User talk:Debresser

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 am happily busy with my beloved wife, Miriam. Add daughter: Channa. And son: Aharon. Add daughter: Sheina Chava And Rivkah.

Can you help identify these favicons?

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)

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}

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

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

Special characters

{{helpme}} 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)

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

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

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

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

TUSC token: 2214f14d9938ca34406a77c7801e2c4e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Didn't work the first time. Sigh... Debresser (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This tool, http://toolserver.org/~magnus/flickr2commons.php, sucks! At the moment, at least. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Favicon #18 and #19

http://www.quantummuse.com https://advertise.baltimoresun.com/portal/page/portal/Baltimore%20Sun/FAQ Zero^talk 05:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I am so grateful! 08:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I doubt I ever saw that second link. It must be that the favicon was previously used on more baltimoresun pages. Debresser (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. You can find several more. Go to http://images.google.com and click on the little camera at the end of the search box. Enter the URL of one of your favicon's and it will search for similar images. I think most of them will give some hit, though you can't be sure it is the original page using the favicon. I believe Bing also has a type of search that looks for similar images. Zero^talk 09:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I have tried that, and even found one or two, but the ones that are left I couldn't solve in this way. Maybe I'll try it again, since it is about two years since I last tried that. Thanks for the idea. Debresser (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

They must have improved it, since that is how I found those two. And I only tried 3 of them. Zero^talk 10:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I used the tool today, and found a few more. Thanks to you the number of 'orphans' is down to 11. That is the largest change I have ever had in one day. And one more icons was also found by the tool, just that I couldn't reproduce it. Debresser (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Nahum the Mede

Your heavy-handed reverting does you no credit. Twice you've reverted my edits to restore factually incorrect material that mischaracterises what the cited source says. In fact, to say almost the opposite of what the cited source says. Could you please actually read the source and stop behaving in a WP:OWN manner? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Your WP:OWN accusation is not appreciated, and should not be used to defend yourself against my reverts of your bad edits.

Your accusation that I have not read the source is also a bad faith accusation, and not only does not do you credit, but is against a Wikipedia guideline. It is untrue as well, and was, frankly speaking, pretty stupid, in view of the fact that my latest edit summary indicates that I had in fact read the source beforehand.

If you want to discuss the issue, neutrally, without personal attacks, on the talkpage of the article, please do so. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm out of line. I apologise and I'd be happy to blank this. I'll post again at the article talk. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I think I'll just drop this. Happy to leave it with you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Johnbod

Please stop with your patronising comments. They help nobody. Cassianto^Talk 06:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I rephrased it. Still, it is the truth. If an editor makes lame reverts, they get templated like a newbie. Debresser (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No they don't. You're being a dick and you need to stop. I see you're now being disruptive by trying to edit war. It's not worth the effort to revert you again so I'll let John decide if he wants to keep it on there. Cassianto^Talk 07:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I am the one trying to edit war?!

You call me "a dick" and revert my edit where I said another editor behaves lie a newbie. That is large! :) Please don't complain if you get templated as well. You deserve it. Debresser (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You're clearly a troublesome editor with a deficiency in social skills. Because of that, I suggest you go and be troublesome somewhere else on your own rather than troll my talk page or others. I don't have anything further to say to you. Cassianto^Talk 08:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It is you, who decided to comment on my post on somebody else's talkpage, and then on my talkpage with obscenities. I think the problematic editor, in all respects, is you. Goodbye. Debresser (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Ayal

Take a look at this edit and at Kohen Gadol. I can't figure out where the editor is coming from. Doug Weller talk 20:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Doug Weller, I'm not sure if Debresser will be back until next week (after Passover). But for what it's worth, it seems pretty clear to me that the user at hand has some kind of eschatological agenda, at least part of which trickles over into WP:FRINGE. Moreover, he added an UNSOURCED fact about an otherwise unknown (not NOTABLE) individual who is apparently living (BLP violation). So I think you were well-justified in reverting at Davidic line. And as you well know, the individual's talk page is already loaded with warnings. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I am here. I cleaned my computer for Pesach. :) Debresser (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

LOL. Moed tov. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

No, really. :) You too "a gut moyed", in Yiddish, or "mo'adim lesimcha", if you prefer Hebrew. Debresser (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for a second set of eyes on something

Hi, Dovid. This can certainly wait until after yom tov, but I'd appreciate it if you'd have a look at something I've recently put together. I've never been happy with International Date Line#Judaism. It is written as if R' Heinemann's opinion is the beginning and end of the discussion (POV), and it additionally has always felt incomplete. So I cooked up something which you can see at User:StevenJ81/sandbox#International date line in halacha. I'd appreciate your advice/input/etc. (Even if you look Thursday, I'm going to sleep on it until after yom tov, so as I said before, don't feel in a hurry. Thanks, gut moed, gut yom tov. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. We write halakha with a "k" on Wikipedia. I would remove the section about keeping seven days, since that pertains only to one who does not know at all when Shabbat is. Why do you call the Star-k traveler's guide the "majority opinion"? Wouldn't do that, just attribute, and that's it. I would mention the rabbi after the organization, like "The Star-k traveler's guide, compiled according to the rulings of rabbi etc., " Debresser (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Responses to that:

1. "The section about keeping seven days ... pertains only to one who does not know at all when Shabbat is." That's actually the point here. Notionally we refer to someone in a desert or aboard ship who really doesn't know what day it is halakhically (got that spelling bit). And then there are separate rules if s/he has been ticking off days (so knows when last Shabbos was by his/her count) or not (so doesn't). In the current case, the person knows what the secular date is. So, therefore, as long as the person is somewhere other than between 177E and 169W, let's say, s/he knows the correct halakhic date. But if one is between 177E and 169W, one may not really know the correct halakhic date, even if one knows the secular date. So it's all very nice for Rabbi Heber of Star-K to say that you have to keep a 49-hour Shabbat in that zone. But the reality is that in this case we precisely have someone who does not know the halachic date, and should therefore keep Shabbat by his/her own count from previous Shabbat.
   Interestingly enough—though I didn't quite get to this level of detail—if you follow Rav Heinemann, then this approach ("counting days") only applies within that band of longitude, because everywhere else you can get a firm majority opinion to apply. If you follow Rav Kasher, you might apply this ruling (theoretically) almost anywhere there is not an established community, depending on how you got there...though I'd imagine in practice that you would only apply it in the same 177E-169W zone, or at most the 125W-144E zone. As it happens, Rav Kasher proposed establishing the IDL as the halakhic date line, but refused to do it in the absence of a ruling from the "central beit din of Israel", whatever he meant by that. But it doesn't appear that he was willing to go quite that far in the absence of approbation of that sort. So in practice that means falling back to counting days where you can't resolve your uncertainty.
2. I wasn't describing Star-K as the majority opinion. I was describing its methodology as ruling in each case according to majority opinion ("rov") amongst the three general opinions (Chazon Ish, mid-Pacific, Rav Tucazinsky). So I'll clarify that going forward.

As for the rest, your points are well-taken, and I'll incorporate after yom tov. Gut yom tov and gut shabbos. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a short reply before Yom Tov. Seven days is only for one who doesn't know at all when Shabbat is. Somebody who knows it is either this day or the second, will keep only two days, which is basically what is described in what you called the majority opinion. Again, this means there is no need to mention about seven days. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Try now. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I see you worked my comments into the text. I still don't like "Establishment of a date line by majority halakhic opinion", because it is not that there is a majority; it is that a majority of opinions happen to agree practically in certain cases/locations/scenarios. Perhaps rename it to something like "Based on coinciding opinions". It has to be long enough to be truthful, and concise enough to be clear. Debresser (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the reason I wrote it this way is because that's actually how the Star-K sees it. In their view, they see three valid opinions among אחרונים, and are not prepared to choose one as decisive against the other two. They accept that all three are valid, and as in other cases where there is a מחלוקת אחרונים, they follow the opinion that is the majority among those three opinions. [They don't accept Rav Kasher's opinion (i.e., that there is no date line at all) which they write off as a "minority" opinion.] Because one of the "three" opinions—the mid-Pacific position—actually breaks into multiple positions when you zoom in close, they feel there is no working majority in that zone (the 177E-169W zone).

Look, in truth, I'm not sure you're entirely wrong. I think they find the Chazon Ish the most compelling position, in part because it is based on the Baal HaMeor and the Kuzari; at the same time, they needed to find a way to justify the actual practice in Japan and New Zealand that Shabbat is Saturday, not Sunday. (And in any event the Chazon Ish himself needed to stretch a point to keep Sydney and Melbourne west of his line.) But the way the Star-K states their view is that they are ruling according to the majority among those three positions.

So I'll tell you what. I'll title that part Establishment of a date line by majority among three halakhic opinions. That's an accurate description, and doesn't imply in any way that it's a majority among "all" opinions (whatever that means) or that any other opinion (like Rav Kasher's, which is actually the one I follow personally) is less valid or a "minority" opinion (though Rabbi Heber of Star-K describes it so).

As always, thanks for your help. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Debresser (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Why do you remove text?

[1] - why not tag instead? This conduct is terrible. Chesdovi (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not conduct, see WP:NPA.

Removing unsourced claims, especially when they are not self-evident, or even to the contrary, is not terrible conduct on Wikipedia, Chesdovi. Don't bullshit me on my talkpage! Debresser (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Would it help if you're both wrong? Chesdovi, your behavior is not acceptable, you do need to tone it down. Debresser, it's very common knowledge similar to the sky being blue that in Europe the dress was more colorful and Chofetz Chaim indeed still does colored shirts and feathers, etc. Not only that, the reason why the Chevron Yeshiva was sent to Chevron was because they were seen as too modern for Yerushalayim. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I was not wrong. The statement was removed because it was unsourced, first and foremost. Even if the statement is true (and it is now indeed sourced), I was completely within proper conduct to remove it at the time. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is the second time I have found Debresser removing text from this article on tenuous grounds. Debresser's editing is disruptive. Chesdovi (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

My edits are proper according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You accusation is therefore baseless. Please refrain from soiling my talkpage with baseless accusations. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) With all due respect, I think you can both dial back the rhetoric here a little. Per policy, unsourced material can be removed, so Debresser was within his rights to remove the text. In that light, Chesdovi, I find your description of the editing as "disruptive" as out of line. That having been said, Debresser, I agree with Chesdovi that on something like this you would have been better off requesting a source than removing the text outright. If nobody provided a source after a time, then you could easily enough remove the text.

I've seen you guys interact in the past, and it just feels to me like you tend to look for problems with each other. You're both productive members of the community, so why do that? 'Nuff said. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Law of Moses

I undid your edit. Your edit summary "Completely irrelevant. See talkpage consensus." and your talk page comment "As a matter of fact, there are no quotation marks, so not a quot at all." are incorrect. It clearly is a quote. Wikipedia is taking a direct quote from the King James Bible version of Deuteronomy 31:26, and correctly uses quote marks. The Bible may not be using quotation marks, but we are quoting the Bible, and a specific version of it. I believe attribution is required per MOS:QUOTE. How is this an irrelevant objection? There was certainly no talk page consensus when you restored the edits since there were only two differing opinions on the talk page. You then added your flawed argument to the talk page. Two people have restored the attribution since it is a direct quote. The person who originally removed the attribution seems to be arguing WP:OSE and you think it the quote should be paraphrased, thus eliminating the need for attribution to a specific Bible version. That's not consensus. Your observation about paraphrasing eliminating the need for attribution is correct, but it's not a reason to remove the attribution while we are still using a direct quote. Meters (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I replied on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Law of Moses has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. This is indeed a direct quote, with quotation marks, as was pointed out in the edit summary three times, on the article's talk page 4 times, and on your talk page. If you think that the attribution is not needed then discuss that issue, but don't vcontinue to revert with false edit summaries Meters (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Meters. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Really you template a regular for edit warring after only 2 well explained reverts and multiple attempts to discuss the edit on the talk page, and threaten to report me? Not even close. Meters (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Law of Moses shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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. Meters (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Didn't you just, oh hypocrisy, complain about me posting a warning template on your talkpage? Debresser (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I did indeed. See my reasons above. Unlike you,

1. I wasn't at 3RR
2. I was giving valid reasons rather than making up bogus objections
3. I was attempting to discuss the edit on your talk page and the article's talk page
4. I wasn't threatening to have you blocked in the edit summary

Not only did you not self-revert while this was under discussion (as I suggested), you immediately reverted another editor who undid you. That's pretty much text book edit warring. If you think I've done anything wrong feel free to take this to the appropriate board. As another editor pointed out, you might be subject to a boomerang though. Meters (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

1. You were also edit warring. The fact that you weren't at 3RR does not make any difference, especially since I wasn't either at the time, at least to the best of my knowledge at the time.
2. My reasons are valid, in my opinion eve more than yours, but surely not less legitimate.
3. I am also actively participating in that same talkpage discussion.
4. That is correct. Debresser (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Debresser reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: ). Thank you. clpo13_(talk) 23:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have replied there. Debresser (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page Seven Laws of Noah in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. TJH2018talk 22:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, keep it to yourself, okay? Just because my keyboard was still in Hebrew you template me? And did you really have to undo the edit just because of that. You couldn't guess why I reverted, or ask me without reverting. Not nice at all! Debresser (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Faith primary

Template:Faith primary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. damiens.rf 07:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Will do. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Top icons

There was no parameter until I added |number=, which I later found to be a bad name. So now I changed it to |sortkey=, and it is documented as such on {{top icon}}. So please look further before reverting. I'm sorry if this adds extra work (which I'm willing to take off your hands), but this is better in the long run. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (Might be irrelevant to the case at hand, but ...) Use of {{top icon}} is pretty much not necessary any more. Use of the tag <indicator> is a lot easier. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, 99% of all top icon templates use {{top icon}}, which in turn uses <indicator>. It ensures proper formatting of the icons. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, but I suspect that was done to insure backwards-compatibility. I completely rewrote my header subpages (like User:StevenJ81/Myheader and simple:User:StevenJ81/header) without {{top icon}} and found it much easier. As I said, my comment was not necessarily relevant to whatever disagreement you have with Debresser; it was intended to be a helpful comment. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Edokter, 1. Did you discuss this? I see no discussion that concerns preference of "sortkey" over "number"? 2. Why didn't you change all the documentation pages as well? 3. Did you ever hear of WP:BRD? 4. Did you ever hear of If it ain't broke, don't fix it? Debresser (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I was the one that introduced the number parameter in the first place, and quite recently at that. I didn't like it as it was clearly misnamed, so I changed it. Should I argue with myself? I was not aware it was already in use. I changed the main documentation (on {{top icon}}) immediately, then found some templates still listed the number parameter. I also announced the new parameter on WP:VPT so everyone can use it now (the old parameter was never announced). I really don't get what the problem is... you don't even use |number= on your user page, but an even older one that hasn't worked for over a year. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You more or less made my point for me. Changing the names of the parameters leaves people with broken code. That is precisely why you shouldn't do it. You don't WP:OWN any of these templates, that you decide what you rename parameters to and do so every once in a while according to your whim. If you do so, at least 1. take care they are backwards compatible 2. change the documentation pages. I think this is a serious behavioral issue, and feel strongly your edits should be reversed and your edit submitted for community review. Please explain yourself. Perhaps I don't understand something. Debresser (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed you don't. The parameter was in beta, ie. for testing only. Really, the was no parameter until I added it just two weeks ago. So the little use it may have is easily corrected. Don't make any change out to be about ownership. The reason the old parameters don't work anymore is because we switched to using <indicator> two years ago, and sorting was disabeld in the proces (by the change in /core, not by me). I just now re-added that possibility, so why the flack? Discuss the parameter name on Template talk:Top icon if you have to, but I won't stand being reprimanded by someone who doesn't see the bigger picture. Your reverts actually broke those templates and left a discrepancy with the 200+ other templates I edited. Yes, someone added the number parameter prematurely to those templates; I'm not on his back about it. I think long-term, and most people know that. I welcome any review. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 07:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I see, and from what you tell me, you indeed made an improvement, which I can only welcome. That, however, can not detract from the two things I mention: making the parameters backwards compatible is easy enough ({{{icon-nr|{{{number|{{{sortkey|}}}}}}}}} or something like that), and changing the documentation is something you definitely should do. Do you plan to do these two things? Debresser (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to prevent any parameter wildgrowth. All the old parameters were made obsolete two years ago. Any documentation still stems from the old days, but I'll see what I can do. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding what you call "parameter wildgrowth". Perhaps there is a way to detect and replace usage of old parameters? The documentation pages of those templates where you replaces number by sortkey should definitely be updated by you, that is a reasonable expectation. Debresser (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Andy M. Wang beat me to it. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I see. That is regarding the documentation pages. What about detecting old parameter usage? Or taking care of backward compatibility? Debresser (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The old parameters were made obsolete two years ago, so I see no point in resurecting them, and I am not going to fix every old parameter usage. If users really want ordering, they have to use |sortkey themselves. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter: One way would be to add a tracking category, something along the lines of Special:Diff/720425195. The point to add it would be at {{top icon}}, but I'll abstain. (don't know if it's worth the effort?) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sure there are not that many instances. I would be willing to change all the old parameters in a few hours (if there aren't many more than I expect) some 20 hours from now e.g. Since changes were made to the template, it is only a matter of good form to provide that service. Otherwise we should have left the old parameters. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that can all be done with good intentions, but I personally will not modify other users' spaces, even if it may be a good service. Note that most users are still using |icon_nr= for a very long time, and they edit as if the topicon misordering is not a big deal anyway. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I have made such technical edits to templates in userspace in the past, and have good experience with it, and no problems with doing it again. What I don't remember is how to code it. You don't need an existing category, because even a non-existing category page will show pages that go there. I think {{#if:{{{number|}}}|[[Category:Fix]]|{{#if:{{{icon-nr|}}}|[[Category:Fix]]|}}}} should do it? I remember there being an issue with if the parameter is defined (like | number = {{{number|}}}) or not (like | number = ), that the latter is perhaps not found by this code? Debresser (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's similar to something like Special:Diff/720425195 without {{Main other}} and addressing multiple named params. Again, it can be done, but I personally still honestly think it's getting a bit fussy to track this. I also take Edokter's absence as agreement with what I think as well. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I do agree it is not worth tracking and fixing. When top icons switched to indicators, it was made very clear the old parameters would no longer work. I announced the new parameter on WP:VPT and everyone can go from there. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The real problem being that you think that things like this should be announced by any one editor, instead of agreed upon by consensus. And even in the case of consensus, no serious template editor, and I have worked closely with many of them, being not a novice to field myself, deprecates a parameter without providing either backwards compatibility or changing all occurrences. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Would anybody have serious problems with it, if I did this myself? Debresser (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I've stated my views above... but I wouldn't object if you added tracking categories. As for changing users' pages (probably needs consensus elsewhere), depending on the number of incorrect uses, you might even need to submit a BRFA. For the record, I'm not encouraging this. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You are making this out to be bigger than it actually is. And I did not deprecate those paramters, the devs did. I simply reintroduced it. Your only beef is that I changed the paramenter name not two weeks after I did so. I really don't need consensus for that. If I have to run every little change, in the test phase, by the community, nothing would be completed. What is the real issue here? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd do this manually, not with a bot. I have no other issues than those I wrote above. Debresser (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter: I am now working on the pages that are appearing in Category:Fix. I see no reason to use a more descriptive name for a tracking category, which I intend to remove within 24 hours. Debresser (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, somce interesting cases came up, like {{PubMed indexed}}, {{Virginia Tech ribbon}}, {{WikiOgre}}, Wikipedia:WikiPlatypus/topicon, User:EWikist/WikiFun Police/WikiFun Police Topicon, {{WikiProject Star Trek Top}}, {{DOOM}}, {{Template:Arbitration Clerk topicon}}, {{Eventualist}}, {{JLOWP}}, {{Grump}}, {{Pokeme}}, {{WikiWitch-icon}}, {{Olympicrings}}, {{Pageprotection}} and most seriously User:Jimbo Wales/guestbook/icon. Debresser (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

We already have 870 cases, not counting the once I replaced already. 870! I think this should be a lesson for you not to replace parameters without providing backwards compatibility. What right did you have to render a parameter inactive that is in use on almost a thousand userpages? I am really angry at you for this. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Again; they have not worked for over a year, and no one complained. I introduced a new parameter that is more versatile, and named it accordingly. Your anger is highly misplaced. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I do appreciate the new parameter, but it also rendered the old one inactive, and that was careless. Could you, as an admin, please help me out on User talk:Jimbo Wales/guestbook/icon? Debresser (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't careless; it didn't work anyway. And such situations are an excellent opportunity to cleanup stale parameters. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Done well over 1,000 instances. there are 26 pages left, all because of fully protected pages. I have dropped a request to some 5 editors, and there will be a few left that will need admin help. Debresser (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Too bad you did not remove the obesolete parameters; they are useless and will never come back. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point, and to a certain measure agree with it. My reasons were 1. to minimize interference on userpages 2. because it would take more time, including because it would be hard to do with AWB 3. because it is always possible somebody will revive them at a later point in time.

I also understand that when you coded the "sortkey" parameter, the old "icon_nr" parameter was not active, still, since you added the functionality for "sortkey", it would have been easy to provide backward compatibility, and in view of the many instances (way over 1,000) I don't understand why you didn't do that. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Wildgrowth. Sometimes a clean break from all the old baggage helps maintain a sane template landscape. Providing backward compatibility isn't helpfull if it means a parameter ends up with four(!) names. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help a bit more. There are 8 pages left with the old parameter. Perhaps you could edit the first four of them?

• User:Bahamut0013 Fully protected page of deceased user with 4 instances of "icon_nr" that have to be changed to "sortkey".
• User:Franamax Fully protected page of deceased user with 1 instance of "icon_nr" that has to be changed to "sortkey".
• User:Gunmetal_Angel Fully protected page with one instance of | icon_nr = {{{icon_nr|{{{number|0}}}}}} that has to be changed to | icon_nr = {{{sortkey|{{{icon_nr|{{{number|0}}}}}}}}}.
• User:Jclemens/icons Fully protected page with 3 instances of "icon_nr" and 4 instances of "number" that have to be replaced by "sortkey"(notably to only one to have "number" parameters in use).
• User:LadyofShalott Fully protected page with 2 instances of "icon_nr" that have to be changed to "sortkey". Posted on user talkpage.
• User:NQ/nqup.css Fully protected css page with 1 instance of "icon_nr" that has to be changed to "sortkey". Another page depends on this change. Posted on user talkpage.
• User:Equazcion Completely unclear what is happening on this page. Posted on talkpage.
• User:Interlude65 Reverted my fix, and said on the talkpage he'll take care of it.

Admin help

{{Adminhelp}}

I would like to ask any admin to fix the first four instances above, to finish this job. Over 1,000 pages were fixed, just 7 remain... Debresser (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I've corrected them, unprotected Gunmetal's userpage since there is no more need for protection, and reduced the protection on Jclemens' userpage so he can edit his own userpage again. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance template removal discussion

Debresser It is very likely that Lemongirl942 arrived the artcle by WP:STALKING my (other volunteer) edit summaries, as she did here,diff and then here,diff after she uncivilly attacked my paid work here.diff. The paid work had been up for 14 months and various other editors had contributed/reviewed without indecent/discourse. As a paid editor, I can't edit/restore the content in article space, and it can take months to get an edit request answered, so restoring even improved prose is no simple task. Her departure from the guidance (tagging, wholesale deletion, and then leaving the tag), established in WP:DT, which has been published since 2010,diff She practices disruptive editing on a daily basis imho.

I hope you will take the time to read WP:Local consensus, which cannot override Wikipedia-wide consensus. The local consensus here appears to support the passage I added in #6, yet of her own accord, Lemongirl942 again removed some of the content. [diff] In an attempt to avoid having her disruptive editing technique -- disrupted.

I would not concern myself with the discussion about this Help page if it were not for the fact that it is being added to face of the tag templates. I appreciate that there is a "local consensus" in this discussion, I apologize for losing my cool with her, but other editors deserve to know why she is here and because of the Wikipedia wide visibility of this help page, the discussion is more important than inconveniencing a few electrons. Finally, I don't believe I've ever placed a banner tag in four years of editing, I use inline and section tags.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 19:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I apologize. I switched the editors. Please see my changed post on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks for your clarification. Do you think we should restore this to the see also section? It is the guidance on the matter that has been active since 2010, would be nice to collect it all in a central location. Thanks again for your clarification. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 20:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess so. Debresser (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

(This wandered off topic from the Help page discussion, so I brought it here instead.) It's been two years since the Foundation's paid (declared) editing consensus, and a small group of editors has been allowed to sustain their POV into the matter. (Again, we are tasked to judge the content of the article, not the intent of the editor.) A recent instance I wish you could have seen, concerns a lack of integrity surrounding an AfD I stumbled into. The final version in article space had (pruned by at least 10?) fewer references than my version[2]. And I was warned not to add reliably sourced content back into the article after reverting a revert of my content.[3] Then, the involved editor (after voting and pruning) hatted conversations in the AfD, which included my list of the better references that apply to the subject.[4] This is not what I would call conduct that is congruent with the goals of the Foundation, especially for editors who primarily involve themselves with compliance issues.

As a declared paid editor, I do not work in, nor even visit the company offices. I am a buffer between the PR guy, who openly admits he cannot write neutrally (his background is marketing mine is tech), and the submitted (AfC) product. The idea that somebody who works in the office daily, with no knowledge of the guidelines, holds some kind of superior position among inferiors seems subjective. Finally, the writing is much like the job of a paralegal. The law (policies and guidelines) are primary when composing and knowing platform (similar to the old WordPerfect editor IMHO) is secondary, but another good reason to hire a specialist -- who is one-step removed. When I am confronted with an inferior understanding of the written guidelines, I can't take it to ANI or COIN and expect a neutral outcome (nor any outcome come to think of it). My only real recourse is to start an RfC to see if the local consensus reflects the wider consensus. For this I am accused of being an tendentious paid COI editor. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 14:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

1RR

You should self-revert your 1RR violation. You can retain the "improvements". You should not misuse Wikipedia's narrative voice to say "Jerusalem" is in Israel. Wikipedia can't say that Jerusalem is in Israel because it is an NPOV violation. If you mean West Jerusalem say West Jerusalem. This has been discussed endlessly and please do not start another fire. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jerusalem. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Give me some time to look into that Rfc you mentioned. If I was wrong, I will self-revert. I made this edit in good faith, as I am sure you understand from my post on your talkpage and the edit summaries.

You are, however, completely wrong about something else. If there is one thing that is not good about somebody's edit, but other things are good, just make a partial revert. The other changes I made are just fine, and it was rude to revert all of it. Debresser (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It says in that Rfc that there "There was no consensus for any phrasing of Jerusalem’s location in either Israel or Palestine." It does not say what to do instead. Also notice that the Rfc was about the Jerusalem article only, and is binding for 3 years only. A simple search of Wikipedia teaches that there are 438 instances of Jerusalem, Palestine on Wikipedia and 9,268 of Jerusalem, Israel. That in itself already makes a point in favor of "Jerusalem, Israel", but in any case shows that both alternatives are considered completely acceptable on Wikipedia. Also compare the Google search results, which are comparable: 331,000 to 5,950,000. So what should be done? The answer is simple : don't change anything without consensus. Since the article originally said "Jerusalem, Israel", there is no consensus for changing that. The conclusion is that your edit, as well as the edit of Cliftonian, changed a consensus version without showing consensus to do so, and should be reverted. If you want to insist on 1RR, I am willing to revert, but my argument is solid, and there is no reason to insist on formalities since it is clear the consensus version should and will be restored in the end.

I will also post on the talkpage, and propose to post here if you want me to revert the 1RR violation, but keep the substantial discussion on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand. My only concern is with constructions like Jerusalem, Israel or Jerusalem, Palestine because they are unambiguous NPOV violations. I think it's better to simply say Jerusalem and leave it at that. I'm going to be away in a forest for while so I'll leave it with you to consider and pick it up again next week. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point. On the other hand, we have hundreds and thousands of them on Wikipedia, and nobody is proposing to change all of them. Especially since both Jerusalem, Israel and Jerusalem, Palestine redirect to the same Jerusalem article.

We could open an Rfc and create a WP:JERUSALEM page, analogous to WP:WESTBANK. There are basically 3 options: 1. change all instances and remove both "Israel" and "Palestine", 2. keep all articles as they are, 3. decide that the rule is that there is no rule and local consensus will decide in all cases, which means keeping the present anarchy. IMHO the first alternative has no viable chance of being accepted` the third alternative is a non-solution, and is therefore not likely to be accepted, in addition to the fact that practically it will mostly come down to the same conclusion as the second, just after a lot of edit wars and discussions; the question therefore is if we want to make the second alternative, which is identical to what I argued above regarding the Birthright Israel article, into an official Wikipedia guideline? Debresser (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps you meant that "[[Jerusalem]], [[Israel]]" and [[Jerusalem]], [[Palestine]]" is worse than "[[Jerusalem, Israel]]" and "[[Jerusalem, Palestine]]". I agree with you. That opens a fourth alternative, change only "[[Jerusalem]], [[Israel]]" or [[Jerusalem]], [[Palestine]]" to "[[Jerusalem, Israel]]" and "[[Jerusalem, Palestine]]", and keeping all other cases as is. I would be fine with that proposal as well. Debresser (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I accept the first alternative; it's what most nations and organizations adhere to. Sepsis II (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I beg to differ. We are not talking about the question if Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but if Jerusalem is in Israel. The facts above are clear enough. I even remember this clearly from elementary school. :)

Do you think it is a good idea to open a new Rfc about this, perhaps on the Jerusalem talkpage? Debresser (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Notification: I opened an Rfc on this subject at Talk:Jerusalem#Is_Jerusalem_in_Israel_or_Palestine. Debresser (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Top Icon Help

Hey, thanks for the help on my top icons! I have been away from Wikipedia and editing for over a year and came back to find that something had changed. I just couldn't figure out what it was. Nice surprise to log in this morning and find all of them back again. Thanks! Wikipelli ^Talk 13:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice to receive such positive feedback! Enjoy! Debresser (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Not interested. I firmly believe in Jimbo! Debresser (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Things

I don't appreciate your tone saying "another undiscussed initiative that isn't a good idea". That's not very nice. No, Jews aren't a tribe, but they are a collection of tribes. The precedent is Samaritans, who are in Ten Lost Tribes (Tribes of Israel). Samaritans are three tribes, Ehpraim, Menasseh, and Levi. Something needn't be strictly one tribe to be in tribes of israel. Tribes of Israel as you should know is the analogous article to "Israelites".--Monochrome_Monitor 07:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Jews are the result of over 3,000 years of history, evolving from tribes. That includes converts.

My tone is a reflection of my exasperation at you making yet another change that is incorrect or at least controversial. I accept that you act in good faith, but I have the right to be frustrated by your lack of common sense in editing Judaism and Jews related articles and categories. In addition, this was by far not the first time, and still you do not feel the need to discuss before you make changes. Debresser (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:TPO

Please see WP:TPO. Modifying my comments is incredibly annoying. Please stop doing that. nableezy - 15:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of that page. I thought you would only be grateful if I fixed the occasional mistake. Since you are not, I will of course not repeat such edits. Debresser (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be great. Next, would you mind explaining to me what you don't get about contested moves? Because when a move is challenged you don't just move it to another similar title you like more, you open a request for move and ask for comments from others. Please self-revert that move. nableezy - 18:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Why should I? If a vocal minority opposes the move, I am willing to take into account any reasonable arguments. You voiced a concern of a purely technical nature, regarding the parentheses, so removed the parentheses. If your POV will continue to blind you, and you will continue your edit war and revert again, perhaps I will make an official move request, but to give in to your unreasonable POV from the start? Debresser (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Shavuot

I thought you had more respect for my work than this. If this had been a brand-new statement, you would (of course) have been correct to delete-and-then-justify. In fact, this statement had been stable for four years until Enigmaman came by, and there was a healthy discussion on the talk page already. With all due respect, you really should have let the discussion run its course. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I do respect your work. That doesn't mean I have to respect this one sentence. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You do understand that I did not originally write the sentence, right? The sentence has been a stable part of the article for around four years. On that basis, it could be assumed that it was accepted as (more-or-less) BLUE. In other words, it's not that it's an unsourced statement, but simply a statement for which it is unnecessary to state a source. If you disagree with that, then you should ask for a source. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I do understand that not you originally wrote the sentence. In any case, I was surprised by you taking this personally. I did not mean anything personal when I removed that sentence. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't exactly take it personally, and didn't think you meant it that way. But I did wonder why you felt the default position for a (non-absurd) stable-for-four-years statement was to remove first and ask questions later. You never responded to that bit. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

But I did. I repeat: Wikipedia policy is to remove any unsourced and challenged statement. I know, the best thing is to tag it, see if somebody can source it. But that is of the statement is likely to be true. This statement, in the form it stood, is not true. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Feh. It was challenged for relevance, not accuracy. And as for its truth, well, we must agree to disagree about that. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Jerusalem

I'm going to report that if it isn't reverted by the time I finish the report. nableezy - 22:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

1. What would you report that for? 2. After your recent edit warring on Ancient synagogues in Palestine, for which I did not report you in the end, I would have expected a less vindictive tone. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Well somebody reverted it for you, so Ill finish my report and file it and you can explain your contempt for established consensus at AE when Im done. nableezy - 22:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I already did so on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser nableezy - 22:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Will reply there. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC at Southern Levant

As you were involved in the DRN, I thought I'd let you know about the current RFC on the Southern Levant talk page here Drsmoo (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Will have a look soon. Debresser (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Commented. Very interesting. Please also see the subsection I added there. Debresser (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't edit my talk page;

I only care to comment on content at specific articles. Sepsis II (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)