User talk:Nableezy/Archive 40
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Likud
As an FYI, another administrator applied ECP and placed the edit notice on Likud earlier this month. Just saw it when I was looking at it after you mentioned it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, I just looked at the talk page and didnt see the sanctions banner. I think this is going just a bit too far, and I also think the impact is largely negative. But I wont push it much further. nableezy - 19:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, I get your point of view, and I can understand the issues you have with the edit war, but I actually think the recent edit war shows why the sanctions are necessary (the claims of anti-Semitism likely result from the history with Israel.) On the flip side, making it clear that this article falls within the topic area makes it easier if editors are being disruptive to deal with it. I’ve been trying to loosen some of the over reach in this area of late, but I also can’t see a way to justify this being outside the sanctions (and I’ve tried.) Anyway, if you do want to appeal, AE should hopefully give the clearest answer. Thanks for being so willing to talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Honestly I considered taking it to AE instead of ANI because that was part of what was being edit-warred over. But the part about anti-semitism, that was about Sayyid Qutb. Now Qutb wrote a little about Israel, mostly about his distaste for America with its support of Israel being one of the reasons (not the first though). Now my guess is you are right, the reason that was being edit-warred over, with that user in particular, was some misguided urge to fight for Israel on Wikipedia. The other user not so much, they seem to be actually going through the article and checking the sources, with next to nothing having to do with Israel or the broader region at all. Ill say for me, I mostly edit in the ARBPIA topic area. But my interest in that article is entirely about Egypt; Egyptian history and politics. I do wish there was some way to enforce the sanctions on just the portion of the article that is related, as I think with the current set up the new user involved there likely will just give up and leave. And given that this completely made up edit stood for four years before somebody actually checked it I think that is a self-evidently bad thing. Im leaving them a note letting them know they should continue to raise issues on the talk page, and hopefully they do so. nableezy - 20:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- My rough view is that it is connected enough to the conflict that it invites edits like the one you linked and the recent edits, which are things the restrictions are designed to help avoid. I hope that makes some sense. Also, yes, I agree, disruption on that article is best handled at AE over ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Honestly I considered taking it to AE instead of ANI because that was part of what was being edit-warred over. But the part about anti-semitism, that was about Sayyid Qutb. Now Qutb wrote a little about Israel, mostly about his distaste for America with its support of Israel being one of the reasons (not the first though). Now my guess is you are right, the reason that was being edit-warred over, with that user in particular, was some misguided urge to fight for Israel on Wikipedia. The other user not so much, they seem to be actually going through the article and checking the sources, with next to nothing having to do with Israel or the broader region at all. Ill say for me, I mostly edit in the ARBPIA topic area. But my interest in that article is entirely about Egypt; Egyptian history and politics. I do wish there was some way to enforce the sanctions on just the portion of the article that is related, as I think with the current set up the new user involved there likely will just give up and leave. And given that this completely made up edit stood for four years before somebody actually checked it I think that is a self-evidently bad thing. Im leaving them a note letting them know they should continue to raise issues on the talk page, and hopefully they do so. nableezy - 20:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, I get your point of view, and I can understand the issues you have with the edit war, but I actually think the recent edit war shows why the sanctions are necessary (the claims of anti-Semitism likely result from the history with Israel.) On the flip side, making it clear that this article falls within the topic area makes it easier if editors are being disruptive to deal with it. I’ve been trying to loosen some of the over reach in this area of late, but I also can’t see a way to justify this being outside the sanctions (and I’ve tried.) Anyway, if you do want to appeal, AE should hopefully give the clearest answer. Thanks for being so willing to talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. As someone who uses wikipedia a lot as a starting point for research, I think it's important not to have unsupported claims or contentious claims supported by unreliable sources hence my editing of the Muslim Brotherhood article. I did have a read through the discussions you had with the other user and even though the decision to restrict the editing of the article seems quite a misjudgement, I think it's somewhat understandable. Don't worry, I won't be discouraged from improving other articles as long as I'm a user of wikipedia and will make sure to raise any other issues that I may have with the Muslim Brotherhood article in the talk page. Faaraax (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
just want to say marhaba
missed you & happy to see you are still here. Tiamuttalk 19:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- legit biggest smile in a month. nableezy - 22:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Re: NPA
Hi Nableezy,
I am aware that WP:TE accusations can be construed as personal attacks, but I assure you that the comment was 100% about your edits, and not about you personally. Point of view is a subjective thing, but your edit to List of Israeli cities was a clear violation of WP:POINT, which is a form of tendentious editing, outlined at WP:TE. Again, I stress that this is not about you, but about the specific edit. I encourage you to refrain from making such WP:POINT edits in the future.
—Ynhockey (Talk) 19:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- To allow this nonsense to be archived I need to have a second timestamp. Ill just note for the archive the edit that Ynhockey claims is "pointy", and what he reverted to include, was removing from List of cities in Israel some colonies that Israel has outside of Israel and that not even Israel claims to be "in Israel". Ynhockey's position is that if Wikipedia is not more expansionist Zionist than even the state of Israel then that is "tendentious". nableezy - 12:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
A sock-puppet investigation you may be interested in
A sock-puppet investigation concerning three users who have been participating in discussions at Talk:Israel has been started here. As you have also been involved in discussions with these users, you may have something to add. You are welcome to participate. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 05:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
AE
Two of your diff links at AE go nowhere. Zerotalk 02:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. Also, you have a request for a source in your email. nableezy - 03:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Advice sort
I have been advised by a recently retired editor that you might be able to help me on how to I go about requesting administrative oversight for the Jeremy Corbyn page, where some editors appear to ignore many Wikipedia guidelines, esp. regarding POV pushing and BLP issues? The is a lot of editor conflict and throwing around Wikipedia policies. It would be a good idea to get some uninvolved admins on this page and at some time also the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party page which is linked and suffers the same POV disputes. I am involved in both pages myself.
I'd appreciate it if you could kindly direct me to the proper forum. Many thanks in advance. ~ BOD ~ TALK 14:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- its gone strangely quiet :) ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Im sorry, I had meant to respond to this earlier. But, if the problems you are having involve editors violating the BLP policy, as in introducing poorly sourced negative material or reverting without consensus when a BLP violation is claimed, then you may, provided they have been notified of the BLP and the user has been notified of the discretionary sanctions for BLP articles then you may report it to WP:AE. If it is a general content dispute about a BLP then you should go to the BLP noticeboard [[[WP:BLP/N]]. nableezy - 15:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
1RR for ARBPIA
Hello, you have violated the 1RR for ARBPIA with this revert. The rule specifies that any user who has his or her edit reverted may not re-revert for at least 24 hours. Please self-revert that edit. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I do not believe that is the case, but I'll self-revert for now. Beyond that, please review WP:ONUS, you are attempting to edit-war in contested material that is not supported by the cited sources or any type of consensus. nableezy - 19:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:AE notification
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nableezy, where I have protested your recent behavior. Debresser (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- Cute. nableezy - 17:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Cities in Israel
There's consensus, it's just a consensus you don't like. How many RMs does it take for you to realise that? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: In what way do numerous discussions closed as "no consensus" make a consensus? That literally makes a mockery of what "consensus" means. nableezy - 19:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I guess you can keep adding the tag until you decide there's a consensus in favour of your view. What a waste of time. It looks like you're used to this kind of issue.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: Sherlock, every closer of every discussion has said "no consensus". How in the actual fuck you are reading that as a consensus is beyond me. The last closer literally said the current title is misleading. Yet you remove a tag that says that why? nableezy - 19:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Who's Sherlock? And honestly, if you continue in this vein ("how the actual fuck"), we'll have to go to ANI won't we? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Im pretty sure WP:SWEARWORDS is not a policy. Go wherever you feel like. But in the meantime, you want to explain how you are asserting a consensus based off of discussions that ended in no consensus? nableezy - 19:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- There's no consensus to change the title, as has been demonstrated innumerable times. If you have a suggestion, then please use the appropriate template. Just adding this dispute tag until you are satisfied is not appropriate. I'm now done here, so if you wish to continue edit-warring etc, that's fine. It doesn't appear to have had any tangible effect over the last year or so, but hey. Bye now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Jesus christ, yes there is no consensus for the other proposed titles. This next part is important however. There is also no consensus for the current title. You get that? Removing a tag that explicitly says do not remove until there is consensus to do so also has little tangible effect, other than having it removed for 24 hours. Bye yourself. nableezy - 19:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Where is there "no consensus for the current title"? Get that?? And by the way, you realise that slow-motion edit-warring is also sanctionable. Bye now! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Uh the talk page demonstrates that lack of consensus. As does the close of the last requested move. Feel free to report whatever you like. But I thought you were done here now? nableezy - 20:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Uhh, sure. I uhhh am uhhh done. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- That uh was for you given your limited understanding of the word "consensus". I am not disrupting anything to make any point. You however are engaging in rank propaganda, removing even a notice that places not in Israel are in a list of things in Israel. And again, I thought you were done here? Does "I'm done here" and "Bye now" also, like consensus, mean something else where you are from? Because where I am from those words typically mean you are not going to be continually coming back for another comment. Please, by all means, come back and say something else of little meaning and/or relevance. nableezy - 20:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Uh, there's no "rank propaganda" other than in your head. A despicable and offensive claim, and one which I take very seriously. Continuation of such foul accusations will see you blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Cute. Take whatever you want wherever you want. But correct your 1RR violation while you are at it. nableezy - 20:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Cute seems to be your mot de jour. What 1RR violation? The one you just made up? Once you stop violating it, and gaming it, perhaps it's worth a conversation. In the meantime, stop disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. We're not here to right great wrongs, and you (as a seriously involved editor) can't start wading in with warnings that you yourself have ignored. Got it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Revert 1 revert of this
Both of those reverts occured within 24 hours. You really dispute either of those are reverts or either of those took place within 24 hours? Or am I making this up? nableezy - 20:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Once someone who isn't terribly involved in disrupting Wikipedia to make a point notifies me that I need to take action, I'll ignore your ongoing meaningless vitriol. Stop your gaming. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I sincerely hope that somebody else is an admin blocking you based off the report I am typing up. nableezy - 20:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I sincerely hope you realise that gaming the system by adding a tag at another section of the page will result in your own block, and a longer one at that. I also hope you realise that as an involved editor you cannot possibly begin to warn me off using a template. But hey, whatever. Your methods need exposing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I wasnt warning you off of anything. To be reported for violating an arbitration decision you must have been informed of the decision. Involved users may indeed make that notification, the act of notifying you is in fact logged as a result of the edit (you can see that here) so I legit do not care even a little if you revert it. Ive done what needed doing, and I still hope that you recognize that there is 1RR in place and that you may not violate it. nableezy - 20:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- You gamed the system properly. Post your report, and we'll see what happens. You absolutely know it, so I call you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bullshit, and filed. Everybody has to follow the same rules here. Your refusal to do so is not noble despite your imagination. nableezy - 20:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- You gamed the system and you know it. The saddest thing of all is that it won't make any difference to the point you're trying to push. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Again, bullshit. I try to resolve issues, you are simply refusing to allow them to even be noted. And why exactly? The sad thing is that you apparently feel that the propaganda that the settlements in the West Bank are just "cities in Israel" like any other to not even be called out. Yes indeed, rank propaganda. nableezy - 20:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Also note how I am not scared at having a conversation with you about this. Unlike your fine self. nableezy - 20:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's called out in the first sentence of the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- And? nableezy - 20:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bye mate, your mistake. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thats what 4 byes now? You gonna come back again to say bye once more? nableezy - 20:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Let's make it five. Bye now. Now stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and stop pretending 1RR exists on articles when it doesn't. It's not a good look. Byeeee! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Listen, I want to be clear on this. You using these phrases like "stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" is asinine. I am not proving any point. I am attempting to improve Wikipedia by not having it engage in propaganda. An article that says it covers things in Israel covers things very much outside of Israel. I am working to correct that. Now if you want to discuss if I am right or wrong on that fine, but you trying to act as though you are defending Wikipedia from this great act of disruption of tagging an article as a NPOV when a number of users agree on the talk page that there is such an issue. nableezy - 21:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Listen, I want to be clear on this. You throwing around accusations of "propaganda" is completely unacceptable and utterly offensive. I don't care at all if you think I'm being asinine but your accusations are "fucking" disgusting. Do not ever make such unsubstantiated claims against me again. Ever. This is your only warning. If you continue to even insinuate any kind of propaganda, we will be at ANI and you will be out of here for good. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- And I find users claiming occupied Palestinian territory as being in Israel to be "fucking" disgusting. It is indeed propaganda to put in an encyclopedia article that Ariel is in Israel. It is indeed propaganda to list places that even Israel says are not in Israel as though they are. You are again free to take whatever you want wherever you want. But if you think that you run shit here and that you can order me to do anything you are sorely mistaken. Just to make myself clear, I consider the inclusion of settlements that the entire world, inclusive of Israel, does not consider to be in Israel to be listed in an article titled List of cities in Israel to be propaganda. Propaganda meaning "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." The inclusion of settlements in occupied territory as though they are in another country's sovereign territory is "information of a biased or misleading nature used to promote a particular political point of view". And beyond that, it promotes a super-minority political point of view, relegated to the extreme far-right in Israel. You dont like that word? Im sorry, I cant help you with that. nableezy - 21:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't need your help with anything. Just stop disrupting Wikipedia to make your own point. Your accusations are vile and disgusting, I will follow up with a view to seeing you banned from this project forever if you continue to propagate them. I hope to never see you or your edits again. Simple. As. That. Bye now. For real. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Give zero fucks about what you want. You do not run shit here, sorry. nableezy - 21:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't need your help with anything. Just stop disrupting Wikipedia to make your own point. Your accusations are vile and disgusting, I will follow up with a view to seeing you banned from this project forever if you continue to propagate them. I hope to never see you or your edits again. Simple. As. That. Bye now. For real. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- And I find users claiming occupied Palestinian territory as being in Israel to be "fucking" disgusting. It is indeed propaganda to put in an encyclopedia article that Ariel is in Israel. It is indeed propaganda to list places that even Israel says are not in Israel as though they are. You are again free to take whatever you want wherever you want. But if you think that you run shit here and that you can order me to do anything you are sorely mistaken. Just to make myself clear, I consider the inclusion of settlements that the entire world, inclusive of Israel, does not consider to be in Israel to be listed in an article titled List of cities in Israel to be propaganda. Propaganda meaning "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." The inclusion of settlements in occupied territory as though they are in another country's sovereign territory is "information of a biased or misleading nature used to promote a particular political point of view". And beyond that, it promotes a super-minority political point of view, relegated to the extreme far-right in Israel. You dont like that word? Im sorry, I cant help you with that. nableezy - 21:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Listen, I want to be clear on this. You throwing around accusations of "propaganda" is completely unacceptable and utterly offensive. I don't care at all if you think I'm being asinine but your accusations are "fucking" disgusting. Do not ever make such unsubstantiated claims against me again. Ever. This is your only warning. If you continue to even insinuate any kind of propaganda, we will be at ANI and you will be out of here for good. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Listen, I want to be clear on this. You using these phrases like "stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" is asinine. I am not proving any point. I am attempting to improve Wikipedia by not having it engage in propaganda. An article that says it covers things in Israel covers things very much outside of Israel. I am working to correct that. Now if you want to discuss if I am right or wrong on that fine, but you trying to act as though you are defending Wikipedia from this great act of disruption of tagging an article as a NPOV when a number of users agree on the talk page that there is such an issue. nableezy - 21:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Let's make it five. Bye now. Now stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and stop pretending 1RR exists on articles when it doesn't. It's not a good look. Byeeee! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thats what 4 byes now? You gonna come back again to say bye once more? nableezy - 20:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bye mate, your mistake. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- And? nableezy - 20:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's called out in the first sentence of the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- You gamed the system and you know it. The saddest thing of all is that it won't make any difference to the point you're trying to push. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bullshit, and filed. Everybody has to follow the same rules here. Your refusal to do so is not noble despite your imagination. nableezy - 20:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- You gamed the system properly. Post your report, and we'll see what happens. You absolutely know it, so I call you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I wasnt warning you off of anything. To be reported for violating an arbitration decision you must have been informed of the decision. Involved users may indeed make that notification, the act of notifying you is in fact logged as a result of the edit (you can see that here) so I legit do not care even a little if you revert it. Ive done what needed doing, and I still hope that you recognize that there is 1RR in place and that you may not violate it. nableezy - 20:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I sincerely hope you realise that gaming the system by adding a tag at another section of the page will result in your own block, and a longer one at that. I also hope you realise that as an involved editor you cannot possibly begin to warn me off using a template. But hey, whatever. Your methods need exposing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I sincerely hope that somebody else is an admin blocking you based off the report I am typing up. nableezy - 20:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Once someone who isn't terribly involved in disrupting Wikipedia to make a point notifies me that I need to take action, I'll ignore your ongoing meaningless vitriol. Stop your gaming. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Revert 1 revert of this
- Cute seems to be your mot de jour. What 1RR violation? The one you just made up? Once you stop violating it, and gaming it, perhaps it's worth a conversation. In the meantime, stop disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. We're not here to right great wrongs, and you (as a seriously involved editor) can't start wading in with warnings that you yourself have ignored. Got it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Cute. Take whatever you want wherever you want. But correct your 1RR violation while you are at it. nableezy - 20:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Uh, there's no "rank propaganda" other than in your head. A despicable and offensive claim, and one which I take very seriously. Continuation of such foul accusations will see you blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- That uh was for you given your limited understanding of the word "consensus". I am not disrupting anything to make any point. You however are engaging in rank propaganda, removing even a notice that places not in Israel are in a list of things in Israel. And again, I thought you were done here? Does "I'm done here" and "Bye now" also, like consensus, mean something else where you are from? Because where I am from those words typically mean you are not going to be continually coming back for another comment. Please, by all means, come back and say something else of little meaning and/or relevance. nableezy - 20:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Uhh, sure. I uhhh am uhhh done. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Uh the talk page demonstrates that lack of consensus. As does the close of the last requested move. Feel free to report whatever you like. But I thought you were done here now? nableezy - 20:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Where is there "no consensus for the current title"? Get that?? And by the way, you realise that slow-motion edit-warring is also sanctionable. Bye now! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Jesus christ, yes there is no consensus for the other proposed titles. This next part is important however. There is also no consensus for the current title. You get that? Removing a tag that explicitly says do not remove until there is consensus to do so also has little tangible effect, other than having it removed for 24 hours. Bye yourself. nableezy - 19:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- There's no consensus to change the title, as has been demonstrated innumerable times. If you have a suggestion, then please use the appropriate template. Just adding this dispute tag until you are satisfied is not appropriate. I'm now done here, so if you wish to continue edit-warring etc, that's fine. It doesn't appear to have had any tangible effect over the last year or so, but hey. Bye now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Im pretty sure WP:SWEARWORDS is not a policy. Go wherever you feel like. But in the meantime, you want to explain how you are asserting a consensus based off of discussions that ended in no consensus? nableezy - 19:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Who's Sherlock? And honestly, if you continue in this vein ("how the actual fuck"), we'll have to go to ANI won't we? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: Sherlock, every closer of every discussion has said "no consensus". How in the actual fuck you are reading that as a consensus is beyond me. The last closer literally said the current title is misleading. Yet you remove a tag that says that why? nableezy - 19:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- I guess you can keep adding the tag until you decide there's a consensus in favour of your view. What a waste of time. It looks like you're used to this kind of issue.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: you can revert whatever the fuck you want to on your own talk page. But I will report 1RR violations, you are not exempt from the topic wide general prohibition just because you feel you are special. nableezy - 20:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: you are right, I misread the dates. There is indeed no 1RR violation and I apologize for making the report. That said, I do intend to restore the tag shortly. nableezy - 21:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Excellent. No apology required. I can't wait to report you for edit-warring and WP:POINT! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Again, you are free to take anything you want wherever you want. I will be restoring the tag, and I will be opening another RFC over this. nableezy - 21:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Excellent, and I will see you there, and seek your exclusion from the project for your continual WP:POINT violations. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thats nice, have a blast. nableezy - 21:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Excellent, and I will see you there, and seek your exclusion from the project for your continual WP:POINT violations. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Again, you are free to take anything you want wherever you want. I will be restoring the tag, and I will be opening another RFC over this. nableezy - 21:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Recent edits
So much better. We can do this. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Nableezy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement request relating to Debresser
Given the lack of interest displayed by uninvolved administrators regarding this enforcement request filed two weeks ago, I have closed it. You should treat the complaints made as neither endorsed nor rejected. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Barnstar for You !
|
Barnstar for You |
| Thank you for your help sourcing the article Sicarii (1989), and clearing all the ugly tags from the article. You taught me a thing or two about arguing on talk pages and reaching consensus on articles with controversial topics. Emass100 (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC) |
- You are very welcome. nableezy - 04:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Ways to improve Israeli occupation of the West Bank
Thanks for creating Israeli occupation of the West Bank.
A New Page Patroller Graeme Bartlett just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:
This article is very biased to be anti-Israel. It should be covering the point of view of the Israeli government or ts allies. I don't expect you to cover Palestinian occupation of Israel or Jordanian occupation of the East Bank. However historic Jordanian occupation of West Bank is also highly relevant to this topic.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Graeme Bartlett: I have no earthly idea of what you are talking about regarding a Palestinian occupation of Israel or a Jordanian occupation of the East Bank (aka Jordan). Jordan does not occupy Jordan, that doesnt make any sense to me just as a statement of X occupies X state, the Palestinians do not occupy Israel. We already have an article on the Jordanian occupation and then annexation of the West Bank, that is Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. As far as biased against Israel, in what way? Israel's positions on the topic are included with due weight accorded to them. nableezy - 03:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, I see you brought this up on the talk page, Ill respond there. nableezy - 04:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- That is the best place to respond so that others can join in the discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- The honest reaction to reading "Palestinian occupation of Israel" was a smile and a quiet "inshallah brother, one day" nableezy - 04:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- That is the best place to respond so that others can join in the discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
On recent AfDs
I personally agree with you on most of your nominations, though with a longer rationale to drive the point home. However, they are articles within the I/P conflict, and you more than anyone else know most editors—“the usuals”—hardly ever make decisions based on policy in that topic-area; I just hate to see you expend time and energy, only to be disappointed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- yeah, kinda expect them to be kept for no consensus, but I dont really care. They should be deleted so I nominate. Its a simple life when you stop caring what actually happens and just do what you think should be done. nableezy - 17:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- The only reason I caution you is because certain editors will use anything against you to have you t-banned or blocked. We have very few neutral editors in this topic area, and I count you as one of them. There will come a time where these articles will be fairly reviewed—believe me. Creating well-sourced articles like you did here or I did (with Nishidani’s help) here is the most constructive method we can use.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Somebody wants to report me for sending crap articles to AfD they can try. Not too worried about it. nableezy - 09:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- The only reason I caution you is because certain editors will use anything against you to have you t-banned or blocked. We have very few neutral editors in this topic area, and I count you as one of them. There will come a time where these articles will be fairly reviewed—believe me. Creating well-sourced articles like you did here or I did (with Nishidani’s help) here is the most constructive method we can use.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Misrepresenting sources on Wikipedia
This edit - beyond being gaming (or possibly an outright violation) of ARBPIA's 1RR - also introduces a serious misrepresentation to the lede. Specifically - "almost exclusively Jewish citizens of Israel. A number of Palestinian non-Israeli citizens (as opposed to Arab citizens of Israel) also reside in Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem,"
- is a misrepresentation of the source it is citing, which covers Israeli Arabs (as well as Palestinians) residents in East Jerusalem. This was clearly marked as a misrepresentation in the edit summary correction this. I strongly urge you to self-revert. Icewhiz (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ill remove that bit. But after you straight up made something up in there, asking me to revert is hysterical. nableezy - 00:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Discuss, don't edit war. In addition - [1] (a partial revert) following [2] - is gaming 1RR. Icewhiz (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ha! You followed me to that article and are saying I am gaming? Based off of what? nableezy - 00:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Two reverts - 24 hours and 5 minutes apart. Gaming. Icewhiz (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Lol, sure. WP:HOUNDING but removing a section heading is gaming. nableezy - 00:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Two reverts - 24 hours and 5 minutes apart. Gaming. Icewhiz (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ha! You followed me to that article and are saying I am gaming? Based off of what? nableezy - 00:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Discuss, don't edit war. In addition - [1] (a partial revert) following [2] - is gaming 1RR. Icewhiz (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
And actually, no, I wont be removing that bit. There are two sources for exclusively Jewish. One is about Jerusalem. This however is not. First you lie about a source saying that Israel formally annexed EJ and Golan when it says no such thing, then you lie about a supposed misrepresentation? Nice. nableezy - 00:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- The cited source - Reuters - does not support the content. I did not introduce any text on annexation - I moved and condensed existing text and references (though sourcing annexation for these two wouldn't be difficult) - diff - the text on annexation being present in the version you reverted to (as well as "effectively annexed" being in the version I started work on) - so no, I did no "lie" about this - you should retract this per WP:NPA. Finally - you should self-revert - due to 1RR, and due to misrepresenting Reuters.Icewhiz (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Which cited source? Reuters is not cited for exclusively Jewish. You want to tell me I am misrepresenting a source by going back to the "stable" version, the same thing you did, but you did not when you reverted to include "annexed"? How does your justification, "being in the version I started work on", not apply to my edit? nableezy - 00:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- As I said - "effectively annexed" was present in - revision by Nableezy. Icewhiz (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, effectively annexed is not the same thing as Israel having enacted domestic Israeli legislation declaring territorial annexation to Israel now is it? I know that because I wrote effectively annexed because it is true. Whereas the other line is very much not true, isnt that the case? nableezy - 00:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- And 1RR? My last revert there is on 10:03, 14 December 2018. You want to explain how you get a 1RR violation 38 hours later? nableezy - 00:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- This - 22:40, 14 December 2018 is a revert. You reverted again 25 hours and 22 minutes later. Icewhiz (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Really. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Go report that one lol. Removing a tag from 2017 that called for a rewritten lead after rewriting the lead, thats a revert. Oh fine, Ill re-add that to self-revert lol. nableezy - 01:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oh - that was but the latest one in the chain (though a clear technical revert) - this 22:29, 14 December 2018 - 11 minutes earlier is also a revert - contrary to the edit summary it did not just move (which could also be seen as a revert) but also removed text - a non-exhaustive example would be the redaction from the end of the lede of
"Settlements range in character from farming communities and frontier villages to urban suburbs and neighborhoods. The four largest settlements, Modi'in Illit, Ma'ale Adumim, Beitar Illit and Ariel, have achieved city status. Ariel has 18,000 residents, while the rest have around 37,000 to 55,500 each."
- was removed outright (and not - "rewrite lead, move couple paragraphs to body"). Icewhiz (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)- Yeah thats an edit, not a revert. Here, since you seem to have trouble with the concept: Help:Reverting: Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. Is there a previous version of my rewrite? No? Then it isnt a revert. It is an edit. nableezy - 01:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Some other editor added the text quoted above. You removed the text. By removing the text (added in a previous edit) you negated the effect of the previous edit. It is unquestionably a revert. However - I am done discussing this here. Do with my heads up as you may. Icewhiz (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Do what you want lol. Somebody seems frustrated they havent been able to come up with a plan to wipe away Israeli occupation of the West Bank is all I see here. nableezy - 01:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Some other editor added the text quoted above. You removed the text. By removing the text (added in a previous edit) you negated the effect of the previous edit. It is unquestionably a revert. However - I am done discussing this here. Do with my heads up as you may. Icewhiz (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah thats an edit, not a revert. Here, since you seem to have trouble with the concept: Help:Reverting: Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. Is there a previous version of my rewrite? No? Then it isnt a revert. It is an edit. nableezy - 01:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oh - that was but the latest one in the chain (though a clear technical revert) - this 22:29, 14 December 2018 - 11 minutes earlier is also a revert - contrary to the edit summary it did not just move (which could also be seen as a revert) but also removed text - a non-exhaustive example would be the redaction from the end of the lede of
- hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Really. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Go report that one lol. Removing a tag from 2017 that called for a rewritten lead after rewriting the lead, thats a revert. Oh fine, Ill re-add that to self-revert lol. nableezy - 01:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- This - 22:40, 14 December 2018 is a revert. You reverted again 25 hours and 22 minutes later. Icewhiz (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- As I said - "effectively annexed" was present in - revision by Nableezy. Icewhiz (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Which cited source? Reuters is not cited for exclusively Jewish. You want to tell me I am misrepresenting a source by going back to the "stable" version, the same thing you did, but you did not when you reverted to include "annexed"? How does your justification, "being in the version I started work on", not apply to my edit? nableezy - 00:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
please discuss on the talk page rather than instantaneously reverting
You do not give a valid reason for your revert. OtterAM (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- I did. nableezy - 02:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Warning WP:ASPERSIONS
You've twice accused me of being a Sock: here and here. You need to stop. Per WP:ASPERSIONS, please consider yourself warned.--The Kingfisher (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- nah. nableezy - 21:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Shocking result. nableezy - 18:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Israeli occupation of the West Bank
Hello! Your submission of Israeli occupation of the West Bank at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Lagrange613 04:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Puzzledvegetable (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks!
|
Enjoy a hot cup of coffee (or any other hot beverage you might fancy) and please keep warm! ....and thanks for your work on the Aya Maasarwe article. Disheartening, indeed, Huldra (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC) |
AE
I am filing a complaint against you at AE. The Kingfisher (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Here's the complaint. The Kingfisher (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I have refiled [3] --Shrike (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
A private note to you (here for full disclosure)
A note left on the administrator's talk page on Feb.3 at 07:15 - [4] 2 hours prior to filing report against you. [5]
- Timeline, layout of the text, and style of expression in proficient English suggests both writings were composed by the same person. I suggest you use this evidence in your defence.
Regards GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- No, this was just refiled from the NoCal100 sock account that had previously filed the same complaint. Now I think that is also the person who wrote the AN report User:Shrike filed, which would be a textbook violation of WP:BAN. nableezy - 17:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Israeli occupation of the West Bank for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Israeli occupation of the West Bank is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli occupation of the West Bank until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 15:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- lol, thanks for that. nableezy - 17:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Re: ARBPIA
Thank you for the notice. May I ask you that you consider my argument about Sheikh Muanis' irrelevance to history of Jaffa, and reapply my edit yourself. --My another account (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Re: Hello
Hey there :-) I'm still around, although "real life" has gotten in the way, so I'm not as active as I used to be. Hope all is well and thanks for note -- nsaum75 [[User talk:nsaum75|[undefined] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help)]] 18:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Glad to hear it. nableezy - 21:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Color me green
Speaking of colors, I wonder if it is time to tone down the color of the navbox. Please compare Template:Palestinian_Arab_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus side-by-side with User:Zero0000/sandbox/Template:Palestinian_Arab_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus. Is the new version better or worse? Zerotalk 07:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- I like the slightly lighter shade you have in your sandbox more personally. nableezy - 15:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)