Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:59, 3 April 2019

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

What I do on Misplaced Pages.

My rewards.

What's up?

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

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 onwebsite, and the number of orphans is down to 11! Debresser (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Special characters

{{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 Misplaced Pages: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)  13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment response

Hi Debresser, I left you a comment. here https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Haredi_Judaism GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Reversions at Esther and Vashti

As always, your lack of self-awareness is astonishing! All the abuse you you lavish on those who dare to disagree with you applies more appropriately to you. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I remember you as a hothead editor, and your recent behavior only confirmed that. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Review while LeChaParat Pesha is open?

Somehow I saw the following (Talk:Posek)-

Quote

Actually, most of the rabbis in Category:Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis are very minor figures (most of those articles should be put up for deletion as they violate the basics of not adhering to WP:NOTABLE and WP:BIO) that have been pumped up and fluffed up with PR but that in no way reflects their greatness as rabbis or anything for that matter. Watch out, the editorial sword cuts both ways. IZAK

What does Chabad have to do with this? Stop poisoning the well. Debresser (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to review your comment on R'Zev Leff re Notability. I'm not claiming that his sefer on Shmoneh Essray puts him in the league of Rabbi Paysach Krohn. Chodesh Tov. Pi314m (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pi314m I remember making that comment over 8 years ago. I also remember the issue. What I fail to understand is how that is connected to my comment regarding the notability of Zev_Leff?

I stand behind my comment, that judging from his article, he is not notable. And I think the issue of his notability has nothing to do with my comment from 8 years ago.Debresser (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Pashtuns are a typical Indus Valley population and aren't close to the Ashkenazim

I am being reasonable and basing it on thorough genome-wide analyses. They have little in common with Askhenazi Jews:

Wadaad (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion

A disagreement involving you have been added to Misplaced Pages:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements CapnZapp (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this notification. Debresser (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Just in case you have pinging turned off

SherriffIsInTown is appealing the i-ban with you here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction and topic ban appeal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I actually have it turned on. Thanks though, I'll go there now. Debresser (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Esther

Must I really do another RFC? The last one produced a fairly clear result, which you are now ignoring (despite invoking in an edit summary earlier). The fact that information is referenced does not mean it should be in the infobox - see WP:INFOBOX. Such a bore! Please reply here, not on my page. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing in that Rfc that says that this specific information should not be in the infobox. If you understand the results of the Rfc otherwise, please explain. I am open for your comments here. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, it actually wasn't a formal RFC I think - I am entirely happy to have one of those; I expect you can imagine it is not likely to support your edit. Though that discussion certainly produced varying points, the main drift was, as I said in the final post in the section, was that the information in the box should be restricted to what is actually contained in the biblical account. If that is not clear to you then perhaps we should have another RFC, with specific options. That biblical information does not include her burial place. Additionally, it seems there are at least two claimants for this, according to the article (neither really supported by WP:RS, but let's ignore that). An infobox is not the place to mislead by including contested or contentious facts, especially when one possibility is included and another excluded for no reason that is explained, and when it is not key and essential information, and typically not given in infoboxes for people, even where it is certain. I hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

You removed two things: Queen of Persia and burial in Hamadan, Iran.

1. For some reason, your post here doesn't mention the first, and I think the reason is because you recognize that your edit regarding Queen of Persia was a mistake, since the Biblical story clearly supports this, as the article states clearly in its first sentences.
2. I understand your point regarding the mix up of the Biblical and non-Biblical facts regarding the burial place. On the other hand, if there were no Biblical story, there'd be no alleged burial place, so I am afraid you'll have to admit that these two are closely related. In other words, if you hold that there is a real grave, you have to cease being opposed to writing the article as though it were some fictional story. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The "rfc" comments on "Queen of Persia", are pretty clear, aren't they? They are to me. You do realize that a very large proportion of Biblical scholars from a wide variety of backgrounds do indeed believe that the Book of Esther was indeed written, and intended to be understood, as precisely a work of fiction? This question is addressed in that article, but not here, which it really should be, but that's not my point now. But under the circumstances, it seems POV to insist she must have a grave, let alone that we know where it is, and that one particular competing claim is correct. It seems rather odd, given your stated occupation, that you seem to be having difficulty telling apart things that are actually in the bible and theories and traditions that aren't, but relate to biblical matters. In any case, you don't address the issue of the 2nd tradition. Johnbod (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Excuse for barging in here, but as far as I know there is no existing reliable historical evidence for any of the details of the biblical story in the book of Esther, not even for the basic fact that any of the characters indeed existed in actual history. I mean, I myself do not believe, from the existing historical evidence, that any of the biblical characters such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, etc., right on down to Esther (and Jesus for that matter), really existed in historical reality. But the first ones above, which are the really important ones, are also much more difficult to knock down and erase from popular/religious belief in some type of "religious history" that never really occurred. The latter one, and the subject here, is rather elementary as far as I am concerned. That is why I also think it should not have an Infobox at all to begin with. But all that is just my own personal vote, which is already on record on the RfC there. Thank you, warshy 19:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I also supported no infobox at all, but the discussion didn't clearly go that way, so I agreed to settle for a box with just the info actually in the bible. As I've been attempting to explain above, the Book of Esther is in a rather special position, as there are many biblical scholars who broadly accept what we may call the historicity of other parts of the bible, but regard Esther as different, & written with the intention of being understood as a moral work of fiction. Debresser's argument about the grave above is therefore a POV denial of that possibility. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I, for one, completely agree with you again. Thanks, warshy 20:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, the issue of the Queen of Persia remains unaddressed, so that is as good as an admission of your mistake.

I remain of the opinion that if we have a Biblical person, historical or not, then we can have a grave ascribed to that person. This point of view seems to me to be in complete agreement with the Rfc. To say otherwise, seems illogical. I see therefore absolutely no problem to have to location of that grave in the infobox. Debresser (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The "queen of Persia" is not "unaddressed", you are just refusing to accept the rfc, as you are now blatently doing re the burial. "Complete agreement with the Rfc" indeed! All arguments are brushed aside; this is how you get a reputation. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I am willing to listen. Please explain what is wrong with "Queen of Persia"? It is after all part of the text of the Book of Esther, that she became queen, so what do you find wrong with it? Debresser (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

This has been explained to you several times, and was supported in the rfc (or whatever it was). I'd be willing to compromise on a "Queen of Persia, according to the biblical Book of Esther in the "occupation" box lower down (though if we do a further RFC to nail the question, others might not be), but not in the header. This was what started the whole issue. On the alleged grave, how do you justify choosing one claimed grave over the other? Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If you ask me, the core of the problem is that from the perspective being described here, the character of Esther is treated neither as definitively real nor as definitively fictional. She is in the "gray zone"—not certainly one, and not certainly the other. Yet we only have two templates in play here: {{Infobox royalty}} and {{Infobox character}}. Instructions for the former strictly prohibit its use for fictional characters. The latter is clearly for the use of fictional characters.

So how is this handled for others? Abraham and Isaac get {{Infobox character}}. David gets {{Infobox monarch}}. Jesus gets {{Infobox person}}. Why? Who decided?
On the whole, I think the best way to handle a situation like this is to allow the infobox to contain the all facts related to the context of the notability of the character. Therefore: because the notability of the character of Esther is through the Biblical book, all facts in the Biblical book, and all facts traditionally taken as true of the Biblical character (as suported by RS, of course), are allowable.

• Where there is a choice between an unambiguous fact and an ambiguous one, choose the unambiguous one. Thus, the header preferably says "Biblical character" (certainly true), rather than "Queen of Persia" (not certainly true).
• Where an ambiguous fact is included, it's easy enough to add a tag like (trad.) or something similar. It isn't always necessary: If the article on Abraham had included "occupation=shepherd", would someone have cried out that it is unproved? Everyone will understand that he is described in the Bible as a shepherd. But here, one probably should, because queens of Persia have some inherent notability, unlike shepherds.
• I think I'd either use {{infobox person}}, which is a pretty neutral template, or actually subst. out an infobox and put a customized one here, so that the very presence of an infobox is not taken as a claim.

I absolutely hate it when two sides need to fight to be "right" about something here, when there are perfectly reasonable middle grounds possible. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Based on the unofficial Rfc, I think that I agree with your conclusion, that we can say "Queen of Persia", as long as we call the infobox "Biblical figure". Debresser (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

StevenJ81, while I agree that infobox person is probably the better route, this doesn't really address the issues here. Esther (and Vashti) are not comparable to Abraham or David, of whom one would not really expect any record in the histories or surviving documents of other nations. Esther is much later, and this is not the case for her. There is also a large body of scholarly opinion who believe that the Esther story is written, and intended to be understood, as purely a work of fiction, in a way that is fundamentally different from the majority of the bible, and not the case for Abraham or David. They see it as literature rather than history. The Book of Job would be one other example. In addition the claim "Queen of Persia" refers to a non-Israelite culture - there are several "queens of Persia", like Atossa, of whom we have records, and there is more than a hint of cultural appropriation here. The rfc was especially concerned with this aspect. Let's be plain here: it is not just "not certainly true" that there was a historical queen of Persia called Esther, with facts matching the biblical story in some way, I do not think you will find a single RS that supports this as a historical fact, outside the Bible. This is quite different from the case with figures from Genesis, where many scholars may be happy to believe that the traditions of these figures relate to some actual historical figure, following the occupation the Bible describes.

I can go as far as accepting "Queen of Persia, according to the Book of Esther" in the middle of the box, but not as a header. Lots of real historical figures are in the Bible, and it is vital to preserve the distinction, as the rfc confirmed. Your "best way to handle a situation like this" is odd - it goes way beyond WP:INFOBOX in including everything. Infoboxes are for giving the most important facts that are certain and unambiguous. There are several problems with the grave - it selects one claimed site, and ignores the other, for no reason that has ever been given. It takes a POV line that Esther was a real person. At least one clearly fictional character, Charles Dickens' Little Nell in The Old Curiosity Shop had a "grave" that was a profitable tourist attraction in the 19th century, but we should not be putting such stuff in an infobox. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod Since the title of the infobox is "Esther, biblical character", we should not repeat that in the infobox by adding "according to the biblical book of ".

Infoboxes are specifically for that: to gather all the details about that person. That is true whether they are real or not. So we can not leave out the burial place.

Even taking into consideration that there are more than one alleged burial place, this is the most well-know, and it is sourced. If there are more, when can simply add them all, or even consider adding the word "alleged". Debresser (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of infoboxes at all. The MOS guideline begins: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." You can and absolutely should leave out the burial place, which in fact is rarely included in the infoboxes of dead people, even when it is certain. You are just making all this up! Both burial places are sourced (the other arguably rather better) and it would be better imo to have two than one, but much the best and most appropriate to have nothing. The primary importance is to avoid the infobox being misleading, as it certainly has been. That is why the "Queen of Persia" needs to handled especially carefully. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think I understand Debresser’s reasoning, that the applicability of “Queen of Persia” can be properly understood in the context of “biblical character”. However, in the case of an infobox, which is not only a feature of the article but is designed to be treated as a database entry by external users, the context doesn’t necessarily get preserved. IMO this is ample reason to eschew anything that’s at all ambiguous, nuanced, or context-dependent in infoboxes.—Odysseus1479 20:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

For compromise's sake (and only for that reason as far as I am concerned), and in view of Odysseus1479's argument that context might get lost, what about "Biblical Queen of Persia"? That should satisfy all. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

And the graves? Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What about them? They stay. I don't think "biblical graves" is an option here. :) Debresser (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There's only one of them in the box, which is part of the problem. But to be clear, none should be there, for the reasons given above. Johnbod (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I see no real reason why burial places are not included in infoboxes of dead people, but since in Judaism burial places are often places of pilgrimage, that is good reason to make sure to have them, even if general articles don't.

If we have more than one, we could have both and add "alleged" after both of them. I personally know only of Hamadan. Debresser (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

WRT burial places, easy enough to say "Disputed", with a link to the spot in the page where it is discussed. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought of that option as well. But for that we need that a section of the article actually discuss several burial places. Debresser (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This is why I will second Johnbod's suggestion that this Infobox should not contain any grave information. A piece of agreed disputed data has no place in an Infobox to begin with. I will also reiterate once again my original position that a Biblical character of dubious existence in real historical annals should not have an Infox at all to begin with. But barred that, disputed information has no place whatsoever in any Infobox, in my view. Thank you, warshy 19:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Warshy It is the nature of history to give rise to lack of information. That is called "historical incompleteness". If there are a few reliably sourced claimants for a field in an infobox, I see no reason why they shouldn't be mentioned. I also had a look at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Infoboxes and Help:Infobox, and your point of view is not part of that guideline and help page. Debresser (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Bottom line, I am fine with not mentioning the burial place in the infobox in this case. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Tzniut

Can you clear up the descriptions of R' Weinberg and/or R' Bigman's positions following this edit? Ar2332 (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ar2332 I'd be happy to, but I don't understand what you mean. Debresser (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The article currently says "Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg Rabbi David Bigman of Yeshivat Ma'ale Gilboa..." - did you mean to delete the R Weinberg reference? Currently it's not a grammatical sentence. Ar2332 (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Resolved. Debresser (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Talkback

Ibadibam (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Do not restore poorly-sourced content.

This is a predatory journal, not a WP:RS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with the concept. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries. That's part of the pitfalls of predatory publishing. They're set up to look like legitimate peer-reviewed publications, but aren't really. Now that doesn't mean that " crime rates decreased in Iran during Ramadan, and that the decrease was statistically significant" isn't the case. It may well be. But that journal is not credible for that claim, and a better source is needed for Misplaced Pages to say this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 542 editors have been able to accomplish. The Misplaced Pages Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

-- Dolotta (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

מזל טוב!--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Please respect the RfC

Your repeated attempts to circumvent the consensus process at Jewish religious clothing are disruptive to the good-faith efforts by myself and our fellow editors to reach a solution. I would prefer we managed on our own to desist from edit warring but if you remove the image in question again I will seek administrator intervention to determine and enforce the preexisting consensus. Best, Ibadibam (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

My argument is solid. Nothing to do with the Rfc. Debresser (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Unconstructive question

How many times were you banned for undermining wikipedia by editing with an extreme bias and being unable to work with other editors? Does this edit count also include the other accounts you would use when this one was blocked all those times? Of 19 (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

For editing with bias, never. For being unable to work with other editors, never. For disagreeing with other editors, that has happened, and as often as not those blocks have been unjustified. Debresser (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

RE

RE this - I would avoid filing AE (on this specifically) as I don't quite see how you tie this into ARBPIA. The community also has a complex relationship with the F word. Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

right. Based on my experience, he's baiting you. You will get blocked for filing a frivolous request. See here where he did the same to me,

, User_talk:Sir_Joseph/Archive_9#Arbitration_enforcement_block_extension Sir Joseph 12:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz that, while the TP comments are some way from ideal, they would not be within the scope of ARBPIA. Filing at AE would therefore not get you far. AN or ANI would be the only places you could file this, but I don't recommend it; I don't think you will achieve anything. GoldenRing (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I think there is something really wrong with a system that lets editor badmouth other editors and bully them like that. Since this is something Nishidani does regularly, I think the community should outcast him, read: block him. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It was as a matter of a fact Sandstein who said he might do the right thing and do something about this in the future. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

There was a RfC a while back on whether the f word was incivil. I do not remember how it closed - but it was close either way. You are unlikely to get an established editor sanctioned for f-word use by itself - particularly not in AN/ANI.Icewhiz (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course, editors should never use the f word. nableezy - 17:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed this, and while, Debresser, I refrain from visiting your page as per your request, I believe, I would appreciate it if you avoid slinging wild WP:AGF violations in my direction ('badmouth'/'bully' etc., here, without even the courtesy of a notification. I do neither. Saying 'for fuck's sake' is an expression of exasperation, (at the general failure of most editors to research the topic and engage in close source scrutiny, as opposed to reverting people who do). Rather than target editors, which is personalizing matters, one does well on the relevant page to check sources - several are screwed up (i.e.like this copied and pasted from the Yemenite Jews page without controlling the sources and summarizing their content correctly). If the consensus is my work in this direction is not desired on the page, fine. But that does not absolve editors of the duty to ensure by close quality control that the material I am implicitly thought not to be an appropriate editor to fix, be fixed. Not fixing it, means the remaining editors cannot see what is obviously wrong with the text. So, drop it. I too dislike editing in hostile environments, but focus on the factual record, build articles and explain with some care for precision to editors who dislike my edits, why I think the sources I adduce are cogent. Nothing more, nothing less. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz In this case the editor, Nishidani, has been criticized for his battleground behavior, and using strong terms is part of that behavior. That is a fact, whether Nishidani himself views it that way or not, and it can be acted upon, as Sandstein has stated at WP:AE. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy I never said I am perfect. These terms are , however, not a regular part of my contribution to this community, and I certainly don't use them to intimidate or deter other editors from contributing. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani Indeed, your posts are not wanted on my talkpage, and please respect that. Moreover, I would have counted on you to understand the inappropriateness of posting in a section like this. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)