Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

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]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating a topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Whatever. "If you believe this block is unjustified," I do. "please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing." and you'll understand that there is no chance an admin will admit they make unnecessary and biased blocks. Nothing personal. Debresser (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. In my recent AN to remove an IBAN, I was subjected to bad faith and then told that since it's working, no use in removing it. Yet somehow I don't think the same people would say the same for people in prison, otherwise we'd have full prisons all over the world considering they don't commit crimes. This place is not what it used to be and why I'm semi-retired and probably will go full retired if things continue on the same path of toxicity and stupidity. Just look at the AE about JzG, someone who should have been blocked several times by now but of course nothing will get done. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a lot to this project, over 10 years and over 100,000 edits. If some stupid, or biased, admin thinks that all of that should be thrown out of the window because of what he perceives as a minor problem, although I would disagree with calling my behavior problematic, especially when compared to certain other edits, then that is their problem, and this project's net loss. I have a life, and am not interested in fighting such shortsighted bureaucrats, nor do I think that it is feasible. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shem HaMephorash has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 00:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarabnas Is this still relevant, or was the August 8 deadline absolute? Debresser (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's still relevant if you haven't yet filled it out and would like to! Thanks :) Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 16:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Debresser. The discussion is about the topic COVID-19 pandemic in Israel. Thank you. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Debresser, could you look at the proposed changes in Maimonides and give your feedback? Thanks!155.246.151.38 (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Unexplained removal". I did explain it, on the talk page. It is not at all clear that the section on the Thirteen Principles is not found in the Mishneh Torah (I pointed out the place it is found), therefore the section shouldn't present that as uncontested fact. It is better to state the matter as it is stated in the main article discussing the Thirteen Principles, which is what I changed it to - copying the quote from there, and that is more correct. MikeR613 (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I now see that you must be referring to a discussion in the middle of the talkpage Talk:Maimonides#"Missing"_13_Principles_of_Faith. Will look at it and will reply there. Debresser (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I replied there too. MikeR613 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Debresser, Thanks for looking over content in Maimonides! Can you look over recent discussion on Haredi divorce?155.246.151.38 (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Debresser, it seems that Hipocrite may be a sock of Orchomen. However, as an IP it is difficult to file a SPI. Could you do it? Thanks!155.246.151.38 (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some diffs which show how Hipocrite only edited a page after Pipsally, the sock of Orchomen already commented. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1037319040

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One_of_Us_(2017_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1037264488 155.246.151.38 (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't waste your time Debresser, it's not me. I think you should be very careful asking for SPIs though 155... Boomerang!2001:8F8:1F27:3360:2:1:6BF9:6CDA (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not my cup of cake. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, since Hipocrite has 22,000+ edits [1] the likelihood of them being a sockpuppet is exceedingly low. Very much not worth your time.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True as well. Debresser (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Debresser, if you know any media outlets or reporters can you please bring their attention to the RSN? Some of these responses [2] [3] are not okay. If the only way to deal with this is through media attention, then so be it. All the best! pinging IZAK because page protection.155.246.151.38 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not interested. Debresser (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how are you? hope you are well, can you review this article User:Jame wills jame/sandbox and if it's ok can you move it to mainspace thanks a lot !

Reviewed, in short. Please see my edit and the edit summary. Feel free to write me here again afterwards. BTW, why did you choose to ask me to review this article. Debresser (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is globally banned; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/علي_أبو_عمر. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: I see. What would that mean for the draft, which, frankly I was considering to move to mainspace after a few improvements? Debresser (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted and salted per a recent AfD. The user is an abusive WP:LTA and shouldn't be encouraged in any way. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That discussion was indeed only a month ago. I also noticed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/علي_أبو_عمر/Archive. A shame, because I though the article was coming along nicely. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

are you a moderator ?

if so can you please look over the article Joint Artificial Intelligence Center

"The Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) (pronounced "jake")[1] is an American organization on exploring the usage of Artificial Intelligence (AI) (particularly Edge computing), Network of Networks and AI-enhanced communication for use in actual combat.[2][3][4][5]"

Not really, no. I am more or less not interested in editing any more. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After some advice vis-a-vis the Oolite wiki. See your User: talk page there. Cholmondeley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.98.212 (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles needing POV-check has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Debresser (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

מה נשמע? יש עכשיו מיזם חדש של חב"דפדיה (האנציקלופדיה החב"דית הוירטואלית היחידה ברשת) ואנחנו נשמח אם תעזור בתרגם ערכים מעברית לאנגלית, האם תוכל לעזור לנו בזה? אשמח לתשובה! יחי המלך. (מפעיל מערכת בחב"דפדיה) שטעטל (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

אני לא כל כך פעיל יותר, ויש לי מה לעשות בחיים, כך שלא נראה לי שיש לי פאי לעזור במיוחד. אתך הסליחה.

The reason that the S01 mention was made in a section heading—others have begun adding S02 content in the sections immediately above. The added S01 purpose, then, was twofold: (i) a "lane change" sort of signal to readers that we were back in S01, even though S02 was being discussed last, and (ii) to set the stage for others to create a separate section (or section with S01 and S02 subsections), when that same sort of S02 content begins to appear. Yes, with regard to the second aim, the appearance is yet premature. But with regard to the first (and the eventual utility of the second), having it there now may be advisable. 98.253.16.20 (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was indeed premature. Also, reception sections usually don't have different section for different seasons. Not that it would be a problem, but it usually doesn't happen. Most sections don't differentiate between the various seasons, actually, with the obvious exception of the episodes section. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I apologize in advance if I'm mistaken, but I have the impression that you are an Orthodox Jewish editor. Could you please take a look at this discussion regarding Rabbi Feinstein's opinion on the standard prayer for the state of Israel? I'm almost sure that, even if the rabbi himself prefered not to say it, he certanly gave his permission for those who wish to do so. I'm open to being proven wrong, of course. Thanks in advance.--Pauleredge (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haveמ't seen any sources that mention this. The article you mentioned just makes the claim, but does not give a source at all. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rabbinic timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boca Juniors squad/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Debresser, I nominated Levantine Article for FAC. As you contributed to Levant in the past and given your knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, I thought you could be interested in reviewing this nomination. Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Levantine Arabic/archive1. I agree with you that I also felt the situation was a bit unfair... But anyway, some people eventually reviewed the article, even for such an "esoteric" subject ;) (If you also have some time to read through the article, even if only quickly, and provide some comments, it would be awesome.) Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Debresser and User:Dibol reported by User:DocWatson42 (Result: ). EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This notice was removed since that specific report was malformed and declined. However, a Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dibol_reported_by_User:PAVLOV_(Result:_Blocked_for_6_months_) subsequent report was opened, and the other editor blocked for half a year. Debresser (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also agree with Necrothesp and disagree with the community regarding The Godfather, The Office, and The Big Bang Theory? You believe each of these should be disambiguated too? Just trying to understand your perspective. —В²C ☎ 13:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should take it easy and allow people to disagree with you without trying to convince them again and again or asking about all kind of other issues (even related ones). This is becoming a bother. Debresser (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice dodge. —В²C ☎ 20:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I prove this, exactly? She says it in Episode 7 of Season 1, "He Said, She Said". I can find several sources that call it sexual assault-is that good enough?Mcc1789 (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article already calls it attempted rape. I'd say that that is even clearer. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your work on Barnard 68. It’s a short, but informative article, and a pleasure to read. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Are you sure you meant to give this barnstar to me? Debresser (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am quite sure. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see now. That was 2009. Debresser (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better late, than never! Thanks for your good work. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Kat said her father was Cree and her mother white, so neither is Métis, just her. Since that means people of mixed European and Indigenous descent, she's not half Métis but full. Or did I remember that wrong?Mcc1789 (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 4 00:15:52,279 --> 00:15:53,410 I am Metis. 00:15:55,114 --> 00:15:57,030 Raised by my Cree father. 00:15:57,303 --> 00:15:59,178 My good Christian mother,

So yes, you're right. My bad. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eiffel (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bolt. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: note that option 3d is proposing to allow sockmasters to have multiple votes. isaacl (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have written (Special:Diff/1111201803) "Then you will see that there is only one stranger mentioned in the summary of the previous episode." Actually in episode 1 there is "[...] discover a strange man inside a meteor crater.". "Strange" is not "stranger". Meridiana solare (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, that is not a big difference, and it is that strange man the word "stranger" refers to, obviously. Was that so hard to understand? Debresser (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. I'm sure you are right [I know you are right, I've just checked] but I've got the widget that colours dubious sources and Chabad is shown as "generally unreliable". I'll try to find out where it gets its information from. I thought it was RA/PS but evidently not. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The widget is User:Headbomb/unreliable but maybe I failed the sanity checks test. The article has rather too many external links and I saw an obvious candidate to reduce the list by one. It still does but I'll leave it to others to do a WP:ELNO evaluation henceforth. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad is listed at Wikipedia:New_page_patrol_source_guide which is one of the sources for the script. It notes the RFC where it was discussed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that Rfc was not closed. Secondly, it was a rather limited discussion. Thirdly, and mainly, it was not visited by even one Chabad editor, who could give some counterweight to some of the claims there. That makes any conclusion of that discussion lopsided. Frankly, I see two editors whose opinions are IMHO clearly a reflection of their biases, rather than fact. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dovid, since you're an active Wikipedian and you've talked about the genetics section of the Ashkenazi Jews entry in the past, I wonder if you would like to weigh in on the current "Request new section to discuss Brook 2022 and later studies that confirm or disconfirm it" (related to genetic evidence) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry#Request_new_section_to_discuss_Brook_2022_and_later_studies_that_confirm_or_disconfirm_it which relates to multiple currently undiscussed peer-reviewed sources that could be summarized in some manner on the page Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, which has restricted-access for editing. Only three longtime Wikipedia editors have responded with their opinions thus far. 2600:1000:B12B:4B91:AC07:3BE4:2814:D456 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do remember that there were significant POV concerns with this subject. But I won't be the fourth, since this is not a subject that I am overly interested in. Debresser (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you're an experienced user, so I'm sure you know that it's not OK to call editors dicks in edit summaries. It's also OK to remove unsourced statements. Just restore it with a source as you did. Thanks Andre🚐 05:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely okay to call other editors dick when they are indeed dicks. Editors have been called worse without impunity. I would say, if an editor doesn't want to be called a dick, they shouldn't edit like a dick. For me, an editor who removes information that can easily be sourced claiming the lack of a source as their reason - is a dick. I hope I have not offended you. Debresser (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are offending me by calling me a dick. I didn't know the source for the information and you can easily provide the source. If someone adds something without a source it may be reverted. Andre🚐 00:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you need to do absolutely everything that you are allowed to? You could have add a {{Citation needed}} tag, for example. You could have looked for a WikiProject or editor to help out with finding a source. That would have been better. But please don't be offended. Debresser (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in my limited time editing wiki, I have found too many dicks deleting as unsourced, where they could add citation needed. Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Articles with disproportional geographic scope progress has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you trying to find a solution to this but adding unsourced details to the article isn't ideal. The lead should summarise what's in the article body, and the series article does not discuss the audience response. I am open to including a section on the audience response at the series article, but it needs to be an accurate and well-sourced summary of the season article's section. That is going to be difficult due to how complex and controversial the audience response has been. My preference would actually be to have some sort of note in the series article's reception section pointing readers to the season article where they can get full details on the audience response. I'm not sure if there is any precedent for that sort of thing that we could follow. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: I agree with your words. In my opinion the audience response should be in the series article as well. Then, the short sentence (which I copied from the season article), would be summarizing the article.

Moreover, I would move a lot of stuff from the season article to the series article. In my experience and opinion, the season article is not often necessary, but if it exists, it should be specific to the season, while the audience response is mostly connected to the series as a whole (which at the present happens to be only one season, but that is incidental).

What I think is not right, is the previous situation, where there was no mention of the audience response. That is leaving out important information, and gives the impression of somebody censoring the article. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The season information definitely should not be all duplicated on the series article. The audience response we are talking about is for the first season only, we currently do not know how the second season will be received. Our options are to only mention the audience response on the season article, or include a brief summary of it at the series article as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The later, obviously, at this stage. Debresser (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Debresser. Pleased to meet you.

In the film there are also Andrea Scarduzio and Salvatore Ruocco, why are you removing them from me? Cinefilm (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are referring to The Equalizer 3.

Please review MOS:FILMCAST, especially where it says "blue links". That is why in my edit summaries I wrote "Remove redlinked." Debresser (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Debresser, based on your extensive interest in all things Jewish, would you please take a look at the draft of an article for Rabbi Yehoshua Fass, the founder of Nefesh B'Nefesh, I posted in my userspace? Following the 2021 discussion resulting in a redirect, I updated the draft for the Wiki community to consider for an independent article.

I would also appreciate your consideration of my edit request for the Nefesh B'Nefesh page. Thank you very much! LA for NBN (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you coming to my talkpage, however I am not very active lately on Wikipedia and have a lot of real-life obligations taking up most of my time. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, that needs to be lifted for you to edit in the ARBPIA topic area. Which this is in. nableezy - 19:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't thought of that. In any case, a technical edit, of no import. Debresser (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this? nableezy - 12:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A minor talkpage discussion. Come on guys, this is so old news. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was four days ago, and you are banned from talk page discussions on the topic. You can either appeal your topic ban or you can respect it or you can be reported the next time. Im removing the ban violation per WP:BANREVERT. nableezy - 16:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the ban itself when I said "old news". These things should expire after a year or so, let alone a few years. Remove whatever you want, just check if there is no interaction ban against it. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what indefinite means, but I dont have an interaction ban with anybody. nableezy - 16:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to see you support the lifting of my topic ban. Much water has flowed in the Jarden river ever since, as the Israeli saying goes, and I feel it is about time to lift this restriction, that is not - nor was it ever - in the best interest of this project. Debresser (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand was just indeffed for edits like this. Either appeal your ban or abide by it, but you keep pushing this like this its gonna end with an indef. nableezy - 18:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The system is flawed. I see nothing wrong with this edit. An innocent edit to an article that I read out of personal interest. I see that you understand me. I do refrain from more serious edits, because of the ban. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either appeal your ban or abide by it. But this is yet another violation. nableezy - 21:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page simply is of personal interest to me. I noticed a missing "i" and made the edit. You see perfectly well that I do not make other edits, although there have been plenty of times I wanted to do so. I think you could say "thank you", or simply let this go. No personal vendettas, please, even if your correct. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no personal vendetta or i would have reported you. but you cannot keep disregarding your ban because you feel like it. nableezy - 20:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make the following proposal: if I make an edit that you think is not neutral, I promise to revert it. Not that I plan to make any edits in to IP-conflict area that are so extensive that they can be not neutral, but just in case. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That isn’t how topic bans work, they apply to all edits, good or bad irrespective of what I think of them. Appeal the ban or abide by it. nableezy - 17:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appeal the topic ban, which is old and IMHO should have expired after a year or so, but they want you to grovel through the mud, which I am simply not going to do. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re [4], "5% newer based on a chronological epoch set by a different religion" isn't a strong claim? :) DMacks (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand these words: "5% newer based on a chronological epoch set by a different religion". Please explain. Debresser (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lame math joke? 21 vs 20 is 5% more. DMacks (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban on the page Israel–Hamas war, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 3 months Wikipedia. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Enforcement an initial block should be one month, not three months. And that one month has passed. I would like to add that the edits I made ([5], [6]) that I was blocked for, were uncontroversial linguistic improvements, and I never had the intention of making any controversial edits, and I think that should be a mitigating factor as well. Debresser (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined. You are falsely claiming this was your initial block. It wasn't. Your block log shows a one month block on 2021-05-22 for this topic ban violation. Additionally, there's a two week block on 2021-03-16 which may be for the same thing. In fact, there's a whole raft of blocks for edit warring and for tban violations. If I'm reading it correctly, your current 3 month block would arguably be much too short. You are free to make a new request that addresses these points and another admin will review it. I warn you, though, that any such review would include the real possibility of extending your block. Yamla (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2024 (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.

Okay, whatever. Thanks anyway.

The claim that this was my first block was made in good faith. I don't remember a block from 3 years ago. Frankly, I have a hard time to consider it even relevant after so much time, and I think it is not a good thing to keep bringing up old history. People move on in life, and this unforgiving and bureaucratic attitude by Wikipedia admins is not doing anybody a service, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Lufthansa article fix the sentence "It also maintains a secondary hub is at Munich Airport". Debresser (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is partially incorrect in that films can be fiction or non-fiction, so the article should be in both the fiction and the film category. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Japanese tea utensils from the "See also" list at Japanese tea ceremony, as it is already linked in the article proper. Debresser (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the capital from Diatoms in the lead section of Endosymbiont. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change to straight parenthese after this edit. Debresser (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit mixed up the order of Short description and Hatnote. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"On her way back to New London, Indra chases Mustafa and attempts to kill her by flooding the underground tunnel." in Brave New World (TV series), is incorrect. Indra doesn't chase her. Debresser (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC) "the answer to keeping humans happy forever is...suicide." No dots are needed there. Debresser (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"There are more than 100 Kurc descendants today." in We Were the Lucky Ones. I seem to remember it said "close to 100". Debresser (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Yes, the text reads "Todays, direct descendants of Sol and Nechuma Kurc number nearly 100." Debresser (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add "The Down Deep" to Catherine_Asaro_bibliography#Major_Bhaajan_series, coming out July 2, 2024. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is some overlinking at Katyn_massacre#2010_70th_Anniversary_of_the_Katyn_massacre_Polish_Air_Force_101_crash and superfluous See also links. Debresser (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Note that there is not a" in National_conventions_for_writing_telephone_numbers#Netherlands should be "Note that there is no". Debresser (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

with over 741M minutes viewed compared to others is not clear. Either is has 741M minutes, or it hasn't; comparison with other films is not relevant to that question. Debresser (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need to restore this information, which was removed without indication of reason and likely out of misplaced spoiler considerations. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need to add a space at Tokyo Vice (TV series) between "However,Akira". Debresser (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is St Brice's Day massacre without a dot after "St"? See also redirects. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove dot from list at disambiguation page Spiritualism. Debresser (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Likewise remove "Spiritualism (religious movement)" from the See also list at Spiritualism (philosophy), since it is included in the hatnote. Also change hatnote to Spiritualism, instead of the redirect Spiritualism (disambiguation). Debresser (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a bad edit, because {{FPER}} is itself also a redirect. Debresser (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What was Yuliia Osmak disqualified for? Debresser (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improve the link to "President Park's assassination" on 12.12: The Day by making it President Park's assassination. Debresser (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check this edit. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not logical to have that one example in the lead of List of megatall skyscrapers. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At Dmitri Alperovitch remove capital from "Geopolitics", add period between it and the reference, and merge related paragraphs in Books section. Debresser (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider the pipe in this edit. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the comment in the See also section at Microcephaly. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link "Circadian" to Circadian rhythm in Time perception. Debresser (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Replace ''The strength model'' of time memory. This posits a ''memory trace'' that persists over time, by which one might judge the age of a memory (and therefore how long ago the event remembered occurred) from the strength of the trace. This conflicts with the fact that memories of recent events may fade more quickly than more distant memories. by ''The strength model'' of time memory. This model posits a ''memory trace'' that persists over time, by which from the strength of the trace one might judge the age of a memory (and therefore how long ago the event remembered occurred). This models is not consistent with the fact that memories of recent events may fade more quickly than more distant memories. Debresser (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) "His model separated explicit timing and implicit timing." change to use "distinguished". Debresser (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Only the first paragraph of the Time_perception#Philosophical_perspectives section should be there, while the others should be in a separate section with name to be determined. Debresser (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Remove second link to "psychology". Debresser (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Time perception should be added to Template:Time. Fix sentence "Past work show". Debresser (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Remove "Time" from the see also section there, as it is already linked in the article. Debresser (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improve see alsos and external links at Vierordt's law. Debresser (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add "The Down Deep" to Catherine Asaro bibliography. Debresser (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mull of Kintyre claims that Paul McCartney was a "Kintyre resident", but the Paul McCartney article does not mention that. Use "Kintyre was McCartney’s place of escapism, it helped save him following the devastating split of The Beatles" from Joe Taysom (11 November 2020). "The Story Behind The Song: Paul McCartney track 'Mull of Kintyre', a love letter to Scotland". Far Out Magazine.. Debresser (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC) "Paul McCartney purchased High Park Farm, near the Mull of Kintyre in Scotland, on 17 June 1966." not from best source. Debresser (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Near side of the Moon from the See also section of Far side of the Moon, since it also linked in the article proper. Debresser (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC) This text should be restored. Note that the editor restored all the other text as well. Debresser (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore this text that was removed out of spoiler considerations, which we on Wikipedia do not accept. Debresser (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

revert This edit, which ignores WP:HEBREW and uses strange notation. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There probably should be a dash in non-Jew.[7] Debresser (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the incomplete sentence "sign a 10-year" at Timeline_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_(1_April_2024_–_present)#13_June. Debresser (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do something about "Misaki decides to end it with Jake" in this edit. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert this edit which contradicts the source. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undo edits here. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Likewise undo two parts in this user's edits here, nl. about this same subject and changing "Behab" incorrectly to "Behav", as well as move Fast of Behav as per source. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undo this edit. Debresser (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the plot section of The Vanishing of Sidney Hall replace "passes away" by "died" per WP:EUPHEMISM. Debresser (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Jewish categories to Kaia Gerber. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undo part of this edit, where punctuation was put inside parenthesis against Wikipedia guidelines. Debresser (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is annoying. Debresser (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the ampersands in Dark Matter (2024 TV series) by normal "and". Debresser (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was not an improvement. Debresser (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These tags are nevertheless correct, with or without a talkpage discussion. Debresser (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Also wrong is this spelling.[8] Debresser (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"assumed to be" should be "assumed to become" in [[9]]. Debresser (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just some small fixes to this edit: Aramaic language and HaSiddur HaShalem without dash. Debresser (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit just seems wrong to me. Check. Debresser (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert mistaken edit. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undo pointy edit. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at Template talk:Context inline that this template doesn't have a "reason" parameter, as explained on the documentation of Template talk:Context, and copy the explanation from there to the documentation here. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC) So this edit should be reverted. Debresser (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Context inline}} and {{Context}} serve different purposes and the rationale is therefore not transferable. {{Context}}, like other templates for the tops of sections or articles, uses details to display the information in plain text to the reader.

So {{Context |details="This sentence is the result of the details parameter" |reason=This will show nothing.}} results in the following:

This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. Please help improve the article by providing more context for the reader, especially: "This sentence is the result of the details parameter". (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Whereas {{Context inline}} is an inline maintenance tag, and like other inline tags (Template:Additional citation needed, Template:Better source needed, Template:Specify, etc.), it uses reason exclusively to display an HTML title for context on hover. {{Context inline|reason=Like other inline tags, this will display as a custom tooltip on hover.}} displays the following: ^{[needs context]} – Primium (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the explanation. You're right. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! – Primium (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.w^{L<speak·check>} 05:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is now closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: I am intrigued, why this semi-retired erstwhile admin suddenly came up with such a proposal. I checked, and we have no common history on any page on the English Wikipedia. Nor does he have a history of making such proposals. In addition, my previous block was more than 3 years old, so his suggestion seems grossly out of place. Please ask WikiLeon (talk · contribs), if perhaps he was contacted with the suggestion to make his proposal. In any case, I would like to know how I ended up on his radar, and why he suddenly came up with that proposal. This is a bit too random to be a coincidence. If preferable, you could reopen the discussion at WP:ANI and add my request there. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiLeon I believe the above is a reasonable question. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was browsing around the list of current Template editors to find this user crossed out on the list (indicating they were blocked). Out of curiosity as to why someone with these rights are blocked, I find their block log of over eight blocks (not counting unblocks) and asked "Why would someone be blocked over half a dozen times and be WP:HERE"? ArbCom and the admins already have enough trouble, why is this established editor trying to cause more? This is spitting in the face of ArbCom and the community, what does everybody else think? It seems WP:ANI thinks it's more trouble than what it's worth, and that I failed to WP:AGF. It wasn't until now I realize the context of the blocks, topics I have no interest in. I accept their decision as resolved and would rather not do something like this ever again. --w^{L<speak·check>} 15:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reply here. I was pretty fluent in template, before LUA came along and many templates were made into modules. Solved many template errors.

I have been an editor for 15 years, including in a highly contentious area (up until my topic ban a few years ago), so a few blocks were to be expected. In general, I think being a good editor is not about avoiding conflict, but about making good edits. Where people work, chips fall.

Till my topic ban, I was very active, making many improvements to many articles, often technical edits. I became disappointed by the bureaucratic attitude I was shown in the discussion leading to my ban, in which admin showed that rules are more important to them than actually improving this project, and since then I only make the occasional edit. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday! Hi Debresser! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tricky one isn't it? Especially when there are wrongful executions. What are your thoughts on that? Rolando 1208 (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]