User talk:Nableezy/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 → Archive 25

Hey

Hey, before I opened an SPI on this IP I wanted to see if this was perhaps you editing while accidentally signed out [1], [2], [3]. There was a lot of cross posting between Hummus and Falafel today, and some of the times seemed to match up. I'm *not* thinking of opening an SPI on you -- I just didn't want to needlessly bring something to SPI when there was a logical explaination. I apologize if I have made an mistake. Warm regards. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 03:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, wasn't me. This whole thing is too stupid to edit-war over, much less violate a topic ban for. nableezy - 03:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
LOL.. I know whatcha mean...some things are just not worth "battling" over.... Regards --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 04:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Declan and Gannon

The Declan and Gannon report in the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, does it have this info: "The only villages to escape the campaign of destruction were Majdal Shams, Masa’da, Bqa’atha, ‘Ein Qinyeh, and Al-Ghajar, five small villages in the valley of Mount Hermon." which can be found on p28 in the marsad document, and does it also have the list of the villages which can be found on the last four pages in the same document?

Reply here please. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

page 150

The only villages to escape the campaign of destruction were Majdal Shams, Masa’da, Bqa’atha, ‘Ein Qinyeh, and Al-Ghajar, five small villages in the valley of Mount Hermon. Israeli settlements were then built in a number of places over destroyed Arab villages and farms effectively resulting in a transfer of control over the land and resources.

The two papers are almost exactly identical. nableezy - 20:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how about the list?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not in what I have. nableezy - 20:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Going home

Enjoy your time in Egypt, you gangster. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Malik (and be happy I didnt link to to this version, misspellings and all). nableezy - 23:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

So here's my thoughts

Now I know you're stagging in Egypt so I don't expect you to get back to me right away but here's what I was thinking. If the Canucks win, you have to put an image of their jersey on your userpage. And if the Hawks win you can put one on my userpage. I'd do it myself but I'm no good at that kind of thing. --JGGardiner (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. You really should consider rooting for a major league team. nableezy - 23:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't exactly what I had in mind. But thanks for the pictures. The Hawks have definitely drafted some top-notch players over the years. At least they didn't tank all those seasons for nothing. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but we cant just put a pic of the jersey (no non-free images in userspace). From what I understand, it is extremely easy in Canuckistan to acquire a certain medication to help with the bitterness you are feeling. nableezy - 18:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Uh, apropos innuendoes, I think you missed one JGG, regarding N's suggestion you 'root for a major league team', though I fail to see how it would help. See root. Def.14. By the way, by my calculations you are posting at an ungodly hour and should be kipping. Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Well Nab should know that I can enjoy a good game without rooting for anyone in particular. Besides, the national sport of Canada isn't hockey, it's lacrosse. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
That would be a terrible train to take. nableezy - 18:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently monitoring this page using my SPOT 5 satellite feed to prevent terrorist incursions. It took me literally hours to data mine your recent contributions but I have to say that this is one of the finest examples that I've seen recently of the supreme fidelity of human communication relative to all other known life forms. We rock ! Sean.hoyland - talk 04:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

thoughts

[4] vs [5] Sean.hoyland - talk 05:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Same style, wouldnt surprise me. nableezy - 13:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Articles common between this new user and past NoCal100 socks
Wow, that's shocking behavior, someone creating the 'Wake Up Call (Maroon 5 song)' article. SPI time methinks. I'll file one a bit later. Thanks for the data. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, didn't notice those bits. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, any thoughts on whether (the most wonderful blog in the world) is an RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Chill son, that site is useful, best to keep it private. nableezy - 18:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Good lord, I just found out that I was a "Palestinian-Arab in Europe", part of the ‘Radical Arab-Islamic Lobby’! Lol! Not bad, for an old Lutheran gal, whose ancestors are 100% Scandinavian, (genealogy being one of my hobbies)  ;) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Or so you say, Hussam... Zerotalk 16:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I certainly enjoyed reading it. The concept itself is great. The implementation is slightly ruined by the blogger apparently suffering from some kind of mental illness. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Bard and Deir Yassin

Hey Nab how r u? As for Bard, I don't see how you can attack him while leaving the likes of Ilan Pappe (who represents the extreme left of Israel and advocates its demise), Daniel McGowan of Counterpunch and Rashid Khalidi (who never met an Israel hater he didn't like), unscathed. It's a little hypocritical. Respectfully--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont think I advocated using Counterpunch as a source, but as to Pappe and Khalidi. Those are two university professors who have written works published by academic presses, Khalidi is editor of the Journal of Palestine Studies which is published by the University of California Press. He has also been published by Columbia University Press and Cambridge University Press. There are things by Pappe that I would not use as a RS, but the things that he has had published by such publishers as Cambridge University Press is fine. You give me something from Bard that is published by a respected academic publisher fine, but Myths and Facts aint that. nableezy - 06:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


I did not know that you had started a report before I saw it after I had pressed "save". I will make a habit of stalking you in the future!, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Leave us alone

It's bad enough that you Chicagoans come up here and beat us at our national sport. But you could at least leave us our national pasttimes like poutine eating. I don't want to hear about some Illinoisian pot-smoking champion coming up here. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope Montreal pulls it off, nothing would satisfy me more than beating another Canadian team, actually, scratch that, the Canadian team. nableezy - 22:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to barge in, but are you guys talking about a sport? Something people actually watch? Cause I'm drawing a blank. Oh, and Nab, was wondering: how do you do that nifty page notice that pops up when one edits your talk page? I want one. IronDuke 22:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Sort of, something close to football (soccer, or in my country just "ball") on ice. JGG wouldnt say "a" sport, it is "the" sport to his fellow Cannukistanis. For the edit notice, edit this page, whatever you put there, including a template or anything else you want, will show up when somebody edits the page. nableezy - 22:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, ok, thanks. I thought their national support was curling or hurling or something. I need to get out more. IronDuke 22:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Deir Yassin, Bard and stuff

Hello Nab. Though we're on opposite sides of the divide and represent opposing views, we have, in the past set aside our differences and worked together toward compromise. I have left a conciliatory message on the discussion page and request that you take a look and offer some suggestions. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

sure. nableezy - 15:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Judging from ur comment on the discussion page, I see u have zero interest in compromising. I thought more of you Nab.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Im sorry to disappoint, but I dont see how compiling a list of high quality sources is a problem. nableezy - 19:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification: General sanctions and 1RR restriction on Richard Goldstone

You are receiving this message because of your involvement at the Richard Goldstone article. Please don't consider it an assumption of bad faith

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

  • In relation to the above, you are informed that the Richard Goldstone article is under a blanket 1RR restriction and violations of this restriction will result in escalating blocks and/or topic/page bans. Thank you for your cooperation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
All right. Though I think you should make clear whether or not the imposed 1RR has a BLP exemption. nableezy - 21:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Help Needed

Hi. I need everyone to help me improve another article about Egyptian Shura Council election that are being held today. thank you -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

drork

Please note that you left a message on my talkpage addressed to another user. I deleted it since it is definitely an error. You may copy it from my "history" and place it on the right talk page. Thanks for your attention. Celshiqma (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It wasnt an error. Bye Drork. nableezy - 13:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hello Nableezy. As you read Arabic, I was hoping you could offer some insight on alternative names now being used in this regard. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really interested, at least not right now, sorry. nableezy - 21:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

I have a notice from you regarding an Edit War. Please review my edits and if you find fault with the historical facts, sources or other relevant information that i am using to support my edits, or if you find fault with my attempts to use language designed to reduce confusion surrounding technically difficult facts or ambiguities let me know. These are complex historical issues and should be written precisely with regard to the facts in a balanced and non-prejudicial manner with a view to helping people understand them so they can draw their own conclusions. I am entitled to express my factual and well supported views without my efforts being frustrated. I understand Wikipedia's need to prevent "edit wars", but my comments are carefully constructed and conceived and are in no way malicious. Copytopic1 (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Nableezy i just got this message from you "Please read WP:3RR, it is a bright line rule. You cannot continue re-reverting or you may be blocked from editing. And there are a number of problems with your edits, including your tendency to include the West Bank and Gaza within Israel. Those issues are best left for the article talk page, I am here to let you know you risk being blocked by continually reverting. Bye. nableezy - 06:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)"

Please show me where my statement presumes the political inclusion of West Bank and Gaza within Israel - i don't believe i ever did that. I suspect you are misreading the information with respect to geography or the historical periods being discussed in my revisions. You may have a present political view that is interfering with your understanding of the geography or history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Copytopic1 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Awkward question...

Hi Nableezy. I'm going to regret asking this, but are Panzertank and Thetruthspeaker09 the same person? Cheers, TFOWRidle vapourings 13:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No idea, nableezy - 14:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
No worries, thanks. It looked to me like you were aware of sock issues on a talk page, and I was worried it might indirectly affect me (one of the editors having commented in an unrelated discussion that does affect me). Anyway, thanks! TFOWRidle vapourings 14:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Thetruthspeaker is definitely a sock, just not sure it is Panzertank's. Havent seen enough of their writing to make a proper comparison. nableezy - 14:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

..for the comment. I haven't seen you around much lately. Tired of the mountains of nonsense or what ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see you have been busy being an 'Arabizer' and 'bullying' people who remove reliably sourced self-identification information from a BLP and then demand that you supply the reliably sourced self-identification information that they have just removed. That's one of the more silly things I've seen this week. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo editing

Are you good with photo editing?

There is this picture used in Gaza flotilla raid: [6]

Can you change the color of Golan so its not the same as Israel, and instead change it to the same color of any other region that isn't a part of Israel? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration RE

Please note the following Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which relates to your edits, here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make sure I return the favor of keeping such a close eye on your edits. nableezy - 21:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested

See here. Cheers. IronDuke 23:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting, but its not the answer. The problem here is how harsh the sanctions have gotten over "violations" that are not worthy of 3 and 6 month blocks and bans. For instance, a couple of years ago Gila's "vios" would have resulted in at most a 24 or 48 hour block. Now admins are blocking people for months and topic banning for a year or more. Seeing how one or two diffs can result in such sanctions can make it appealing for certain users to try and throw a bunch of marginal violations up and hope for the hammer to come down on their opponent. The other thing that is needed is that people should police their own. I think it would be a good idea if there were admins clearly identified as partisans blocking their own side on the regular (thats an invitation to nominate me for adminship). nableezy - 00:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy to nominate you, which would probably torpedo your chances before you began. Seriously, I am aware that this is certainly not "the" answer -- I doubt if such an animal exists. Admins should police their own, but normal editors can, too. And you're right, sanctions have gotten past ridiculous. Admins (acting in good faith, I genuinely believe) have started to privilege process and punishment over content. "I am vaguely annoyed by your edits" easily becomes "You are being disruptive and I shall block you with my big blocking stick." That, I think, will only get worse. IronDuke 00:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
We lowly editors should be policing our own as well, but I think most people would be uncomfortable doing that on-wiki, or at least as forcefully as it should be done. And I have "the" answer. Let me break it down for you, step by step:
  • The topic bans from the J/S case are rescinded
  • A much more stringent RS specifically for the topic area. Only the highest quality secondary sources and some primary sources should be used. No news articles, no random websites, not most of the think-tanks (there are a few on each side I think should be fine), no polemical commentary sites, no editorials or op-eds, no ...
  • No news articles means no news articles, so no more "encyclopedia" articles on things that are still news. The "Gaza War" is just starting to have serious sources writing about it, the "Gaza flotilla raid" wont have any real quality sources on it for at least 6 months, so those articles dont exist. It is impossible to have a truly NPOV account of something that is still "news". I think, especially in this area, we need quality articles, not he said she said bullshit
  • Something with AE needs to change, dont know what yet.
nableezy - 00:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
There may be merit in your position, but the news thing is, ever, ever gonna fly. It's on the front page, for crying out loud. No one will go for that. Yes, the J/S case needs to be immediately rescinded. More likely than a news blackout, but also not going to happen. The arbs are still quite proud of what they did. IronDuke 00:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Obviously there is no chance of any of that happening, but, like most things Wikipedians turn down, it is still a good idea. nableezy - 01:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, you may be on to something here. If only "the powers that be" would bother to honestly listen, instead of playing G-d. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 06:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've often wondered what would happen if editors could opt into a scheme where they acquired the privilege to block one opposing editor for 24hours per day for any reason whatsoever but with 2 prerequisites 1) the opposing editor must have opted into the scheme as well and 2) the opposing editor could still exercise their blocking privilege while blocked. Might be interesting. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

More than interesting, would be a whole lotta fun. It would also end in wiki-tears, I'm afraid. IronDuke 23:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Or a heck of a lot of socks.. :-) But an interesting idea indeed.... --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 01:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Who cares

Didn't want to ignore your question, but didn't want to further weigh down that discussion. Answer: I do. As I hope I've made clear, I'm not pushing for blocking for you for arguably violating your ban by editing an article in the A-I area, broadly construed. I'm happy to adhere to whatever consensus may be. I am troubled, however, by a lack of consistency in application of wiki rules in this area. That's what leads to charges in the press of that area of wp being plagued by POV sysop treatment. It's better for the project if we can have consistent treatment (whatever it might be). IMHO, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you like an honest reply to this or not? nableezy - 22:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting question. I tend to be pro-honesty. But the shaping of your query strikes me as consistent with one that is meant to precede a disparaging comment. Your call. If you wish to reply here, sure. Here's hoping it leans towards civility.  :) --Epeefleche (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Let me make this easier for you. You have two options, an honest response that may not be "civil" or no response at all. If you want an honest response I expect that you will act grown up enough about it to not run to AE. Matter fact, never mind, no response it is. nableezy - 23:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds fine. I think I get, by your comment, the emotion behind it. Which, of course, is what incivility is generally meant to convey. Best, as always.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
If you say so. But there wasnt any emotion in my comment. Unless apathy is an emotion. nableezy - 00:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hanin Zoaby, Arab Israeli citizen

Two other people think the same as me on keeping the Palestinian identification out of the lead - please see:[7] and [8]

Note the rationale here. It will likely be used again to take away mention of citizenship if Palestinian is in the lead, and especially if it is at the start of the lead. Or perhaps a rationale will be given of making the lead more concise, or something like that. Regardless of the reason, the important distinction between a born citizen of Israel and a non-citizen of everywhere will be blurred.

Note the reasoning here - I think it is exactly correct.

Here we see the confabulation-removal of the important term citizen again Here we see the introduction of more confusion. And here were see still more confusion and confabulation

Anyway, this was my compromise because it still mentioned Palestinian. However, I do believe it would be better to keep it out of the lead entirely, but explained in some detail in the body of the article. I believe some Israeli-Arab citizens identify as "Palestinian", but others do not. This is another reason to give the issue a separate treatment, but in the body of the article so that the proper nuances can be discussed.

In any case, I hope you give this issue some re-consideration.- Regards, KeptSouth (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

One of those people has a long history of attempting to remove the word Palestine and Palestinian from Wikipedia articles, so forgive me for not paying that IP much mind. Number57's edit doesnt actually say that Palestinian should not be in the lead, but rather that it must be made clear that she is an Israeli citizen. The third edit is just wrong, she is an Israeli citizen and we should say that. But she is also a Palestinian and we should also say that. The fourth diff says we have to mention the fact she is an Israeli citizen, my edit does that. The next diff added Arab to Palestinian. Prior to 1948 that would be required, so as to differentiate between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews. Not so much anymore as Palestinian is used almost exclusively to apply to Arabs (though there are a few Jews who call themselves Palestinian Jews, Uri Davis to name one off the top of my head). But no matter, we can just say Palestinian Arab, I dont see how that causes any confusion. The last link I think is poorly written, but not confusing. Any way, none of these diffs actually say what is wrong with saying a "Palestinian Arab who is a citizen of Israel and serves in the Knesset ...". I dont know how other Arab citizens of Israel define themselves, whether as Palestinian or not, but I know how Zoabi does. I see no reason to not include her ethnicity in the lead. nableezy - 21:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the diffs don't actually say what is wrong with calling her a Palestinian Arab right at the start of the article; the explanation I gave on the talk page did. This was meant as an alternative way of trying to show you my point, but that apparently is not possible. - Best regards, KeptSouth (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be possible, I just dont see how you did so. You made a distinction between her legal status as an Israeli citizen and her ethnicity, saying one should be included and the other not. I dont understand that at all. Why is her being an Israeli citizen any more important than her self-identified ethnicity. The two dont contradict each other, so I dont see how it could be confusing. nableezy - 21:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

←No, it is not possible. I made a fairly good attempt at explaining. But it does not seem to me that you made a fair attempt at listening, because each time you respond, you restate or summarize my position incorrectly. Regards KeptSouth (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If you say so. nableezy - 13:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this before I made my edit. Did not bother to check that an edit war had started. Anyway, her main claim to fame now is that she is a Member of Knesset so that should lead. It is redundant to say that she is an Israeli citizen if she is a Member of Knesset. About saying she is a Palestinian, is this fact, or something she claims. Should be sourced by an RS. In any case, not in the lead sentence. --Shuki (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

←No, an edit war had not started. This was merely a discussion. Why on earth would you want to characterize it as an edit war? As to your other point, I do understand why you would not want her citizenship mentioned in the lead, especially considering the fact that all most people read is the lead. Regards KeptSouth (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Number57 insisted that just saying MoK was not enough, that we needed to say she is a citizen of Israel. And what kind of question is "something she claims"? She says she is Palestinian, why would that not be enough? She has said this a number of times. nableezy - 23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

<- this should be moved to the article talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but I cant be bothered to do all that work. nableezy - 01:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
If an article has to be semi protected, than it's an edit war. Anyway, the lead is definitely awkward right now. I think it might be significant enough for a mention, if she has declared herself Palestinian since this is not a default assumption with Arab Israelis but probably not even in the lead paragraph. --Shuki (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The article was semi'd because of vandalism and BLP concerns; an IP user repeatedly inserting unsourced speculation as to the sexuality Ms. Zoabi. Interesting how you say "her main claim to fame now is that she is a Member of Knesset so that should lead" but make an opposite argument on other pages. Very interesting. nableezy - 17:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
So you are saying that all BLP articles should start with 'X is a man'? To which I tell you to go find one that does. A BLP article can be about a man or a woman, and it is p r e t t y r e d u n d a n t to mention this in the lead, unless the sexuality of a person is disputed, or if their homosexuality is significant. 'Y is a lesbian'? Does not seem to fit either as a lead description. --Shuki (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I dont believe I said any of those things. What I said was that an IP was adding unsourced speculation about the sexuality of Ms. Zoabi and that is what led to the semi-protection, not any "edit-warring". I also said I found it interesting that you feel that an article should lead with its "main claim to fame" when you have been making the opposite argument at a number of pages. I didnt say you were wrong here, I agree the most notable thing about the subject of an article, determined by the sources, should lead the article. But, unlike you, I am consistent with that view. nableezy - 19:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Apples and Oranges. BLP does not apply to inanimate objects and populated places and the format of each type of article is not similar. You should be comparing BLP articles with BLP, and geography articles with geography. --Shuki (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You can pretend that is a real argument. I wont though. nableezy - 00:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'm asking

Say what's on your mind. Let loose. I won't report. Talking sh*t doesn't bother me. Messing around with content does.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

All right. And feel free to return the favor. Here though, none of this belongs on an article talk page.

The biggest problem that I see with your editing is not that you have a clearly identifiable view on the subject and that you promote that view, but that you demand that view, no matter how poor the sources are, be placed ahead, and sometimes even to the exclusion of, what are clearly super-majority views. This edit pissed me off. Everything that you wrote in your edit summary is true (well, the Golan Law never actually says "annex", see for example Eyāl Benveniśtî (2004) The international law of occupation p. 114), but you then decide that because Israel considers this place a town that it somehow is not an Israeli settlement. The other problem that I have had with your edits is your reliance on incredibly poor sources, verging on propaganda, to try to push what can at times be a fringe view. On the tourism article you present a source by Dore Gold and say it is "a more contemporary view of the subject of sovereignty" of the Golan, as if it being newer means it is of higher quality. The source you were comparing this to was a peer-reviewed journal article by Adam Roberts (scholar). And you were presenting this source as if to argue that what Roberts wrote is not accurate. Do you really dispute that the Golan is recognized by the international community as Syrian territory held in a state of belligerent occupation? Really? You cannot be that dumb, you can not name 3 states that do not hold the view that is Syrian territory held under occupation by Israel, and Ill even let you say Israel as one of the 3. The same issue with Deir Yassin. You pushed and pushed to get garbage sources into the article, to the point that any legitimate sources that you had were drowned out by the bullshit. There was one or two sources that were acceptable, the problem was neither of those sources went as far as the garbage ones did and they didnt support the kind of language you were using in the article. So you put in a bunch of bad sources that did support that material. You will use any source, no matter how low the quality, to get across a story more sympathetic to Israel. The thing that bothers me about this is that I do think you are a smart person, smart enough to know many of the sources you use are garbage and some of the arguments you make are fallacious. Let me ask three questions. Do you really think the statement that "the Golan Heights are recognized by the international community as Syrian territory held by Israel in a state of military occupation" is in any way inaccurate? What about replacing Golan with West Bank? What about replacing it with East Jerusalem? Not if you think they are or are not occupied, but if they are recognized as such. nableezy - 07:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty tame. I was bracing for worse. My turn. You've been on wiki a bit longer than I so I was unfamiliar with your edits or views when we first crossed paths. Our first encounters were adversarial but cordial. Though you took positions that were frequently at odds with mine, I still thought you were a decent chap. I even offered to mediate disputes you were having with Stellarkid and DrorK (telling the latter that you were a decent guy). My impression of you began changing when I saw you jump from one IP subject to another, knee-jerkingly taking Israel-bashing positions, filing AEs in an attempt to silence those with opposing views and tag-teaming with those of like-mind to ensure that your view and only your view, dominates. Sorry, but that's not what Wikipedia is about.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I actually regret taking Drork to AE as I think he is a smart person who should be contributing here. But if you did not notice why I did so let me elighten you. Drork came back from a small amount of time off and did nothing but call me and a few other anti-Israel mafioso type bullies. That was all he was doing, over and over again. If he had just resisted the urge to be a complete douchebag I would not have brought the AE against him. And I dont take "Israel-bashing positions", or not what any reasonable person could call "Israel-bashing". There is an odd tendency among those on your side to say that anything that is not sufficiently "pro-Israel" must be "anti-Israel". Nobody every says "anti-Palestinian" when describing the most lunatic fringe of the far right in Israel, they are always just "pro-Israel". Have I ever advocated that there should be no "Israel"? Then how exactly am I "anti-Israel"? Which of my positions is "Israel-bashing"? I am not trying to silence anybody, but since you bring that up, have you noticed a number of users have tried to get me blocked for reverting vandalism? Does that not bother you as an attempt to "silence" an opposing perspective? And I am a "decent chap", if you dont fuck with me I dont fuck with you. Simple really. But my "decency" ends when you start making a mockery of historical facts purely out of some nationalistic, or something else, sense that you must defend a certain state, regardless of the facts of the situation. I can work well with people on the "other side", ie "your side", but not with those who insist that anything that Israel says is true and that is the end of the story, to hell with all the high quality sources that dispute Israel's propaganda. You are rapidly becoming one of those people. I have, more than most, if not all, on the pro-I side, put things in the mainspace that reflected well on the "other side" or poorly on "my side". When you can point to edits that you have made that goes against the position of a certain state I might take you seriously when you say that I am trying make sure my view is the only one that dominates. Did you not notice that you removed what the entire world calls Katzrin and instead only left what Israel calls it? Who is trying to make their position dominate? nableezy - 19:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
In case you didn’t notice. I took no part in that latest AE filed against you. In fact, I never commented on an AE in which you were involved. As far as making edits that went against my personal viewpoint, I did that as well. In fact, I worked hard with an editor (Elummah) from the “other side” on a particular article that was fraught with edit warring and endless reverts. We both agreed to compromise on contentious issues and brought stability to a very unstable article. One editor from "my side" actually made a pejorative reference to the "honeymoon" that I was having with Elummah precisely because of my compromising stance. The POV tag was ultimately removed and stability, (to the extent that any article on Wikipedia can be called stable) was restored. I am asking you, as an editor from the "other side" to work with me on Deir Yassin. Are you up for it?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I did notice, I havent accused you of trying to get an opposing editor blocked. I am saying there is a lack of consistency in your view and that you are off-base with the Drork issue, though I do regret his being banned. I am pretty much in agreement with most of the others at Deir Yassin. The only real source you brought says that some "Arab men" wore women's clothing to attempt to escape, not "Arab combatants" as you have continually put into the article. I am fine with including what the reliable source says, not what the rest of the garbage sources say. And you dont help your case when you bring garbage sources or misrepresent others. You have repeatedly said that Milstein does not call it a massacre yet he devotes an entire section to, you guessed it, "the massacre". After things like that some people, myself included, stop taking you seriously. I myself have no problem including the claim that Arab men had dressed as women to try to escape the fighting, sourced to Gelber. But you want to go much farther than that, and no real source supports what you are trying to place in the article. And you conveniently side-stepped my question about Katzrin while continuing to pretend that I want to have my personal view and only my personal view in the mainspace. nableezy - 21:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
And comparing your editing behavior on Richard Goldstone and Caroline Glick is very informative. Consistency, that is the only currency that I recognize on Wikipedia, and you have shown yourself to be consistent in only one way. Whatever argument is needed to push a right wing Israeli POV is the argument you will make, doesnt matter how intellectually dishonest that argument is or how incompatible it is with other arguments you have pushed. nableezy - 21:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I won't be a dick and run to AE if you both to choose to have some candid dialogue between yourselves here.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing? nableezy - 07:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Didn't want there to be any confusion on anyone's end Cptnono (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nableezy/Archive_21&oldid=1079467363"