User talk:Nableezy/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 20

"Gaza Massacre"

I guess seeing the word "massacre" in boldface in the first line is what concerns me just a bit. It's a highly charged term, and do we really need that so prominently in the article? I'm not saying it is definitely a POV issue, however, I'm just raising the issue for discussion, preferably by previously uninvolved editors. I don't want anyone using my comment as justification for editing the article one way or another. I'm not an editor of the article and I don't intend to be. I would like to see more uninvolved editors there.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Me too. The biggest problem with these articles is that the partisan bickering is usually so filled with invective and so constant that no "uninvolved" person wants to become "involved". The next biggest problem is that the arguments used often not consistent. Too often editors employ the opposite sides of an argument on different pages, from silly things like saying "there is no consensus for the source to be called reliable so it cannot be used" and on another page saying "there is no consensus for the source to be called unreliable so it can be used" to arguments as seen on the talk page now saying that quotes from Hamas are unacceptable but usage by the Israeli Foreign Ministry is acceptable for the same issue, just different "side". nableezy - 20:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
There's also the sheer volume of text on the talk page and archive thereof. This discourages participation. I skimmed the archives relating to the lead, and came away with the impression that nothing was resolved. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yom Yerushalayim

International al-Quds Day => International Jerusalem Day? --Nsaum75 (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The sources usually refer to it as "Quds Day". Look at the sources, and we arent using the transliteration of either the Persian or the Arabic for the entire name, the sources use the transliteration for the word for Jerusalem in their English name. But for the Israeli Jerusalem Day the sources, even Israeli sources, use the words Jerusalem Day as the English name. Therein lies the difference. Hell, our article even uses "Jerusalem Day" almost exclusively, only using Yom Yerushalayim as a transliteration of the Hebrew and not as an English name. There are certain events or holidays where the English name is the transliteration of the name in whatever language, such Yom Kippur or Eid ul-Fitr. But this is not one of those cases, and nobody has presented any evidence that it is despite evidence presented showing that it is not the case. I dont understand why people are just saying "It is the name" without making any attempt to support that statement. This shouldnt even be an issue, I cannot see how it would be. If somebody where to show that the most common English name for what in Arabic is عيد الفطر (Eid ul-Fitr) was actually "The Celebration of the Breaking of the Fast" I would say move that page. It does not make any sense why there is any resistance to this at all. nableezy - 05:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gaza massacre

Marhaba Nableezy, You caught me just before bed. I came to take a look, but it's way too long :) I'll check it out tomorrow. --Fjmustak (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reminding me! --Fjmustak (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Game 6 of the 1998 NBA Finals

There's only one reason for the redirect: Much of the information in the article is also in 1998 NBA Finals. Information about the ratings is in that article as well. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 19:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive bot

Well spotted and Thanks. I've now tried rolling back to before the bot's edit, copying someone else's archive instructions (with a different bot) and reinserting your post. We'll see what happens this time. Otherwise asking for help will be the next step. --Peter cohen (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hamas "Police"

Good to hear from you Nableezy. IDF identified them as combatants Not police. The issue is discussed at length in the "disputed casualties" section. Since the particular sentence that I edited was stating an IDF claim, it would be inaccurate to describe them as "police" in that context. Again, the subject of whether they were police or combatants is a subject of dispute and appropriately discussed in the disputed casualty section. I recall you using that very same logic with me on one of my early edits that you reverted and I accepted your reasoning and offered no challange to your reversion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Traffic cops? and I suppose the RPGs these traffic cops were carrying were meant to deter dangerous "J walkers." Check out the below pasted link and after you scroll all the way down to the bottom, tell me what you think. Remember, we are Wikepedians first and everything else second. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_e067.pdf --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we disagree here. Fundamentally, we're on the same page. You are correct that both sides have to be presented and that's why you've got the disputed casualty section where all parties, Palestinians, Israelis, Goldstone, Obama and even my mother-n-law can vent. I just had a problem with usage of the term "police" in this specific context since we were presenting the IDF position which lumps them all as combatants. The paragraph just above presents the Hamas/Palestinian version and classifies them as "police" and I'm ok with that. But under your logic, I should add some caveat stating that "Israel believes they were RPG-7 toting combatants." But I wouldn't do that because that section deals with the palestinian version. Therefore, the Israeli version should be left unmolested as well and the issue of whether they are police or combatants shold be addressed in the disputed casualty section where B"Tselem and the ICT can duke it out.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


What do you think of this? Following the sentence,

"The IDF report stated that at least 709 of the deaths were Hamas combatants or combatants belonging to militant organizations affiliated with Hamas,"

We add:

"Those considered by Hamas to be members of the Internal Security Forces, were included in the IDF figures."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

ok I made a change that I think we both can live with. Let me know what you think--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Respect to you Nableezy. Thanks for the constructive dialogue.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Nableezy. The reasons for attacks against civilian had been stated in the lead for a while undisturbed until anonunsigned went crazy with reverts. I could't even respond to him becuase his English was so poor I had no idea what he was talking about. He deleted Garlasco cordesman and kemp and these had been there for sometime and appropriate wording was established after much debate as you know. I respect your opinion and hope that you will restore those things that were reverted (galarsco, cordesman and kemp) by others for no apparent cause other than to shake things up. Mind you, I can reinsert these myself but I think it would carry more legitimacy coming from you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI

[1]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

im sorry, but the number you have called is no longer in service. please hang up and try again. nableezy - 05:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I am willing to accept the name you used, However - at 1948 many of those villages were a part of Israel(at the time), and this is according to the UN 181 Resolution. So, if you accept that part, then it's not Palestine but Israel & Palestine. If not, then i see no logical reason to accept the name that you are using..

and thanks,again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossi.bitt (talk • contribs) 20:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD

I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

MTV EMAs 1994

I get it now: "Free Your Mind" is an award occasionally given at the MTV Europe Music Awards to organizations and individuals involved in social activism and social justice. "Free Your Mind" was an initiative that MTV began in the '90s to increase its viewers' awareness about different social issues around the world (AIDS, poverty, discrimination, etc.). At the EMAs, MTV Europe sometimes selects organizations (Amnesty International, Greenpeace, La Strada) or individuals (Bono, Aung San Suu Kyi, Anton Abele) who exemplify this commitment to combating these social issues to receive the Free Your Mind Award. Here's some more info about it: [2]. Hope this clears things up! --Andresg770 (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Israeli settlements

Salaam Alechum. I have reverted your unilateral edits on the Jewish villages, town and cities. I plan on opening a WP dispute resolution to solve this difference of opinions. I hope that you will resist your urge to edit war and participate maturely in this. --Shuki (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting wording. Is this one of those irregular verbs. "I participate maturely", "You edit war", "He is a POV-pusher"?--Peter cohen (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
You mean you reverted my edits to the pages of Israeli settlements? nableezy - 13:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
No he means he participated maturely in dealing with your inability to resist your urge to edit war and POV push as evidenced by your prioritising the wording favoured by such notorious anti-Semites and Israel-haters as the United Nations, the United States and the European Union over that prefered such impartial commentators as Bibi Netanyahu, Avigdor Liebermann and Meir Kahane.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
See also WT:ISRAEL#Jewish homes, outposts, neighbourhoods, villages, towns, and cities. nableezy - 21:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Question

No. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The question was "are you open to recall?". The answer was expected. nableezy - 23:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Quote

I copy and pasted straight from the page so i don't see the concern.Cptnono (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. I copy and pasted it from the talk page as it was written. I am showing that I was willing to see administrative action.Cptnono (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The overview is not about you so your clarification isn't required to judge my actions.Cptnono (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you help me

with separating Goldstone report into new entry? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

sure. but it still needs to be covered in the intl law article and the main war article. nableezy - 16:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Turns out Jalapenos already created the article. I'll merge sections from Int_law into it. I'll leave a short summary. If you (or anyone) would feel that's not enough - you know we can discuss things. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Bayt Nabala

Oops sorry about that. Ashley Kennedy mentioned it and I couldn't move the page... I've added a lot of coordinates today anyway to Safad and Ramla... Himalayan 20:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

all good, would have been better just to get the old deleted but no matter now. nableezy - 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gaza War. Notthat the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. tedder (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

ok, i will stop edit warring. it is a bit difficult when a user repeatedly removes information that is reliably sourced. but i will try to abide by a 1rr on that page. nableezy - 22:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

but as a demonstration, here is every non minor edit Stellarkid has made to Gaza War

  • [3] completely removes "gaza massacre" with source
  • [4] completely removes with source
  • [5] exactly the same as below, though he thinks it is "another" attempt at a compromise instead of the same edit he made previously
  • [6] changes to "known as a 'massacre'" when every source calls it "the gaza massacre"
  • [7] completely removes
  • [8] other
  • [9] removes from lead and places in media as "a 'massacre'"
  • [10] completely removes
  • [11] completely removes
  • [12] other names he inserts using the exact opposite reasoning as he is using to remove gaza massacre

This has been in the lead for going on 10 months, 10 sources of Hamas officials using it as the name in both English and Arabic have been presented and 2 sources that explicitly say "known in the Arab world as the 'Gaza Massacre'" have been provided. Stellarkid's sole purpose at this article has been to edit war out a name that he does not like. Users have said that they accept that it has been used as a name but they want to remove it because it is "defamatory" to Israel. There has been a consistent push to eliminate a significant POV, which NPOV requires we include, by a set of editors. It is difficult to restrain myself to just allow that set of editors to continually remove something that they find personally objectionable. I find many things that are cited to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs objectionable, but I have not removed them, in fact I have put them in and reverted to keep them in. nableezy - 23:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sleepy Goldstone

Hi Nab. You reverted the following

Private Israeli citizens did meet with Goldstone. However, Goldstone reportedly snoozed during the course of a viewing of a movie showing children fleeing from Hamas rocket fire[13] and omitted the testimony of an Israeli woman disfigured by Hamas rockets.[14]

I won't reinsert the text until I hear your reason for the revert. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it make a difference to you if I used a source other than Arutz Sheva?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully, I disagree but I won't fight you on this. Incidentally, I just want to add that we (all editors) were playing quite nicely in the sand box together until Mr unsigned Anon came along, reverting like a madman and tossing and mixing paragraphs and sentences as though this article was a salad. The edit wars began with him and unfortunately, protection status was instituted becuase of him and his inability to work with others. Just had to get that off my chest.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Nab, on the "Gaza Massacre" issue, what's wrong with just saying, "known to Hamas as the Gaza Massacre." Second, when protection status is lifted, I was thinking of adding a section on "Post War Military Assessment." What do you think of this idea? Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to mediate but it will have to wait till tomorrow.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I presented Stellar with some compromise language. I hope I can succeed in mediating this dispute between (what I consider) two outstanding editors.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Marc Garlasco and op-ed

Hi.

I wasn't if your comments at User:A Sniper's talk page were directed at him or me. Nonetheless, I did not have any intention of continuing to revert the material out, though I believe WP:BLP says that WP:3RR does not apply to questionable material. Have I been correct that you, as what appears to be a number of other editors, have expressed concerns with this source? My collection from reading talk is that several editors have expressed concerns with the material due to WP:UNDUE concerns, and that thus it should be removed in accordance with WP:BLP.

Thanks for the clarification, --69.208.137.88 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

yes you are correct, but the message was directed at both of you. nableezy - 14:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what should be done with the constant reinsertion when there is a seeming consensus that the material doesn't belong. I've been trying to use the talk page and be descriptive in my edit summaries, and have also tried to refer to policy and the previous discussion on the noticeboard. I appreciate your civilly expressed concern and will try not to be gasoline for the fire though. Thanks,--69.208.137.88 (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

But It's more reliable than Wiki's.Ahmad2099 (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Bukhary

Hi Nableezy, If you're talking about the Arabic for "The (reward of) deeds depend on intentions, and every person will get the reward according to what he intends. So, whoever migrated for Allah and His Apostle, then his migration will be for Allah and His Apostle, and whoever migrated for worldly benefits or for marrying a woman, then his migration will be for what he migrated for."

it would be:

إنما الأعمال بالنيات وإنما لكل امرئ مانوى فمن كانت هجرته إلى الله ورسوله فهجرته إلى الله ورسوله ومن كانت هجرته لدنيا يصيبها أو امرأة ينكحها فهجرته إلى ما هاجر إليه

That doesn't match what's written above the door whatsoever! Unfortunately, I couldn't make out everything, but it says something like "إن للعلم أزهرا... كسماء ما طاولتها سماء....." A Google search of "كسماء ما طاولتها سماء", which I'm pretty sure is correct, returned zero results! As for the other panels, it will take me a while to decipher them. I will give it a shot if I get a chance. Good luck! --Fjmustak (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Any updates on this? Do you still need me to try to decipher it? --Fjmustak (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
It's actually القصور الزاهرة --Fjmustak (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

i'm stepping in tentatively

You've done a really good job so far. The history of the Fatimid dynasty is one I don't know much about. But I'll do some more reading and see what I can understand, adding anything of value as it comes up. Its such an important article, but you should note hesitate to move it into mainspace even before its fully comprehensive - when you feel that it gives a good overview, a sketch to be filled out with others. I find sometimes pages can languish in user space, because there is a sense that there is no rush to improve it. I'm having that problem with User:Tiamut/Architecture which stalled some time ago. Its the bigness of the topic I think that is so daunting. So much history to cover. Rambling now ... happy editing Nableezy. Tiamuttalk 19:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The more I look at the article, the more I think it's very close to being ready to go up as a near comprehensive review of the subject. You should feel comfortable moving it into mainspace any day now. Arabic words should be added to the name section. I'd also like to add some referenced info on triliteral roots (probably in a footnote) to explain the name derivation better for those interested in linguistics. I'm so happy with the way its developed Nableezy. You should be very proud. Tiamuttalk 00:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey Nableezy. I can't make out much of the calligraphy or its meaning. Perhaps Fjmustak would know better. Tiamuttalk 14:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, your suspicions about User:Lanternix seem to have been well-founded. He was blocked [15] by User:YellowMonkey on October 19th for socking for a week. I noticed User:Millmoss was blocked as a User:NoCal100 account too by User:Nishkid. Strange though that there are no notifications on the users' talk pages for these things. I only noticed the latter after you struck his comments. The former, I noticed by accident, after reading someone else's talk page. All these sockpuppets. Ugh ... Tiamuttalk 14:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note. I had a good laugh. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Nableezy, this is to let you know that I have filed a report concerning you at ArbCom. It can be accessed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nableezy . Stellarkid (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

wasting my time, what you do best. nableezy - 06:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your note

LOL Nableezy. What can I say, you made a convincing argument! Kaisershatner (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons image

Hello, Nableezy. The first image has been deleted, and I agree that the second image is properly tagged as PD-Art. Thank you! -- Avi (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaming

I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I have reasoning for using the term and I mean it. It isn't nccsarily wikispeak and that is why there is not a wikilink.Cptnono (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

you may have a reason and you may mean it, but "gaming" here means something specific. If you cant be bothered to actually learn what that is you should not be using the word. And you have yet to "argue" with me. You have badgered, obfuscated, and wasted my time. "Argue" implies an actual argument is made, not simple proclamations without any type of reasoned argument. Another word you should learn before using. Also, as a side note. Repeatedly parroting the same falsehoods makes one seem a liar, or in your words "a dirty liar". Any respect I once had for you has continually diminished with each repeated falsehood. nableezy - 21:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Not every term needs to be a wiki term. I actually use that term alot in other venues for tactics seen here. I ave also told you my reasoning for thinking you are a POV pusher. You can not hear it all you want and I don't care. Take three editors pointing out that you are an edit warrior and fix it.Cptnono (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I dont really care if you think I am a "POV pusher". I have, more than any other editor at that page, added material that made "my side" look bad or made the "other side" look good. The POV pushers are those who refuse to allow the opposing POV to be given its due weight. I presented a number of sources using the name, you said it was not enough. I presented sources saying that it is the name, and yet you say it is not enough. I stopped caring what you think, that is the consequence of repeatedly saying false things and making excuses for those on "your side" while demanding "justice" be carried out regarding me. I dont care anymore. When I came here I thought that nearly every article in the I/P area was bullshit and I wanted to see if I could prevent that from occurring with this one. I cant. Too many hardcore apologists and too much bullshit pushed by those who have nearly no knowledge of the conflict or its history for a good article to be made. You and I got along in that past and it is unfortunate that is no longer the case, but it is not something I am going to lose sleep over. Some random person on the internet thinks I am a "POV pusher". Oh well. Another random person sends the first random person an email talking about me behind me back (we call that cowardice where Im from). Oh well. Another random person insists on making another "encyclopedia" article into an apologist's wet-dream and is aided by the first random person in doing so. Oh well. I really do not give a fuck anymore. The only thing that disappoints me is that I wasted so much of my time dealing with the bullshit arguments presented to censor out a significant POV. I really wish I had just stayed away from this article. Combining Agada's barely literate rantings, Stellarkid's obsession with removing a common Arabic name, and your encouraging both of them, the talk page is simply a wall of bullshit. I feel oddly free by not having that page on my watchlist. I dont have to think about how to respond to the latest push to remove a properly sourced term. I dont have to pretend like a set of editors is actually acting in good faith rather than attempting to impose their own POV over every single section of that article. I dont have to think about how it is I ever thought that you were worth my time or my respect. Freedom from bullshit is enjoyable. nableezy - 22:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
That was a good rant. In regards to gaming, I used to do HR at at a factory and those boys game. I hope you understand that it does appear that you are "working the system" at times. Your bias is coming through and even though other editors may or may not be wrong it is an ongoing problem for you here. Just like me being a dickhead is. If you do receive a probationary period I'll abide by it as well for this page.Cptnono (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You are right, it was a good rant. And I take some of that back, I hope that we can again sometime in the future on another article work together as well as we did some months back. But the way you have been pushing this, both the actual edit and the way you continually look for sanctions against me while completely ignoring those on "your side" pissed me off. Whatever though, I said I would not be editing Gaza War again so there is not much of a point to continue bickering with you. nableezy - 01:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
On the plus side, every minute we spend here bickering is another minute that we're not out there carrying out genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful job

Just took a look at the al-Azhar article man... it looks great. I also respect your patience constructing it. Keep up the good work y'akhi ;) --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

my sig

Thanks for the heads up. I made a change, but I didn't realize it left all that Wiki-code behind. — Malik Shabazz (talk · stalk) 17:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic-banned for 4 months

Further to this AE complaint, and per the provisions of this remedy of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case, I am banning you for 4 months from editing all pages (including both article and article talk pages) within those topic areas which relate to the Palestine-Israel articles case. If you violate this topic ban, you will be blocked for disruption (for any duration less than the time remaining of the topic ban). AGK 21:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry to see you have been topic-banned. There's an unfortunate tendency for editors to disappear after a topic ban. I hope this doesn't happen in your case as I consider you a valuable editor. Four months isn't that long and maybe you can find some non-controversial and less frustrating articles to occupy you in the mean time.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC).
The Original Barnstar
You deserve this, hope you come back/stick around, Huldra (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Huldra, nableezy - 21:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to see this. I hope you stick around during your topic ban and work on non-I-P articles. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
We'll see, there is one article one article I've been working and I'd like to finish but it does contain two sentences related to the A/I conflict (the head of the mosque issued 2 fatwas related to the conflict, one calling for war against Israel in 67 and another calling for peace in the late 70s) so Ive asked if the 30 or so words related to the conflict makes that article off-limits or not. If I can finish it then I will, but after that a break is probably in order. You could look at my contribs to see that I haven't exactly been focused on work when at work so this may help me keep my job. nableezy - 21:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'd be happy to put the article into article space if that were a problem. Almost done on the proofing, sorry it's taking me a bit. IronDuke 21:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Cool, and regarding the proofing if you could focus on the architecture section this could go in soon. That section is still too fragmented and until my lazy friend gets me the Creswell book aint a whole lot more I can add. Just about done with the rest, 3 or 4 more source need to be added to fill it out. Also if you have the patience, a summary of the history section is needed. Ive read too much to concisely summarize the entire section so if you could read it over and make a short summary that would be a great help. nableezy - 21:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Watch out. That sort of offer to be a surrogate editor might get the jobsworths on your back complaining about meatpuppetry. Hopefully the fact that you tend to be on opposite sides of the I-P dispute will avoid repercussions.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, since I've made more edits to this article than any other in my history on WP, I think the meatpuppetry claims might fall a bit flat. Nab, I'll try and look now, then take it live... at the moment, it is better than 99% of all WP articles anyway, so... while I have your attention, no rush, but a section discussing the overall significance would be nice, e.g., "Al-Azhar is not merely a mosque, rather..." or "It is unique in that..." or various other superlatives. It just seems to me like it's not the sort of thing just any Arab/Muslim country could boast of. IronDuke 22:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
It's live, baby. Well done. IronDuke 23:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Wished you waited a lil bit, and it needs to be at Al-Azhar Mosque. Cant move it, needs an admin. nableezy - 23:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Frack, sorry. Are you sure, though? MOS? I think I've seen it both ways, and usually later words aren't capitalized. IronDuke 23:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The Mosque is part of the name, also we need to actually move the page for the licensing, will get the current one deleted and the one in my userspace moved in a bit. nableezy - 23:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I was just going to mention the problem with the cut-and-paste move. You want the article in your namespace moved to mainspace with a capital M in mosque? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Nuh-uh, admin now? Yes please (and congrats). Also, as a form of training, could you also delete Al-Azhar mosque and make it a new redirect to Al-Azhar Mosque? nableezy - 23:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about this; I hadn't known there was a complaint against you. I'm a little jealous, though, since now you'll be able to spend 4 months of your life free of the heroin-like addictive pull of Wikipedia (or at least one of its topics). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont really mind, but the description by AGK irks me a bit. Saying Nableezy's presence on the Gaza War article is not a helpful one based on a handful of edits out of over 600 to the article and a couple thousand to the talk page is a bit rich. Besides that, whatever. nableezy - 21:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it makes any difference, it irked me too. Cerejota said that you and I with two others like us could make Gaza War a great article, and I think he's right. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I was following this from a distance and had quite the WTF-moment when I saw the verdict... Sorry this happened to you. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 22:25 29.10.2009

<-I never liked you and I think the fact that you very often added and reworked material from Israeli media and government sources to the Gaza War article shows that it's very likely that you were a paid CAMERA editor or even another NoCal sock. It's on that basis that I believe this topic ban is a good decision. I would love to stay and chat but I've got to go and do things like remove the phrase "Evolution is a lie" from an article for the 12th time in a matter of weeks. Sigh... Sean.hoyland - talk 01:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, join the club (temporarily at least). You have to laugh really, and in a way I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that if you don't get blocked or banned at some point through seemingly randomly adjudicated arb or admin intervention, it means one is failing in what should be the fundamental calling of any decent editor - that is, to stand up to the cranks and political advocates (subtle or otherwise) who dominate much of the article space in all areas of Wikipedia, while attempting to be fair and even-handed regardless of any point of view one might happen to hold. Anyway, as I guess you realise, it's actually quite a relief to be kept away from a lot of it, even if one thinks that plenty of others probably deserve the same favour as well.
None of us can ever hold back all the crap single-handed anyway. And the simple fact is that most Wikipedia editors are of course American, and hence I-P articles are always likely to reflect the often pretty narrow perspective on the I-P conflict that as you'll know dominates in most US political discourse, with plenty of help from the Israeli right wing. Other voices - whether American, Israeli or European - get far less of a look-in; and Arab voices (diaspora or local) are virtually invisible by comparison. Even more so now, I guess. Sorry, this is the serious and boring comment to follow Sean's (whose opinion I agree with 100% of course). --Nickhh (talk) 07:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Kafka Award

What a ridiculous decision! You deserve this:

Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K., he knew he had done nothing wrong but, one morning, he was arrested.

RolandR 21:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I dont think I am in the same class as the previous recipients. nableezy - 22:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Nor was Josef K. But you all faced the same surreal process -- unless you accept Kafka's own assessment of his novels as comic. RolandR 23:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right, Nab, you are not in 'our' class, but one just above it (apologies to Meteormaker esp.) Overall, you have shown an equanimity, tenacity, and intelligent refusal to put up with the kind of nonsense patently thrust on to articles by an infinitely renewable and inexhaustible team of POV-pushers. That effort has done you and the encyclopedia great credit. Though outlandishly wrong in the judgement handed down, administrators have recognized this, ironically, because they have limited you to a 4 month topic ban, and not the perpetual area ban the rest got. So all in all, in an irrational world, this faulty judgement is less irrational than the earlier one. Best wishes, and I hope Malik and Iron Duke and even Roland can push the Al Azhar Mosque article along till you, and others, get it to the FA status your work deserves.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Architecture

Thanks for the sources. And its no waste of energy Nableezy. You are a fine editor and what has happened is patently unfair. I'm sure that AGK, once he has some time to review the issue more deeply, will come to the right conclusion on his own, though and so I will leave it alone for now. I just had to say something initially because I was/am quite pissed about it actually. But I'm learning to control myself.

I'm going to quite busy in the next little while since some paid employment has come my way. So please feel free to work on the architecture subpage if it interests you. When I do have more time, I will finish it and put it up. Congrats, by the way, on the wonderful job you did on Al-Azhar Mosque and for its move into mainspace. Stay well, akhi. Tiamuttalk 20:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I´ll add my congratulations on the Al-Azhar Mosque -wonderful! Now, if I could lure you into more architecture-articles, then
..are three Mamluk-architecture-articles, which I never seem to have enough time to work on... I would be delighted if you found time/interest to do so, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

...

Sorry for this. Hope you stay. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Its my fault Nableezy. I keep forgetting that when well-intentioned contributors file complaints, nothing happens. When revert warriors who have contributed nothing file complaints, we get topic-banned, blocked, etc. Perhaps I should never file another complaint again? All it does is alert them to the process which they can successfully use and we cannot. How much Wikipedia reflects reality eh? No justice no peace. I think I may resign from this place once for all - much as I've resigned from life itself. Tiamuttalk 08:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
PS. About an alt hook for the DYK nom ... *Alt3: ...that the revolt against Napoleon's occupation of Egypt was launched from al-Azhar Mosque (pictured) on October 21, 1798?
Sometimes Wstern readers will be more inclined to read things that mention someone they know. Tiamuttalk 13:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Only you would remember, and twig to the fact. I was tempted to drop a note on the AE/1 page in your defence but refrained to keep my round figure of 13,000 clean, and knew, having checked the evidence in the arraigment and the background editing profile of those who accused you, that there was absolutely no way in the wide wide world that wikipedia's administration would apply any enforcement. It was a cut-and-dried 'dismiss'...
Just one more proof that you should never come to the encyclopedia's arbitration pages expecting rational principles, abetted by informed background knowledge of both the subject, and the respective editors' actual practices, to prevail.
Now that I have infringed my own rule, I'm suffering from pythagoreanesque intimations of instability that, as you note, tempt me to make 998 edits so I can restore the rounded numerical equilibrium of the big figure. Indeed, I could go to 20,000. But I won't, unless of course the I/P ruling is waived, which it won't be. Enjoy the break, Nab. I'll look forward to watching your work if you return in early March, roughly when Ashley K is due back, I hope not to be trapped into another spectacular immolation as 'new' editors roll profuse quantities of inflammable hay his way! Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I knew things would fall apart without my presence. I saw my name mentioned in the AE and it is ironic because that was from the beginning of our discussion when you were the only editor there who was helpful and willing to listen to my concerns and compromise on the inclusion. I know I don't edit here these days but I hope you don't follow my lead. WP needs good editors. And it takes a good editor to get a barnstar in their topic ban section. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nableezy/Archive_13&oldid=1139930521"