User talk:Nableezy/Archive 48

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 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Cats (:

Do you have a view on this? Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Not really, but I dont really think that phrase is usually associated with Israel. Yes, a handful of states do not recognize it, but partially recognized seems a bit much in describing the situation. nableezy - 20:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

One could equally say the same about SoP, the difference in level of recognition is not that great. In any case, they are both in the List of states with limited recognition by virtue of the inclusion criteria for that list, that is the real problem (it's not just Israel, even China is in the list:) Selfstudier (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Not something I really care all that much about tbh, nableezy - 23:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

How do the old timers (can I call you that?) regard cats, generally speaking? Selfstudier (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Shouldnt be used to push a specific POV, but in general should be an anodyne way of connecting topics in a tree. nableezy - 22:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I opposed cats when they were first introduced in early 2004. I thought they would just become a way to express opinions without the need for a source (since there is no way to attach a citation). That fear was partly confirmed. Cats can be used for good or for bad or for annoying fan-cruft. Zero^talk 00:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess that's right, it appears as if the cat "area" is not seamlessly integrated with the article area, a different world with different rules. I can't make up my mind whether to involve myself there or just ignore it. Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Please discuss this in talk first, thanks

Justification? --Vanlister (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

If you are referring to my revert, I have answered this same question on my talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have two accounts or partners? I didn't address you a message here, please let people the right to express their view, to respect a balanced process.--Vanlister (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems odd for an account never using an edit summary to ask for a justification for what does have an edit summary. nableezy - 13:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Vanlister. Just a note. If you are going to copyedit an article, best practice is to use standard English. 'Address you a message'; 'let people the right'(one doesn't let a right, which in English suggests the 'let' as in 'let an apartment, implying proprietorial rights over a right). The third concluding statement is illogical. That a third party chips in on a duologue is customary here, and in no way 'denies one or two of the other interlocutors' their right to express their respective views.Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Gross violation of POV

I also need to address how you grossly misrepresent sources, massively select oriented sources, and that, systematically without providing contradictory sources. Very often selecting specific quotes, that are then oriented and added in a text filled with critical stances. For neutrality I need dialecticism, or at least coherence in that mash-up. That was not part of my edit, which was essentially about intellectual honesty when you quote or present sources.--Vanlister (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel like you would be better off using smaller words more clearly. But we follow the best sources, and they are not presented selectively, and wherever an alternative viewpoint is supported by sources it is included. You seem to dislike what the sources say. Sorry? nableezy - 03:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey, you may be surprised, but I think it's more the fact that I disapprove (the ethos of) your work, not only because it is filled with bias (that systematically promote Palestinian nationalism and its elements ( and more)), but you seem to brag about it with emphasis, I don't even know why. I don't see why a rational person like you would not balance his point of view 1, choose selective quotes for a deductive reasoning with massively oriented sources 2 or present only very one sided accounts 2bis, or simply taking allegations as facts while discarding common elements to that same case 3, and all that practice is even without even indicating the orientation of the argument 4, or at least giving an attribution to the author that you selected with good faith. I am lost, I think you probably forgot to balance your text. Take care --Vanlister (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Surprise would imply that I considered what you feel enough to have taken a position on it. I do not. I follow the sources, and unsurprisingly the people who wish to ignore the sources to promote some nationalistic mythology dont like it. Dont care, never have, never will. Toodles, nableezy - 15:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep on your instrumentalization then--Vanlister (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I really think you should consider using smaller words that you have a better handle on. nableezy - 16:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you think? I think you should be held accountable for the gross distortions and POV you trying to push 24/7 with the two other accounts doing the same pattern with the same condescending tone to criticism. At least I know now who I am writing to. --Vanlister (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Cool. nableezy - 15:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:No personal attacks:

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia."
Personal attacks include: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."
"Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links."

Editing neutrally means ensuring that all significant viewpoints are represented. Besides being willing to include viewpoints which contradict personally held ones, that means being capable of recognising when different viewpoints exist and being willing to accept that a personal viewpoint is only a viewpoint rather than the 'truth'. Vanlister, would you outline how you ensure that your own editing meets the neutrality requirements?

← ZScarpia 14:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Peace?

Mr Reading Turtle has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Hi, I know we are politely debating on the Israel page, but I just wanted you to know that I want peace. Just looking at your barnstars shows you are a great editor, and my AGF has not run out. We can disagree respectfully, but I want you to know I want peace. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This dove left because it could not find anywhere to land or any olive branches or bring back.

Try to read this metaphor. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop

I have taken note of your opinion, and I have explained mine in detail, several times. Unfortunately, you just continue on and on and it's getting repetitive. By this message, please note that you are asked not to write on my talk page ever again and that any comment, apart from standardised messages that you may of course post, will be reported as harassment. Your aggressive behaviour today is entirely inappropriate for WP. I will not come back to your talk page, unless for any standardised message, and you are hereby asked to stay away from mine. Jeppiz (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:GASLIGHTING is prohibited by the UCOC. Calling others racist and repeatedly calling them incompetent is a straightforward violation of our policies on WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. That is the only aggresive behavior that is inappropriate, and if it is repeated I will be reporting it and informing you of the report. Toodles. nableezy - 19:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

And so that anybody can see the gaslighting on display here, this is the entirety of the discussion at the above users talk page, since removed:

Request to refrain from further personal attacks at the above users talk page

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If you make another personal attack like that again I will not pass go, I will not collect 200 dollars, I will go straight to AE. Your notification is still valid from last year. nableezy - 18:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

No personal attack was made, and you know it. I made a critical comment about bias in editing, without identifying any particular user. If you opt to take offence at that, it's your choice. I never singled you out, and I stand by the view that there are a lot of strong opinions related to ARBPIA that can veer into both pro-Israeli bias and anti-Israeli bias; both represent a problem. Jeppiz (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Drop another WP:COMPETENCE link and we can see if that defense works out for you. nableezy - 19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I have already explained myself in detail. The behaviour you display right now is the best proof for why it may be reasonable to point out problems with your editing. If you take a step back, I am sure you can see why. As you know you almost only edit one single topic, and on that topic you hold a strong bias. That in itself is not a problem, as almost everyone tends to be biased one or the other in the areas in which we are most interested; I am certainly not claiming only you are biased. Most users have a bias in areas we edit, that certainly includes me as well. But when that bias turns to this kind of hounding of users with a different opinion, it becomes a problem. I have explained in detail why I think virtually every neutral editor would think it to be a problem to apply a different policy just to Israel, and why I don't think we should do it. Jeppiz (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I promise you I do not give even a little bit of care to what you think about me or my supposed strong bias. If you drop another WP:COMPETENCE link in a talk page discussion with me again I will be reporting it to AE. Take a look at this for why that may not be the best idea. kind of hounding of users with a different opinion? Unreal the gaslighting here, you're the one that claimed others are racists and incompetent. Do it again and I'll see you at AE. That really is all I have to say to you here, have no interest in reading any other personal opinions of yours. nableezy - 19:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Soryry

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) has extended an olive branch of peace.

). Hey @Nableezy. I'm sorry for being rude and distruotive tiene you and turning a civil debate into a loud, ugly, argument. I got coughs up in the argument but that doesn't excuse my actions. I hope you forgive me.

Sorry, 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

		Apologetic Barnstar
		Again, I apologize for being uncivil, disruptive, rude, and a bit of a troll. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for my awful spelling too. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Reading Turtle (talk • contribs) 11:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

All good, when I started here it was very easy to get caught up in the personalities. Focus on the content and not on the usernames and youll be fine. nableezy - 14:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi Nableezy. Whether sockpuppetry is involved or not please don't revert errors back into articles as you did at Geography of antisemitism. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested, sorry bout that, will try to be more careful in restoring the later corrections. nableezy - 22:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Nableezy. Thank you. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thats an interesting one. nableezy - 20:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Levivich complains about geese and gander

You created User:Nableezy/LV in January (~~you weirdo~~). You're allowed to have such things if you're about to file a case request or something. Five months is too long. File the case or delete the page. Levivich 14:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You make several false claims about me on your talk page, several personal attacks, ban me from your talk page, remove my response to your personal attacks, and personally attack me again on your talk page and then come here to personally attack me once more? And you fault me for documenting this series? Lets run this down for the TPS.

You once said I'd like to see three diffs of anyone defending Icewhiz socks or denying that Icewhiz was socking.

Now this isnt Icewhiz, but here and here is you standing up in defence of an editor that was in fact a sockpuppet of a banned user. And here you are restoring an edit by an editor you say no doubt is a sock. Whats that about diffs of editors defending socks?

As far as the current set of attacks;

Here you make a specious claim of harassment, a personal attack violating WP:ASPERSIONS, and you follow that up with further personal attacks and a false claim of "making things up". In a post in which you demonstrably make things up, claiming I said something I never said. You then remove my response to your personal attack while retaining the personal attack.
In that diff you also show incredible hypocrisy, claiming that it is bad enough I argued for you to be blocked, to your face on your talk page, in a dispute that did not involved me, yet you have a history of doing exactly that except with the underhanded addition of going directly to an admin to ask that your target be blocked, for example here
You then continue with the personal attacks, with your edit summary calling me a "stalker", while incidentally showing you are looking through my contributions, also known as hounding or less politely as stalking
And then you show up here, after having banned me from your talk page, to further attack me. You call me a "weirdo" without any provocation whatsoever. And the hypocrisy in banning me from your own talk page to antagonize me here is just special. nableezy - 16:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

And you just cant help yourself from repeating personal attacks and specious claims of harassment. Demonstrating why the need to collate diffs to begin with. nableezy - 17:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
And then raises the bar on personal attacks to claim my being psychotic. Im pretty sure at least one of us has a solid grip on reality, and I only make comments about my own mental state ... nableezy - 17:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

This is all done at ANI seems like, but I did just notice (I also today Googled "levivich nableezy" and found where he's you've been talking about me off-wiki). "found where he's you've been talking" reads as though somebody sent you that talking point and you only half corrected changing it from their words "find where he's been talking about" and neglected to remove the he's. It also beggars belief that you were not aware of the one thread on WPO where I believe I have ever mentioned you anywhere besides this website, given how extensively that was discussed in the case request you were involved in, but no matter. Ah well, curiosities curiosities. nableezy - 23:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Maariv

In your experience, does this source merit a review at WP:RSN? All I can see by way of past discussion is mentions of it as a tabloid, which is never a good start, and that definitely seems to be its flavour, but my alarm bells have been set ringing in particular by this piece of right-wing race-baiting vitriol that basically casts aspersions on mixed Israeli Arab/West Bank Palestinian families due to some people from these backgrounds being involved in some of 2021 riots. It then uses this in turn to rail against family reunification. It quotes 'research' by a group called "ערי ישראל" or someting like "cities of Israel", which appears to be an organization of little note, that was ascertained by researching the families of those detained (an arbitrary sample) followed by some Facebook stalking - in any case, this anecdotal crap is a torch that Maarive happily picks up and runs with without any apparent claims of factchecking or any mention of even a hint of skepticism about the veracity of the findings. On the contrary, it willingly embellishes the evidence, turning the figures about 'those detained during rioting' from the 'research' into 'those involved in terrorism' in the headline. I understand that sources are allowed to be biased, but this one frankly just seems to be full on racist. At no point does it offer any counter perspectives of any kind. It frankly takes the piss as journalism. If no factchecking or alternative viewpoints exist, is such reporting even truly secondary? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I saw that edit, sounded like red meat for the pro Citizenship law crowd. Don't come across Maariv very much, it's Hebrew only, seems "populist", I don't think it ranks very highly even in Israel.Selfstudier (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Third biggest paper in Israel. No English version so doesnt get as much attention here. nableezy - 13:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

That isnt cited anywhere as far as I can see? Is that a column or reporting? I dont generally like how RSN has become a place to make broad claims against sources. Some like Arutz Sheva are just so shit they should never be cited, but for most things there are shades of gray. Id say this one piece is unreliable. I think RSN should deal with is this source reliable for this statement, not is this website allowed or not allowed on Wikipedia. nableezy - 13:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Honestly I can't tell if its a column or reporting, and the writer's bio says journalist/columnist, so really not sure how to read it. But tabloids have been known to blur the boundaries. For me, it reads slightly more like 'reporting', just written out in a polemical format. But maybe it's just this piece. I do understand your point RE: WP:RSN. Thanks for your input. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

HR/Palestine

Normally, HR issues are dealt with in the articles for each country or in a spin out from those eg Human rights in the State of Palestine and that would cover hr matters in those countries.

The difficulty with Palestine/SOP/oPt is the occupation ie there are HR matters that are cross border so we have Human rights in Israel#Human rights in the occupied territories which looks odd since the territories are not in Israel.

I am thinking of making a new article along the lines of "Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People" (which is the wording used in the resolution that gets passed every year in the GA.)

Do you have any thoughts on this/ what the title might be?

Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Think it belong in the Israel page, and the Palestine page should be about human rights violations by the Palestinian authorities. nableezy - 18:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll just leave it then. Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Kashmir Files closure

I would think satisfactory replies to Vanamonde's point about NPOV were raised both above and after their reply. Their points did not sway the editors commented before and after it. I consider your close a supervote and would ask you to revert it. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Not a single person addressed the NPOV concerns in any sort of depth. A couple of users simply asserted that option C was NPOV, but did not address the issue raised. Beyond that, arguments about FILMLEAD somehow trumping NPOV issues fail a reading of even just the lead of WP:NPOV, which says This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Its not surprising that an editor involved with a discussion disputes a close, but since you havent given me any reason besides your dissatisfaction to reconsider it I decline to do so. nableezy - 23:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I can give you some reasons for disputing a close with omly by relitigating th arguments here—that the mention of alternate history in the Inglorious Bastards article is a reference to it's genre/form, and doing the same for Kashmir Files with "fictional" would be nonsensical. The idea that disambiguation is necessary because it's "close enough to reality" has already been talked about it the thread—films that dramatise real events, genocides, massacres with fictional details with a focus on reality aren't called fictional on Wikipedia—it is not a NPOV violation. Besides the addressed arguments, we only have brute assertions and perceptions of neutrality.

But all that argumentation itself is not very relevant here. It would be preferable if this very contentious RfC was closed by an experienced administrator to everyone's satisfaction. I don't think your close has achieved that, and not just because you closed with the less "democratic" option. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I cant imagine a close that is to everyone's satisfaction, you seem to have demonstrated why such a thing isnt possible already, calling a close in which I expressed no personal opinion besides NPOV trumps the MOS a "supervote", but if an uninvolved editor (in this discussion and in the wider IPA topic area) asks me to revert my close I will. nableezy - 23:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Abecedare to review the situation and advise on a possible re-close. I'm not sure if you will consider them reasonably uninvolved here, but they're pretty uncontroversial and I don't know how else to ask. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

(responding to the ping) @TryKid: given that an experienced, uninvolved user has made a reasoned close (as requested at WP:CR), I don't see a "technical" reason that the close would be invalid. If you still believe the close was unjustifiable, WP:MRV would be the place to request a review although I would suggest that you read that page afresh (I haven't, recently) and sleep on it before doing so. Abecedare (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC) Grammar fix. Abecedare (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

TryKid, I don't know why I pointed you to WP:MRV as the venue for appealing the closure since that is only for move requests. Afaik there is no dedicated page for appealing an RFC closure, which I believe would make WP:AN, by default, the place to file an appeal. Nableezy or any of the page watchers, is welcome to correct me on that! Abecedare (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Believe it would be at WP:AN. nableezy - 01:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

And Nableezy: irrespective of how the closure/review goes (I didn't expect any close to be unopposed), thanks for volunteering for the thankless task!:) Abecedare (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Well you did just thank me, so we cant call it thankless anymore, but I appreciate the sentiment :) nableezy - 00:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I have slept on it, and thought more about it. I still believe that discarding arguments against option C not being against NPOV and considering Vanamonde's point unrefuted was not the correct summary/reading of the discussion. What NPOV requires and doesn't require us do was considered by multiple editors, who came to the conclusion that option C adhered to NPOV. I've posted a review request WP:AN#Closure of Kashmir Files RfC. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

CoI

Ought we to do anything about this? Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

A welcome and a notice to the user would be the course of action. Ill do that. nableezy - 18:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

KK (it's actually the second book he added in, his very first edit was another book). Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)