vio and re-addition of a removed SYNTH violation that Coffee reverted, and it could reasonably be inferred that you have a conflict of interest in this matter. Please be aware that the BLP topic area is also covered under discretionary sanctions, and if you continue to insert violations back into articles you may end up subject to those to prevent disruption. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "frame" anything as an anti-Semitic campaign. I suggested the possibility. Or how do you understand my words "Perhaps ... ?"

Secondly, that re-addition was a mistake, which I fixed with apologies.

As a last point, I would like to say that I consider your post bullying. The following things are typical bully behavior: 1. Your implication that I might have a conflict of interest. Especially without providing any logical explanation for that implication. 2. If you are referring to Coffee's block, first of all I was not aware of that fact till you mentioned it, nor do I take these kind of things personally. Secondly it was not "recent" but two years ago. And lastly, the implication that this would influence my opinion or on-site behavior is a bad faith assumption, and not worthy. 3. Your mention of discretionary sanctions. 4. The fact that you ignore that this is a discussion, and there exists a possibility that things you talked about before should be reviewed in light of some of my very good remarks above, which I am sure warrant a certain amount of reconsidering the issue.

Please notice that Coffee has been honest enough to admit a mistake and acknowledge that my remarks gave him what to think about. I would advise you to do the same. Debresser (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, @TheSandDoctor: and perhaps @Coffee: too, how can you be sure those OTRS tickets are not part of some coordinated campaign, anti-Semitic or otherwise? Debresser (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this is being discussed on WP:ANI as well, and have added my opinion to that discussion. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, I enjoy this discussion (although I hope it will stay clear from personal allegations from now on), and will be delighted to continue it with you and possibly assist actively in resolving the issues you raised here. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, I feel like I'm late to the table, even though it appears this discussion is not yet 48 hours old. I am an OTRS agent (and OTRS admin). I have seen multiple OTRS tickets related to this issue in recent weeks, although I don't think I responded to any of them yet. The issue has been bouncing around in the back of my head, because I don't think anyone will disagree that it is complicated. I'm happy to see a robust discussion, but I'm particularly intrigued about references to a discussion among multiple OTRS agents. Can someone tell me where this is taken place, because I'd like to weigh in. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick, Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Coffee_removing_Categories_and_Lists_Inappropriately Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, thanks but I have seen the AN discussion. That's what led me to this page. Perhaps I'm mistaken but I got the impression the reference to a discussion among OTRS agents was somewhere else. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick, sorry, can't help then. Coffee has repeatedly said he has had discussions with OTRS members and they all agreed to remove this "contentious" information. Check his talk page for most recent discussion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick, please ask Coffee, as he mentioned an OTRS discussion in both of his first two posts in this section. Debresser (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary ⁽¹⁾ was pretty uncool; making OWN accusations doesn't do anything but make collaborative editing more difficult. So don't do that. And if you really feel the need to report me for OWN, I absolutely encourage you to do so. I don't think I am acting in that way, and I am fairly certain that others won't as well, but go ahead and give it a shot.
Please feel free to use the talk page instead of the edit summary to get your point across, because - and I speak from hard-won experience here - you aren't going to accomplish anything by trying to change anyone's mind via edit summary. Any information in an article can be challenged. When challenged, it isn't going to get resolved via edit-warring. Its going to get resolved by people working collaboratively to find a solution that works within our policies and guidelines.
I've initiated discussion on the talk page. Feel free to contribute and defend your edit, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so. :) Don't take it too hard, but I see you have taking it upon yourself to police this article, and that is a WP:OWN issue. In any case, let's start with a talkpage discussion. Debresser (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I prefer to address interpersonal issues in user talk, keeping any drahmah out of the 'workplace.' Yes, I am absolutely devoted to making sure this article - like any other article in Wikipedia - conforms to our policies, and I am a lion when it comes to synthesis; most editors don't even know that they are doing it (at times, I've even missed my own). The guiding principle is this: 'what is obvious to you is not so obvious to someone else.' If we don't get a chance to do so in article talk, have a nice and safe New Year's Eve. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to work alongside such conscientious editors as yourself. I am familiar with WP:SYNTH, although during my over 10 years here on Wikipedia I have found myself opposing those who thought they recognized it more than agreeing with them.

I am Jewish, so my New Year was September 29, but thank you, and the same to you. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then. A belated happy Rosh Hashanah to you, then. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I must insist that you work harder at not attacking me, please. There is not "just one editor" disagreeing with you; there are several, and even if it was just me, doesn't lessen the strength of the points I make. I understand that you are frustrated at my seeming resistance to your viewpoint, but consider that I have relented to not contest the creation of an Analysis section, an offer which might have gotten lost in the crush of posts.
Said section could be populated by info about beskar metal, the Child's connections to Yoda and the speculation by sources that the item seen at the very end of the season closer was the Darksaber. This seems like a more equitable solution where you get what yu want while still keeping our policies and guidelines unmolested. To my way reckoning, "This Is The Way" to proceed. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. On both accounts.

1. You are the only editor who is on a crusade against this, and you are not being too shabby about it yourself (a fact noticed by other editors as well, see e.g. [5]).
2. I have no problem with an analysis section. But a mention of the fact that the Darksaber notably was used in the last episode should be in the plot summary as well. Debresser (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, first you (incorrectly) suggest that I am "the only one" interested in keeping the information out, and then I am "on a crusade"; that is what I am taking about. When you attack the editor and not the edits, you absolutely set yourself up for civility concerns. You need to stop, or risk losing the AGF from those you attack.

As for the proposal, there is no way I am going to support any mention of the Darksaber in the plot summary; there is nothing to support it, except for reviewers spouting out their fangushy speculation. The Analysis section is the only way we maintain our policies while serving the same toxic fan rabble that caused actors to close off their social media. And yeah, I do compare that to the intransigence of certain editors in the discussion - most notably through their seeming inability to find common ground and recognize that you don't have to gut our policies - when offered an alternative to doing so.

Suggesting any mention of the Darksaber is a non-starter with me. The analysis section gives everyone what they want. I certainly hope folk recognize it, because I am certain that if this were to go to arbitration, it is the very best offer the Darksaber fans will get. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "arbitration"? You mean mediation, or Rfc?

By the way, you may disagree all you like. Edits are judged based on merit, not whether you agree with them or not. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and those edits that attack other users are - to be blunt - stupid, counter-productive and factually incorrect. Is that the sort of merit you are seeking? I did not come here to berate you, but to insist that you stop making attacks. If you stop, great. If not, then you just shed any good faith you would otherwise have. And trust me when i say that it sucks to walk into an article and have everyone assume you are a douchebag.

Lastly, when I say arbitration, I mean, every step up to an including ArbCom if necessary. Allowing this info to be added to a plot summary isn't just a slippery slope - its a toboggan ride off a cliff. This just isn't about adding a stupid item to a media article, and anyone who thinks different is wearing blinders. I hope that clarifies my position for you.

I think you are wrong. As far as Wikipedia policies and guidelines go, I so no problem. What worries me more, is that you are blowing this up way out of proportion and being far, far too involved in this. Debresser (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to interrupt anything. You have anything to help me out over at the Mandalorian talk page for the Darksaber? It's impossible to talk sense into these guys. Any help would be appreciated. --Bold Clone 19:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the discussion in the Talk:The_Mandalorian#Keeping_Star_Wars_lore_and_fancruft_out section, continued after an arbitrary break in the Talk:The_Mandalorian#Arbitary_break section, then yes, as you can see I have commented in both. I have no idea what your point of view is on the issue, but I have stated mine there very clearly. Is that what you had in mind? Debresser (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm afraid I don't know how to do that, otherwise I certainly would have done. Regards, Richard75 (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talkpage. Please also see the editnotice on the top of the page when editing my talkpage, that you could have replied on your talkpage. Debresser (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. Did that. Debresser (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask that you self-revert your comment wherein you suggested that I needed to "calm down". Its rude, unwarranted and suggests that I am not presenting a valid request calmly. A little more good faith would do a lot of good.
Beause I am presuming that you were unaware as to why I made the request, I will connect the dots. At least 5 different editors or varying levels of experience were willing to screw over the riles to add a bit of unsupported fancruft. It took weeks for us to find a solution, and I'd prefer to avoid that same sort of nonsense the next time a few contributors wander by and change the plot summary yet again. They aren't going to read a wall of text to follow the reasoning; having a summary explaining the issue and resolution would go a long way as a preventative measure. I am asking for different points of view as to the issue and resolution so as to combine them into the most neutral response for others.
You don't have to apologize for suggesting that I'm freaking out or whatever, but you should probably remove it anyway, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are an aggressive editor, and you really should be less dramatic. The only reason there is a compromise on that talkpage, is because you were pushing your incorrect point of view, and editors simply decided it is easier to make a compromise than explain to you that you are wrong. I for one hold that view. And now you think there is something was said in that discussion that is worth condensing and stressing in some special way? Even though three other editors have told you that they disagree with that. I see it happening all over again. I will remove my comment, only because you asked nicely, but you are really ruffing my feathers the wrong way, and I really think you should stop being so dramatic about non-issues. Debresser (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Debresser. Thank you for offering to work on this with me. I've copied the old style HTML into Template:Cite organization/sandbox/sandbox2, changing "Work" to "Organization", knowing I have to find a way to un-italicize it. I'm not sure if that's the right start, but I wanted to make a start and have you take a look at it. With much appreciation, --Tenebrae (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Debresser. I started to write an article on the Shivas Ha'amim but it was suddenly moved to Draft:Seven Nations (Bible) without giving me time to develop it. Could you help out? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IZAK. Long time no see. Nice to hear from you.  Done Debresser (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What if I find citations for eg. academic decription of Habad as "Intellectual Hasidism", which it clearly grew to become, eg with last Rebbe's Sichos?

• The very word Chabad means "The Intellect/Intellectual" Hasidism!!

Also with Breslav: Rabbi Nachman was the opposite pole from Chabad in Hasidism, fighting Medieval Jewish philosophy (unlike Chabad which quotes it extensively)- anti-rational, imaginative, poetic in all his works (eg "song comes from the birds"), especially his unique Wonder Tales April8 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Reb Dovid. I wanted to call your attention to a recent edit by a contributor who added some "esoteric views" (perhaps not fully understood by our readers) in the Wikipedia article Yetzer hara. Something doesn't feel right in the most-recent edit, and perhaps should be reverted, or else reworded. Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has just undone his edit, so everything now seems good.Davidbena (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In The Mandalorian, you have chosen to revert three times, and is very clearly edit-warring. Please stop. Likewise yoru reasoning, provided in the edit summaries, is insufficiently knowledgeable regarding edits to protect you should an edit-warring discussion become necessary:

1. "Your revert clearly contradicts the consensus, as wel las relevant policies and guidelines. Please stand down or risk sacntioning" - incorrect. In point of fact, the edit was a new one, and consensus is built from the discussion that ensures, as per WP:BRD. The status quo is maintained until a new consensus is clearly created that changes it.
2. "Tu quoque." - You kinds shot yourself in the foot with that one, buddy. Take it from someone who took both Hebrew and Latin all throughout his education; stick to English, you'll fare better.
3. "1. it is already clear what the consensus will be. 2. That was no status quo. That was a very recent poor compromise, that now finally will be abandoned" - Firstly, you are not a fortune teller, and your wish as to what consensus should be is likely different than what what will actually be. Secondly, I do believe you has severely misapprehended how consensus IS in fact almost always compromise. Your interpretation that it was a "poor" one appears to have been not borne out as it appears to have lasted a number of weeks before the SW uber-fans once again demanded their way.

So, if you choose not to believe me telling you that this is the way it is, you should feel free to ask around (make sure to get some admin input, as they tend to be a little bit above the fray, really). I hope you do, because you are often quite thoughtful in many of your other edits elsewhere.
Anyhoo, that bit about the third revert is just a heads up. Don't revert for a while, because you can still get blocked if you revert three times within 24 hours and make a fourth revert in the 25th. EW is seen in both numerical terms as well as intent. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me something I don't know. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That little indentation on your face beneath the nose and above your lips? That's called the filtrum. You're welcome. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually funny. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're perfectly right about Purim. I'm Jewish and active in my synagogue, and I should've recognized that myself. I'm not sure where I got that error from. Thank you for fixing it.

You evidently didn't read the part of my edit summary concerning "dystonia":

Etymology: Improved wording around "chol hamoed". Simplified link on "dystonia", in accordance with previous simplification of that article's title.

If you had clicked that link, you would have found that the article title is now simply Dystonia. Idiopathic torsion dystonia now redirects to Dystonia.

A mention of "IDF" without explanation anywhere in the article assumes without justification that every reader will be familiar with the abbreviation. I'm going to restore the full name, in parentheses after the initialism and linked to the article.

--Thnidu (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking once again for you to retract / delete / strike / template ({{RPA}}) your statement casting aspersions upon me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad at Texas A&M University based upon seeming fabrications. Thank you. StonyBrook (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is there. No need to come to my talkpage for this. Debresser (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NPA: "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you can leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Avoid responding on a talk page of an article, as this tends to escalate matters." But whatever. StonyBrook (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I told you what you can do, remove your offensive comment. As soon as you do that, I'll remove mine. So really no need to post here. Debresser (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work that way. It is fair game and not offensive to point out a fact that you have decided to post on your user page (for whatever reason) in connection with possible bias in a content dispute; if you never wanted this fact to come back and bother you, it is a bit too late now once you have shared it. You should be grateful for attempts to remind you to keep your editing neutral. It is offensive to lie by saying I told you once that I have a problem with Chabad (that conversation never happened) in order to use that as leverage to obfuscate my own position in the above dispute which is clearly policy based. But I have struck my comments. StonyBrook (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I always edit neutral. The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I am not neutral. :)

I am not "fair game", since Wikipedia is not a battlefield.

I'll go and strike mine, then. Debresser (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did you not strike, you continue to perpetuate the lie.[6] StonyBrook (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in the edit summary, since you didn't really strike anything, as in removing what you said before, just moderated your choice of words, I did the same. And please..., I would not knowingly lie. Debresser (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the difference between a knowing and unknowing lie, and/or prove your allegations. StonyBrook (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Please explain the difference between a knowing and unknowing lie" Really?

I am not interested in perusing our history to look for this.

Please do not post here any more. Debresser (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite know who you think you are, going around shouting at people, and leaving hostile messages on a talk pages without assuming good faith, but I would suggest that you stop it. A continuation of this type of bullying behaviour will only end badly for you. Thank you. Cassianto^Talk 09:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you may notice, the CAPSLOCK key was pressed per accident. In any case, your post here is waaaay out of line. Debresser (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you shouting, and after that, I noticed an overtly pointy message; so one is to assume that the two went hand in glove. If you say it was an "accident", then so be it, but you've only said this once it's been pointed out to you. Cassianto^Talk 14:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't notice me shouting. You erroneously thought I was shouting. Will from the fact that the first letter was in lowercase you should have understood that CAPSLOCK was on. Talk about a bad-faith assumption... Debresser (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add to that, that I only reminded that editor of the fact that he/she used a tool wrongly. I never assumed bad faith, but there does seem to be a competence issue, when an editor does this twice in the span of a few minutes. Debresser (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You did remind them, yes, and after they thanked you for fixing their mistake, you then went on to shout at them and ordered them "not to use the tool then". You do not get to tell someone not to use something that is accessible to everyone. There was no need for that second post. MarnetteD is someone who should be treated with respect as one of our best editors. You'd do well to keep them on side. Cassianto^Talk 14:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need anybody on my side. This is not a battle field... I never saw this editor before, as far as I remember, and the edits were bad edits, made by irresponsibly using a tool. So I told him/her so. No bad feelings, no bad faith. Then you come along, apparently a talkpage stalker, and post a rather insolent warning on my talkpage. Not going to get you far, sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You call someone insolent for presuming you were shouting because you made an error in keeping your Capslock on, but you throw accusations of incompetence because someone erred in something they did? Can you see how that looks staggering arrogant, Debresser? – SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally pressing your CAPSLOACK (in an edit summary) is one thing. Adding two incorrect titles (in an article) is another. That mistake could easily have been avoided by looking at the articles themselves, rather than relying on some tool. That is precisely why we are responsible for tool-made edits. Debresser (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]