User talk:Nableezy/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 → Archive 40

Ma'an news - RSN

You might be interested in this discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Ma.27an_News Ankh.Morpork 17:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask you a question

Bear in mind. I am Irish, I have no dog in the PI crap at all. I like actual historical facts, which is on wiki I tend to deal with that kinda shite. But I have to ask you, do you really thing a newswire such as Maan is suitable for the articles you want to use it on? And before you ask, no the JP should not be used on that article either. Do you not think using western sources only would prove beneficial? Your choice Nab. I ask you to work on this and look for neutral sources, what say you? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you see what it is being used for? To answer your question, I dont think any newspapers should be used, and the idea that it should only be Western newspapers is even worse than allowing all of them. But in my ideal world, only books published by top quality academic presses and peer-reviewed journals would be used, so no articles on anything that happened in say the last year, including that one. But that isnt the world I live in, the one I live in has people trying to use Israeli sources and remove Palestinian sources. You think thats right? nableezy - 18:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Nab, it just happened, we will not be writing about in either books or journals for a year at least. But I know what you are saying, and I do feel for you and your people, mine went through much the same after all. Look, I respect you in how you feel, I felt the same 30 years ago. But to try and lower the conflict here on Wiki, what would you think is the best way forward? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
If you think I dont know the consequences of restricting the sources, I do. No more articles about what just happened. nableezy - 19:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
And do you think its a bad thing?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
If I did would I support it? nableezy - 19:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
How no? All newspapers carry the same stories after all. Chirst the Guardian carrys such stories all the time. Do you not look at western press at all? Google the guy who got killed, the mentally unstable one a few weeks ago, all the press carried it. You do not trust the west, and I do not blame you, but the press is free and will print what the hell they want, you must know this. Look, I am off out as it is new years eve and have a date Have a good one yourself, and please bear in mind, I am neutral in all of this, should you have issues with an edit let me know and I will happily look it over. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but youre not "neutral" in this. And I didnt say I dont "trust" the West. nableezy - 19:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
'the press is free and will print what the hell they want.' The first proposition is dubious. What presses 'set fit to print' is often a calculated judgement on and compromise over,(a) what the owners prefer, (b) what advertisers on them won't object to, and (c) what the readership that buys the paper would prefer to read. As one sees at critical moments, in The Times of London, or The New York Times, reportage can be devastatingly skewed (Iraq War 2003). This goes for the mainstream press. The second proposition has nothing to do with either comprehensiveness or accuracy of reportage, but rather 'who cares. I like it, I want the readership to think this way'. The Murdoch press is a prime, and notorious example. It's an old book, but one I commend for New Year reading, one written by Walter Lippmann, i.e. hisPublic Opinion 1921 (freely downloadable), a trenchantly eloquent treatise on ther 'pseudo-environment' in which we are constrained to live by exposure to mass media.

'analysis of the nature of news and of the economic basis of journalism seems to show that the newspapers necessarily and inevitably reflect, and therefore, in greater or lesser measure, intensify, the defective organization of public opinion.'

This is what a great humane, liberal newspaperman could write about what really occurs in the mass media. At the time, that was a centrist admission of how much bullshit is flogged to a gullible public to 'manufacture consent' at whatever price to the facts. His position is held today by Noam Chomsky, whom Lippmann's moderate, liberal, bien-pensant heirs regard as a dangerous man. In short, the classical moderate realist view of how information is cut and tailored to produce a social mindset is now only retained by those whom modern day centrists call extremists. End of New Year Lecture, except for noting that 'Darkness Shines' is an allusion to the mystical treatise of Dionysus the Areopagite. Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

ARBPIA / Discretionary Sanctions warning

(this is being made equally to Nableezy, Baseball Bugs, and Tkuvho)

Recent comments on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which you participated in, degenerated into mutually combative personal attacks among at least the three of you. Several way nastyness over several days, including noticeboard (ANI, etc) arguments has enused.

This is not acceptable behavior. All of you are editors with long experiences here and in good standing; usually you behave much better.

This message is a formal warning that the Discrectionary Sanctions (formerly ARBPIA sanctions) are in force for this topic area and if the disruption continues, further sanctions, including temporary topic or article bans or blocks per policy may be used to separate the combatants.

File:Yes

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain what the basis is for saying that my comments have been anywhere near remotely as bad as Baseball Bugs? I'm called a racist and I am warned? For what? And Baseball Bugs still has not redacted his vile accusation. In fact he has doubled down on it at ANI. nableezy - 23:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Your comments are not as bad as his; you and Kyuvho were both about one step short of actually problematic attacks, though Bugs was right about on the line or slightly over it. All in my opinion.
The combination of all three of your behaviors, which was going in both directions, was a policy problem and disruptive.
I hope you can appreciate the difference between "you are being confrontational in a disruptive conversation" and "you made personal attacks in a disruptive conversation". I am not accusing you of the latter, but believe you did the former. The conversation, the way it's gone, needs to stop for a bit.
Regarding you being called a Racist - and Bugs' ongoing behavior - I am not going to apply sanctions for the prior pre-warning activities (the discretionary sanctions wouldn't let me) but am re-re-reviewing the racist claim and I understand why you're not happy with it. I will ask Bugs to strike or remove it, at least, and if he does not will hat it. Please give me some time to have that discussion with him.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
George, you have to understand that in this topic area those accusations are poison. They are made with the specific aim to silence other editors. I am on-record as saying any editor engaging in antisemitic conduct in the topic area should be banned. I have also said that any user who makes that accusation without evidence, much less actual justification, should be banned. Baseball Bugs went further in the ANI thread then he did at RS/N, saying that he thinks the same of every editor who calls the news wire "reliable". There are a number of users that are implicitly branded as antisemites by that comment. It was outrageous when he wrote it the first time, and every time he has refused to redact has caused further outage. If he refuses to redact it he should be blocked, full stop. He needs to get through his head that he cant call others racists to shut them up when he is incapable of responding to their arguments. If it takes a block for him to understand that, or at least to understand that if he does so again he'll be blocked again, then thats what it takes. nableezy - 23:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Greetings Nableezy, Part of the problem here is that you are determined that the answer is black and BB will not accept anything but white. The truth lies in shades of grey. You have allowed the ad hominem ploy to be effective because you are no longer arguing whether or not the source is reliable, but instead whether or not BB has attacked you; how aggrieving the attack felt, and what you believe is necessary to restore the status quo. Ironically, this entirely different debate is also neither black nor white. You established a valid point long ago, you are now diminishing your credibility, walking the present course; and you were suckered in to walking it. Such is life however. Happy new year. BTW I seem to have lost a minnow on the way here. I hope it never turns up; needed. --My76Strat (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
If it diminishes my credibility fine. Id be cool with GWH letting me tell BB what I think of him and calling it a day. But where it matters, RS/N, I only said it was reported to ANI and went back to the issue of reliability. But happy New Year's to you as well. nableezy - 23:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Replying to Nableezy's last:
I don't know how far I'm going to go on supporting that, but I do agree he outright called you antisemitic, and at the very least that's not OK, and as I said, give me a little time to deal with it.
The Discretionary Sanctions policy doesn't let me use DS against conduct before the warning. Other policy might but the total damage done by this will be magnified by the size of the hammer needed to stop it, so I am going to work my way up rather than start with overkill. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Whatever, fine, but Id still like the opportunity to let BB know what I think of him. nableezy - 23:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I think he knows what you think. I am more likely to get through to him on it at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I dont. I think he might have an idea, but I would relish the opportunity to make sure, but Id try not to be too explicit. nableezy - 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Write an essay. Make the stone a stepping stone opposed to the stumbling stone it was meant to be. --My76Strat (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
An essay on what I think about "Baseball Bugs" and his intellectual capacity? I was thinking more along the lines of two or three sentences. nableezy - 00:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Knock it off. Prodego talk 00:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you havent done anything about the slur that still stands on RS/N. But Ill knock it off, sure thing. Because thats obviously much more important. nableezy - 00:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, --WGFinley (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

New section

See this...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colonialism#The_whole_section_needs_bulldozing

We're discussing the possibility of creating a new section altogether for the purpose of addressing the dispute surrounding Israel. At the moment, too many people disagree that it belongs under colonial migrations, even with the sources you provided. Let us know what you think.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Im sorry, but you yourself are not too many people. nableezy - 19:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Colonialism

What is it that you've accused me of doing on the Colonialism article? Your post to the ANI page was somewhat unclear, and your accusing me of "noise" and not being able to "edit constructively by adhering to our content policies" makes no sense,. Good luck with editing the I/P articles, you'll need it.Ubikwit (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think manus would have been much better off on the indigenous page without either of you. At the colonialism article you mixed garbage sources with excellent ones. When you do that it makes it easy for people to dismiss your entire argument. You seem to be trying to argue at the same level as a certain interlocutor, that doesnt help actually get anything done. Im not trying to discourage you, but I think you could use some time editing in other areas. nableezy - 04:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
What garbage sources?--Ubikwit (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
This one in particular, this is a transcript from a hearing in the US Senate (available here) which isnt garbage but shouldnt be used as anything more than it is, this is actually that same Senate hearing, and this is a self-published book. nableezy - 06:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Im sorry, I misread who brought those links. That was mostly what I was basing my impression off of, and Im sorry that I thought that you were the one to post those. Got thrown off by the red-linked name at the beginning of the post with the links. I take back what I said, here and ANI if I could. nableezy - 06:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for checking that and admitting the mistake. The only source I newly introduced into that discussion was the FMEP statistical data that you commented on the related RSN posting.
I don't now if it will do any good, but maybe you could mention that to deskana. He had issued a warning here that the next person to revert that page would be blocked, so there is a possibility that his closing of the case was made on the basis of his checking the Colonialism article after reading your comment at AN/I. I've put in quite a bit of effort on some articles, and wouldn't want to miss the discussion in the Jerusalem RfC, in case there is anything of significance I might have to contribute.
By the way, it would have been helpful if you'd gotten involved in the discussion on the Colonialism Talk page a week or so ago.
Regarding the Indigenous peoples article, until I cued in Maunus in onto a diatribe that Crock81 had posted on EdJohnston's talk page he wasn't aware of what that guy was up to. And both I and Maunus had at first been trying to accommodate a somewhat broader definition to permit other types of research to be included on that page, but he had an agenda, and had made 33 edits in a 24 hour period, or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubikwit (talk • contribs) 06:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Since I don't see traces of an administrative act to have re-opened the discussion, but the "closed" template is gone, it is unclear whether that has actually been re-opened.
In any case, I'm curious as to why you haven't mentioned your above-mentioned mistake to deskana. --Ubikwit (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, wasnt on the last day or so. But looking at Deskana's talk page, it doesnt seem as though he or she is interested in talking about this. I've stricken my !vote from the archive, but there isnt much more that can be done. I really am sorry for the mistake. I think the best thing for you going forward, if you want to edit this topic, is spend a few months bringing up some articles outside of the topic to good or featured status. Then you can ask the ban be rescinded. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding. nableezy - 18:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


Wikipedia Relaible source noticeboard

Discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue which may interest you -- (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited E1 Plan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Construction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

did you check your mail

Sean.hoyland - talk 16:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. nableezy - 16:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Wish that search worked with multiple users, would make this much easier. nableezy - 16:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Just some light reading in case you missed them

Saw those, but thanks. nableezy - 19:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Herut

User:Wolfgang Fontaine is obviously him... What's your mind ? Pluto2012 (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I just can't be bothered to provide the details at SPI. e.g. this edit repeats this edit by a CU blocked AndresHerutJaim sock. I think most of the edits can be tied to previous socks. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The man has no imagination, no creep to his game. I dont get the point here, everything he does is reverted. With just a little bit of effort, like Dajudem, he could get away with it for more than an hour at a time. nableezy - 19:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

PERM

Hi Nableezy,

I did it here : [1]. Is this the wrong place ? I wonder so because you didn't advise me the same place... ? Pluto2012 (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you were right, thats the correct place. Ill approve anything I see until you get the permission. Take care, nableezy - 20:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Moderation of Jerusalem RfC

Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Palestinian people

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Palestinian people. Discussion regarding the Historical history regarding the Palestinian people could use your contribution. Previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) show you are well versed in expertise in the field. Lazyfoxx 07:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Nableezy, according to an administrator and one user editor, whose judgement I don't necessarily agree with, this was considered canvassing on my part even though I followed legal Wikipedia policy and had no intention of canvassing at all, my only intent was seeking resolution and understanding through educated editors discussion, please disregard the statement above concerning the Palestinian discussion, thank you. Lazyfoxx 05:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one

Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to message

This is a response to this message: "You have, once again violated the 1RR. If you do not self-revert I will report the violation." I had been trying to include some sources in an article. Right now, I cannot self-revert, as another editor has already removed those edits --68.6.227.26 (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC).

The "edit war" was over whether or not to include Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Giulio Meotti in the sources. My last edit did not involve either of those. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

When editing the article, I made two reverts. I thought that 24 hours had passed when I made the second, though only 21 had. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I did not think the last edit was a revert. The previous edits had been about Israel MFA and Meotti; the last was not. My previous edits had been reverted because others did not want to include those sources, though there doesn't seem to be an objection to the ones I added afterward. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I will try that. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

AndresHerutJaim

Is this his IP? I saw on the SPI page he is from Argentina? But this IP restored the last sock edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

New RM of Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem

There's a new New RM of Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem at Talk:Jordanian_occupation_of_the_West_Bank_and_East_Jerusalem#Requested_move_2. I'm telling you about this because you were involved in the previous one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 11:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Arabic script

Salam Nableezy. Was wondering if you could add the Arabic script to the article Ten Hamadi? Another editor asked me to do so, but I can't. I asked Yazan as well, but he might be on a wiki-break. -- Al Ameer son (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two question

Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could place the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As'ad abukhalil

You're being obtuse. Don't be a fool -- as'ad was clearly calling for Israelis to kill themselves, even if he was being coy about it. You're letting your bias blind you — Preceding unsigned comment added by OKCupidShrew (talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three

Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Z554‎

Despite your warning User:Z554‎ has now done done two reverts at the WP:ARBPIA covered page Mondoweiss in a matter of minutes, replacing sourced with unsourced POV. See last couple contributons tonight. I can't remember if they are supposed to go to WP:AE or WP:ANI and just put an Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis sock notice on latter and a bit tired tonight. So FYI. CarolMooreDC🗽 01:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI: he did a 3rr on a 1rr article. So I've reported him here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Z554_reported_by_User:Carolmooredc_.28Result:_.29 CarolMooreDC🗽 14:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Parts of Jerusalem that are geographically in North West Jerusalem and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 21:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

East-Jerusalem included

Here are other sources stating that East-Jerusalem is an occupied territory :

  • from UN website. It is referred as such in all of the UN resolutions regarding this topic since 1998.

Widely speaking, Resolution 904 (1994) of the Security Council states that Jerusalem entirely is an occupied territory : Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, which affirmed the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 to the territories occupied by Israel in June 1967, including Jerusalem, and the Israeli responsibilities thereunder.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. But I think 904 is still referring only to EJ, western Jerusalem was not occupied by Israel in June 1967. nableezy - 12:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
That's a complex issue.
I think Jerusalem is considered as an occupied territory (referring to the 'corpus seperatum') and East-Jerusalem is considered as a Palestinian Occupied Territory but I could never find as source nuancing both aspects simultaneously. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC at List of Israeli cities

There's a RFC at to talk:List of Israeli cities#RfC: Are Israeli settlements Israeli cities? about weather the articles inclusion of Israeli settlements (with city status) as "Israeli cities" in this context original research, or otherwise problematic. I'm telling you this because you made a related post on the article talk page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC step three comments

Hi Nableezy. About your comments at the Jerusalem RfC discussion - I've noticed that some of your posts have been focused on the conduct of the other editors, rather than on the content issues at hand. Actually, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the way you express some of your comments makes it hard to tell whether they are comments about the content or about user conduct. For example, on one level this comment appears to be taking issue with what should be considered original research. This is, of course, a perfectly legitimate subject for a comment. On another level, though, saying things like "silly me", and "thats what again? Oh yeah, its not the same" might be interpreted as sarcasm, and therefore as a judgement of the actions of the editor in question.

As I wrote in the introductory section, I would like participants to keep comments focused on content, and I would prefer that there be no discussion of user conduct on the RfC discussion page. To this end, it would be a great help if you could make an extra effort to strip your comments of anything that might be considered sarcasm, or of anything that might otherwise appear to be commenting on user conduct. Would you be willing to do this? If you have any concerns about user conduct, even small ones, you are welcome to bring them up with me in private (preferably by email), and I will take a look. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Ive replaced the comment. Hope thats better, if not let me know. nableezy - 21:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Conduct

I responded to the RfC at Talk:Rujm el-Hiri. I think you might consider a wiki-break. You seem to have an axe to grind and Wikipedia is not the place to do so. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you learned that in your 329 edits with more than 50% in userspace? Thanks for the advice, really, no sarcasm at all. nableezy - 04:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

...

Glad to see your are still around and doing what you do. Hope all is well. -asad (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC

A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: finalising drafts

Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.

So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.

Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by the end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Palestinian people

Heya Nableezy! Kaif Halek? Actually I was under 1RR at Palestinian people, and therefore, to avoid block due the violation, I self-reverted myself here, and I am thankful to you for the successor edit. Faizan -Let's talk! 05:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step four

Hello everyone. We are now at step four of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, where we will decide the details of the RfC implementation. This is the home stretch - the RfC proper will begin as soon as we have finished this step. Step four is also less complicated than the previous steps, as it is mostly about procedural issues. This means it should be over with a lot more quickly than the previous steps. There are some new questions for you to answer at the discussion page, and you can see how the RfC is shaping up at the RfC draft page. Also, when I say that this step should be over with a lot quicker than the previous steps, I mean it: I have set a provisional deadline of Monday, 20th May for responses. I'm looking forward to seeing your input. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Syria

I've just noticed that some user moved Arab Kingdom of Syria to Kingdom of Syria. You had reverted him at first (back in 2012), but he came back to move it once again, while blocking the revert possibility (manipulating the redirect). I think it should be moved to the original title. See Talk:Arab Kingdom of Syria.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You do a lot of editing on Palestine and Israel articles perhaps you can help

I'm having a problem with a group of editors who insist on placing images of illegal Israeli settlements in the Culture of Israel article, such as Tzofim, which I find completely inappropriate and unacceptable.

This, despite there being no objectionable bias by deleting them.

Perhaps you can help?

Solntsa90 (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There is also the adding of Holy Judaica objects to the main article, which may offend some religious orthodox Jews and some secular Jews, as well as many non-Jewish Israelis.

WP:Canvassing--IranitGreenberg (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, so you do know what that is. Funny, I though you didnt. nableezy - 12:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't propose Gilabrand to intervene in a disputed article, I only ask him if he wants to contribute in a new one. That's not canvassing.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Funny, what you asked was for Gilabrand to add specific material to two existing articles. Or did you not say And could you add something about Palestinian political violence or criticism in the "Palestinian nationalism" article?? You should really try to understand that the internet is written in ink, and people can look at your edits to see whether you are being truthful (hint, youre not being truthful). nableezy - 13:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
And people can also see when youre playing games. That was almost a slick move changing the link in the edit warring report. Almost. nableezy - 13:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Crickets. Guess you dont want to try playing this off anymore. In the future, try not upbraid somebody for violating a rule that you yourself violated mere hours before. Looks kind of, oh whats the word, hypocritical. nableezy - 14:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"Canvassing"!? What rubbish. I have done nothing of the sort. I just assumed that, because he/she was an admin (or so I thought, my mistake since I believe I was wrong), seems to partake a special interest in articles relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and was the only admin I knew up at the time (not to mention, as an Arabic speaker, he/she could help correct WP:bias something especially important to me on my endeavor in wikiworld ). Are you insinuating that because Nableezy is possibly Arab or even Palestinian, that he/she is incapable of making unbiased, corrective edits?

Solntsa90 (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nableezy/Archive_36&oldid=1144761057"