User talk:Nableezy/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

2017 Las Vegas shooting RfC closure

For ease of discussion, I'm including your closure notes here:

Exclude - the yeas outweigh the nays here, but the arguments in support are largely based on arguments that our policies reject while those opposed are based on core policy. That sources exist that have the list of victims is not evidence that it should be included on Wikipedia, and given the arguments against including are focused on WP:NOT (WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:IINFO) and the fact that the individuals are WP:LOWPROFILE, I see consensus for the exclusion of the names here. nableezy - 20:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to recommend you reconsider your close, and I'll outline why below:

• [...] the arguments in support are largely based on arguments that our policies reject [...] – you're going to need to do better here, which arguments in your view do "our policies" reject?
• [...] those opposed are based on core policy. – as we're about to see, they actually aren't...
• That sources exist that have the list of victims is not evidence that it should be included on Wikipedia [...] – if the only argument given for inclusion was that they're covered in sources, then yes, you'd be correct. However, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:RELEVANT were given as arguments for inclusion in addition to the widespread coverage in our sources.
• [...] the arguments against including are focused on WP:NOT (WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:IINFO) and the fact that the individuals are WP:LOWPROFILE – as was discussed in this very RfC, WP:NOTMEMORIAL is irrelevant to this discussion as it only deals with producing entire articles on non-notable people. It has no bearing on a discussion about what content we include in articles (this is where WP:NOTEWORTHY, which was also raised in the RfC, should have tipped you off that there were some very poor arguments made; see also WP:NOTNOTMEMORIAL). WP:IINFO would be relevant if we were not providing context for the information in the form of prose explaining who they are and what their significance to the incident is. And WP:LOWPROFILE is an essay that expands on WP:BLP1E. BLP1E is (we're seeing a pattern here) a policy dealing with articles on subjects notable for one event. At no point in this proposal has anyone suggested this is about producing an entire article on the individuals (I think the closest anyone came was suggesting a separate List article when one of the opponents complained the article would be too large).

From WP:CLOSE#Consensus, The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. It appears in closing you did not discard irrelevant or fallacious arguments as would be expected. I strongly recommend reading the closing notes at these other closes that are both very similar and fairly recent: 2022 Buffalo shooting and Oxford High School shooting. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Well to begin with, I did indeed discard irrelevant or fallacious arguments, you just disagree on which arguments are that. For example, It is information a reader may want and their is no policy reason to exclude. That is personal opinion combined with a disregard for a policy that was repeatedly cited as a reason to exclude. Or per public knowledge, that is again contradicted by policy, and that personal opinion that anything that is in the public knowledge should be in Wikipedia is contradicted by policy that was cited so I gave it less consideration. Then there is no reason to hide this information from our readers so long as it is reported in reliable sources. Again, personal opinion directly contradicted by policy that was repeatedly cited. Then (WP:NOTMEMORIAL) an unconvincing argument that loses to the goal of encyclopedic coverage and If we can show the names of all the passengers of the Titanic, including both survivors and victims, we can show a list of the 60 victims of this calamity., a combination of personal opinion on what encyclopedic coverage is when we have policies that dictate what encyclopedic coverage is not, and with a mix of WP:WAX. Then it is standard to include names of victims on "shooting" pages like this, the identity of the victims is always inherently relevant, that is an assertion that the very existence of the RFC disproves, if it were standard to include there would not be a dispute, and it is a personal opinion on inherent relevance. Include where it makes sense to include (eg in a narrative description of what happened), but no list of named casualties per se. - nothing in the close precludes that, the close was about excluding a list of casualties. And that !vote is to exclude such a list. Then the vote on "honors victims" is an explicit exhortation to violate WP:NOT. Then if all names are included in a few media, which I am sure they are. The policy is that as long as content has significant coverage then it can be included. No, that is not the policy, that is the minimum threshold for content, not the sole requirement, and as it does not address the reasons for not including it that vote was weighed less. I did actually review the Oxford shooting one, and that too, even if it allows for the inclusion of the names, disallows a listing of victims. Where the names make sense to be included as part of the coverage of the event, and not simply as a memorial to the victims, was what that close found consensus for. Finally, your position that WP:NOTMEMORIAL only applies to articles who are entirely memorials and not to articles that within them contain some memorial rests on the idea that the second sentence is only clarifying the first. I do not see any evidence for that assertion, only the attempt at repeating the mantra until one assumes it is true.

But as with any close, if any editor not directly involved asks me to I will gladly revert it. Im not trying to enforce a view here, just help out with a request for closure. nableezy - 13:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Notwithstanding your erroneous claim that NOTMEMORIAL applies to anything other than direct articles on a non-notable deceased subject (which is patent nonsense, how you can interpret it any other way just boggles the mind; if it was meant to apply to anything other than articles, the word "article" would not be there at all, this is further reinforced by the notability guidelines only applying to articles, not to article content (see WP:NOTEWORTHY)), I'll drop the stick on this one. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not consider the arguments on notability at all, as you are correct that WP:N is specifically about the existence of stand-alone articles and not the content within articles, and WP:N explicitly says that. As far as NOTMEMORIAL, Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements says, to me fairly clearly, that absent a person being notable for an article Wikipedia is not a place to memorialize them. Not just not a place to create an article that memorializes them, but that Wikipedia as a whole is not the place to do so. Within an article, in userspace, or any other place. nableezy - 15:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Since you're hanging your hat on that second sentence of NOTMEMORIAL, let's look at it and parse it together: Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. OK, so Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize:

• deceased friends – pretty sure no editor involved at this RfC claimed to be (or was accused of being) a friend of any of the deceased;
• relatives – again, no editor at the RfC claimed to be (or was accused of being) a relative of any of the deceased;
• acquaintances – you might be seeing a pattern here, but again, fairly certain nobody at the RfC claimed to be (or was accused of being) even an acquaintance of the deceased;
• or others who do not meet such requirements. – we've reached the end, however, it makes a reference to such requirements. Almost as if it might be part of a bigger paragraph. Perhaps the sentence directly preceding it? That sentence links to a notability guideline, which as was discussed in the RfC, are not germane to the discussion as they do not apply to the content of articles, just to the notability of topics overall for inclusion.

You earlier said [...] rests on the idea that the second sentence is only clarifying the first. I do not see any evidence for that assertion; I hope you didn't mean evidence within the sentence itself, and not the RfC. I'll note for future RfC's to be careful to spell things out like this, so there's no confusion or claim that I'm merely repeating the mantra until one assumes it is true. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, anybody who is not notable for a page should not be "memorialized" on Wikipedia. Not just by creating an article about them. You are attempting to restrict the policy to something it does not restrict itself to. These are things that Wikipedia is not to be used for. I dont see any evidence for it here, in the RFC, or in the sentence. If you would like to establish that memorials to victims are acceptable within articles then you should propose wording to that effect at WT:NOT, not in individual RFCs on article pages. nableezy - 16:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

And by the way, this condescending way in which you proclaim your view to the only possible valid one and that any other view is absurd and just boggles the mind doesnt make one inclined to engage much further. Youre basically saying that I am either stupid or insane, and then also saying that about every person who cited NOTMEMORIAL in their oppose. Do you think Im dumber than you or something? Ok, maybe I am. Do you also think every person who cited NOTMEMORIAL is also dumber than you? Might be a stretch. nableezy - 16:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That was not my intent, no. I won't presume to debate people on whether or not they're "smarter" than someone else. My boggled mind was actually trying to call out that I'm not understanding how you parse it the way you do. I'm sorry if that came off the wrong way. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe this isnt the best comparison just because of the topic, but it is a bit like the argument on the second amendment. If you are of the view that the phrase A well-regulated militia constricts the rest of the text to only allow for a "well-regulated militia" then youll likely find that most gun control measures are constitutional. But if you take the view that the prefatory clause is simply explaining the reasoning for the existence of that individual right you will find most restrictions to be unconstitutional. (Me personally, Im in favor of pretty strict controls, but I also think the text of the amendment disallows them and would focus on repealing the amendment as opposed to finding restrictions that a conservative court would let stand under it). Likewise, if you think that the first sentence constrains the second youll argue that it only applies to the existence of entire articles. If you do not, then you will not. nableezy - 17:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Since you quoted my comment[1] here. For example, It is information a reader may want and their is no policy reason to exclude. That is personal opinion combined with a disregard for a policy that was repeatedly cited as a reason to exclude. How exactly am I disregarding anything repeatedly cited when I was first person to respond and no one else had even been posted there yet. I gave my opinion because I was pinged, and that was that. As we all know these discussion happen constantly with the same rationales being used, I wasn't going to reargue things that have been reargued dozens of times before people even made the arguments again. You gave a run down of the inclusions that you decided to dismiss, but can you cite the exact policies that say we should exclude it, that I am apparently disregarding? What you cited in closure WP:NOTMEMORIAL which as written is for subjects of articles. WP:LOWPROFILE is an essay to back WP:BLP1E which once again is about subject of articles. WP:IINFO, which is borderline applying, says we should put data in context, how is in the article about the specific shooting they died in not in context. It's not indiscriminate as it isn't listing everyone that was shot or their, it is only selectively choosing the ones that died as a result. WP:ONUS was only policy reason I ever could ever really see as valid for excluding, but even that one is still based on what we as editors decide to do, so we could exclude it, not should exclude it. With both WP:IINFO & WP:ONUS/VNOT, it is deciding what we should and should not include, and may require the opinions of editors to find a consensus. I gave my opinion because opinions are needed to filter out what we are going to include/exclude, because that becomes an editorial decision not a policy based one.

I do agree that the closure was inaccurate, at worse another no consensus seemed to be the case, but a consensus of exclusion is what you decided. I see it is your belief that NOTMEMORIAL doesn't necessarily only apply the subject articles, if you are going to agree with that side of argument then you aren't going to dismiss that argument, but if you also are citing WP:IINFO, how are you going to dismiss the opinions of people that don't believe it is indiscriminate information, such as those who think it is relevant information or something a reader might what to know. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I dont think WP:NOTMEMORIAL as written is for subjects of articles, and neither did the editors using NOTMEMORIAL as the basis of their opposition to inclusion. When you say there is no policy reason to exclude it as the basis for inclusion, but people counter with a policy reason to exclude it what am I supposed to do with that comment? Your position was effectively refuted and there was nothing besides bald assertion for it, so I didnt give it a ton of weight. Beyond that, the argument was basically WP:ITSUSEFUL. And that isnt a strong argument for the inclusion of content. nableezy - 22:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Common Era

Re what you wrote on Talk:Temple Mount, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era the year numbering system used with the notation was devised by a monk in 525 but Anno vulgaris/Vulgar Æra/Common Era appeared much later. Mcljlm (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

will correct, thanks. nableezy - 21:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

"neither of which consider "the Lord" in "year of the Lord" as "the Lord" " is spot on. I wondered how the editor could even have thought it correct. Mcljlm (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ nableezy - 22:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Humph

Can you get Brand Israel protected? I'd do it myself but they know you better there.Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

A-I alerts

I usually add this to make things as explicit as possible.[User talk:Fun71528#You must follow these page-specific restrictions until you have 500 edits and have been here 30 days] Doug Weller talk 11:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

We had some discussion at Zero's talk and sort of settled on " In particular, please note that 30 days tenure and 500 edits are required before you can edit article content and internal project discussions such as RfCs and noticeboard discussions related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This does not apply to informal discussion on article talk pages." Course there's no copyright on that :)

Yeah for good faith new users I try to do the same. Some of them are just so obviously Yaniv socks I just give the bare minimum alert and move on with my life though. nableezy - 12:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Advice

How to proceed here, or not? Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Not, there was no 1RR notice, you didnt have consensus for a redirect on the talk page either. Silence may be consent, but when it is no longer silent there is no consent. Discuss, dont report. nableezy - 16:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

K, done. Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Disamb

WP:PLACEDAB - It came up in a convo I had with Iskandar at Talk:Al-Bustan (East Jerusalem)#Requested move 27 June 2022 (the extended content box). In your view, what is the rule? For instance, Old City (Jerusalem) > Old City (East Jerusalem)? Selfstudier (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

No clue. nableezy - 02:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Aqsa

I don’t even know if you are convinced by the traffic assessment. After having things this way for 20 years, a lot of editors are understandably finding it difficult to believe that most readers are actually looking to learn about the wider compound. If you are not sure about this, then we should discuss. It will make things much harder if the assessment is stopped before everyone who isn’t comfortable has had a chance to test it themselves.

I get that you just want to get on with a final discussion to reach a sensible outcome here, but we cannot guarantee the next discussion will attract only thoughtful editors.

Building consensus around hard data will be much easier than asking people to read and assess sources, which, after two months, too many involved parties have clearly still not done. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not, no. I think that's more a product of the framing of the dab page than anything else. I mostly agree with Zero on this overall. But no, I think this traffic assessment is close to meaningless. And not especially relevant either. I also think you should try harder to not engage so much on this. I know you have strong feelings about it, and I know a lot of the opposes are built on questionable logic and/or facts, but you simply will not prevail by out-arguing all comers. Provide your best evidence, your best argument, and thats it. And let the process play out. If your position garners a consensus, great. If not, oh well. Lots of disappointing things here happen everyday. nableezy - 02:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Real engagement on this is necessary because of the 20 year history I mentioned. So many editors here have grown up through their long histories with this encyclopedia being comfortable with this arrangement. They need to be encouraged to really think about it. It is not about out-arguing, it is about asking people to take the time needed to properly reassess their preconceptions and come to their own conclusions. For example, over that same 20 year period the brand "Al Aqsa" [re the compound] has continued to become more and more prevalent, and I sense that a lot of editors on here haven't fully noticed it.

Your point on "product of the framing of the dab page" is exactly why I want you (and others) to put your oar in there now. I don't want anyone to be able to say those words when it comes to the final reckoning. Everyone should have had a chance beforehand to check that the way they think the dab page should be framed will give the results they expect. So far we have had four versions, all have given the same answers. Please do me a favor and show us how you think the dab page should be framed.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, try to put this specific discussion outside of your mind for this. There is basically an iron-clad law on Wikipedia. The more often any one signature appears in a discussion the less likely the position advocated by that person will be adopted. The more large blocks of text that appear in a discussion, the less likely any consensus will emerge from it. You have to get that point, that bludgeoning a discussion is something that no closer will look at kindly, to the point where they will reflexively end it with a no-consensus or just completely disregard your view. Make your point and move on, that is the only way to get some sort of consensus to emerge. There are plenty of times Ive failed to follow my own advice on this topic, but they usually did not end well for me. Once or twice maybe, but in general it does not. When you have multiple users saying your comments have crossed the line in to bludgeoning you need to step back and stop. Because to be totally frank with you, at some point some admin is going to look at it as disruptive editing and ban you from the discussion if not the wider topic. nableezy - 16:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Please note

--> [2] GizzyCatBella🍁 05:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

thanks, though I could have added to the behavioral evidence if that were said then. But will keep in mind, ty. nableezy - 13:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Your query

Hi. In answer to your query regarding protecting an ARBPIA RM by way of transclusion: while that may well be technically possible to implement, personally, I wouldn't know how to do it (tehcnically). Also, beyond that, to the best of my knowledge, such a thing has never been attempted before. It has never even occurred to me. Sure would have helped with the final Kiev→Kyiv RM, which was just a nightmare for me to oversee under WP:ARBEE (though, that involved widespread canvassing rather than ARBPIA's WP:500-30 restriction). Anyway, it's an interesting idea that could benefit from a wider discussion. Might be worth an WP:ARCA. Regards, El_C 14:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, will think about an ARCA, nableezy - 00:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Avoiding hagiography. The discussion is about the topic Robert Fisk. Thank you. Nutez (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Sigh

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Curbon7 (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks like someone is doin this rodeo again. Like I said in that thread, if I had a nickel for everytime someone baselessly went after you, I would be quite wealthy. Curbon7 (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Well damn I missed it. nableezy - 14:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Query about editnotices

I saw you put an edit notice on List of ethnic cleansing campaigns. Thanks for that. The article in question includes parts related to multiple DS areas ("Armenia-Azerbaijan 2", "Eastern Europe", "India-Pakistan", "Horn of Africa", "Kurds and Kurdistan" and also "The Troubles"), along with the specialised DS area "Antisemitism in Poland". Since you've got a good deal more experience than I do in ArbCom sanctions areas, I have some questions:

a). Is there any way of indicating to an editor that the specific section they are about to edit is related to a DS area?

b). Is there any way of adding mentions to those areas in the edit notice as well, or is this just for ARBPIA areas?

c). Would it be violate any policies/rulings/guidleines to do so?

d). If doesn't, would it be worthwhile?

I'm not really looking for a quick response, so don't feel pressured to reply quickly, just ping me when you do. Cheerio. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Theres a template for multiple sanction regimes, or I think {{Ds/editnotice}} will do that. Ill play around with it. nableezy - 03:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

er, maybe not. May have to use multiple edit notice templates, will see. nableezy - 03:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey Mako001, I wasnt able to figure out a way to make that work, so I asked at Template talk:Ds#multiple topic edit notice nableezy - 00:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I'll keep an eye on developments. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 22:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

You did not participate

So In case it is useful. Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting reminder. Looking at that discussion, there were four “new” / SPI-type accounts voting. Three of those four have since been identified as socks. Nableezy, since you have pointed out my inadequacies at SPI, could you advise how best to proceed in investigating the fourth (given they have returned and are currently very active). Onceinawhile (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Was found unrelated, but personally still have 0 doubt its Icewhiz. nableezy - 16:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The editor gaming the system went to AN.

I doubt anyone is going to restore them though. Doug Weller talk 09:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Seemed obvious to me, but I think this is a case of good faith alongside a very passionate desire to edit certain articles, but CI (still) R. nableezy - 14:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Giza church fire

On 14 August 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Giza church fire, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Possible error on your User Page?

Hello, friendly neighborhood User Page stalker here :)

I noticed on your user page that your "A trip down memory lane" seemingly shows people who've been bamboozled while the "A collection of people I've bamboozled" section shows your trophies and contributions.

Am I misunderstanding something? Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The trip down memory lane was mostly so I could keep track of the times I was brought to AE, as since at one point there were three unarchived reports about me at the same I thought I should memorialize such a glorious feat. Those bamboozled were those kind but mistaken souls who thought rewarding a foul mouthed, ill tempered and scurrilous rapscallion was an appropriate thing to do. nableezy - 20:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hahaha okay I get it now :) Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to add yourself to the kind but mistaken list anytime ;) nableezy - 20:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

More like a tourist guide through Sock City . I'm somewhat offended you think I was bamboozled. Goethe had the line in Faust that good can come of evil, which here would means that even stroppy ratbags like yourself can do, perhaps inadvertently, meritorious work. With the best of abusive disrepect,r*ghead. :)Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Sheeeit you were the easiest mark in the history of Wikipedia. nableezy - 20:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

More fuckin insults. 'Barn' in barnstar is related to 'bairn', a child, ergo awarding a barnstar is just recognition of the awardee's infantility, a badge of puerility as Cicero would've said. If you wanna foulmouth shoot-out at the OK Corrall, any time, any place of your choosing.Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I bite my thumb at thee. nableezy - 21:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Revert as "standard to introduce the English for foreign terms"

Hi, I noticed you reverted my copy edit to Al-Azhar Mosque. I don't understand why this is necessary, as the liturgical terms are all linked to articles that explain what they are. A reader can just preview the link, like they usually do.

If I'm mistaken, kindly explain, preferably with a link to the WP:FOOBAR that explains the practice.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

MOS:FOREIGNITALIC nableezy - 03:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Your userpage

Can you please remove the flag and statement on supporting violent resistance from your userpage? I feel these elements on your userpage do not foster cooperation and cause some user to lash out against you personally. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

There are two flags on my user page. A flag of Chicago and a flag of Egypt. I am unaware of what offense either of those flags could cause. There is also a userbox that contains no flag. What it contains is a statement acknowledging and agreeing with a widely recognized principle in international law (see the any number of UNGA resolutions recognizing the right to resist racist and colonial regimes and foreign occupation), that all people and groups have the right to violently resist aggression, a war crime, and military occupation. What do you think people who have in their signatures "support Ukraine" mean? It also contains a criticism of Wikipedia, linking to a discussion in which a group largely comprised of white men decided that a statement in support of one party to an ongoing conflict was unacceptable while allowing statements in support for another party. There was an administrator here that had for a dozen years a userbox proclaiming his support for Yisrael Beiteinu, a party that I find to be about the same level as Hezbollah. Nobody batted an eye. There are users here that have userboxes that say a Palestinian state already exists, and it is called Jordan. Nobody bats an eye. But statements in support of an opposing party were treated as beyond the pale of respectable discourse. I find the idea that a group largely comprised of white men can deem which politics are acceptable and which unacceptable to be a failing of this website, and the userbox is about that failing. And for the record, I dont support Hezbollah. I recognize their right to resist, violently, foreign occupation, but any positive views I may have had for them hasnt survived Syria. But that isnt what the userbox is about, it is not about Hezbollah, it is about Wikipedia. If somebody is unable or unwilling to read and understand that userbox and use it as a reason to lash out at me I think that says more about their competence to edit than it does about its contents. So, in short, no. nableezy - 23:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

As you realized, I am asking about the box on the bottom of your pages that alludes to Hezbollah and has a Hezbollah-like flag. Yisrael Beiteinu is not a terrorist organization, while Hezbollah a designated terrorist organization by [list of states and references].

Lebanon is not occupied, and hasn't been occupied for over 20 years. Hezbollah uses the root word "resist" to describe all of its terrorist activity, including terrorist attacks against civilians.

Even if you are justified in your argument about the "right to violently resist aggression", how does this help Wikipedia? Don't you see that other users are provoked by this text?

Please, remove it. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

If you are unable to read and understand the userbox, despite the lengthy explanation above, that seems like a personal problem. This isnt the article Hezbollah, so you can stop dropping your list of states that designate Hezbollah a terrorist organization. The userbox does not have a flag, it has a question mark, and it about systemic bias and censorship on Wikipedia. Again, if you or anybody else is unable to read and understand what the userbox says then I think that says more about your competence to edit than it does about the contents of the userbox. Asked and answered. nableezy - 11:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

This also isnt the article Hezbollah, so Im going to remove your oft-repeated list of states and references as off-topic. nableezy - 11:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The color tones user in the userbox are an exact match for the Hezbollah flag, there is also a link. I came to you, after seeing comments you struck by other users, apparently related to your userpage. This is provoking other users, not me, and does not help friendly relations between editors. I will bow out of your talk page, but please consider what purpose, if any, your userpage serves. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a link to a Wikipedia discussion because the userbox is about Wikipedia. There is no link to Hezbollah, and the userbox says it recognizes the right of all individuals and groups, not just those in Lebanon. Again, if you cannot, or are otherwise unwilling to, understand that then that seems like a personal problem. Im here to build an encyclopedia, not concern myself with friendly relations between editors. This isnt a social media site, its an encyclopedia. And grown-ups should be able to recognize that complex topics will have a diverse range of views in the real world. nableezy - 12:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Nakba

I'm having a hard time understanding your revert of my edit. How exactly does Nakba not refer to the 1948 exodus? Please explain what exactly you find wrong with that, I'll take it into consideration, but as of now the introduction to that article reads more like something out of Electronic Intifada than a proper encyclopedic article. For example, we can't have Wikipedia authoritatively stating in its own voice that Israel persecutes the Palestinians as it does now, we can include the claim but the Israeli side of the story also needs to be taken into account. RM (Be my friend) 14:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a discussion for the talk page, but the Nakba refers to the entire destruction of Palestinian civil society, not just the exodus. This is discussed extensively on the talk page already. I dont really care what you take in to consideration, and I dont agree it reads like an EI piece, while I think many of your contributions seem lifted directly from the Israeli MFA. But, again, this belongs on the talk page of the article, not my user talk. nableezy - 14:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

(I also saw this edit and overall I did not see it as an improvement or as a particularly viable step towards enhanced neutrality.) Iskandar323 (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Friendly note

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

AN/I coments

Hello Nableezy. I noticed this and this. They served to remind me if I needed it that there are still great Wikipedians. You appear to be one of them, perceptive and wise. Thank you, and keep it up. John (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Well thank you very much John, that is very kind of you to say. Undeserved in any way, but very kind. nableezy - 20:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks I guess

I feel I owe you some sort of "thanks" for the charitable characterization of my case at AE. (!?). I really don't mind the report filling. Arbpia and wikipedia aren't as important to me as it is to other ppl around here. (but that doesn't mean that im here just to mess around and cause trouble). I'm fascinated by open collaboration projects, that's where my heart is really at, that's what I'm interested in experiencing. I'm not concerned about having editing privileges in a particular topic of a particular project revoked... anyway I think I blabbed too much already... But since I'm already here, I want to add that supporting Hezbollah (if I got that right) doesn't seem like the best way to go. It emanates frightening vibes. In my mind, It's like supporting ISIS to get back at American war crimes and imperialism etc. ☮️ peace. –Daveout(talk) 02:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The userbox isnt about Hezbollah, its about Wikipedia and systemic bias in which one can, at the time at least, and during a war between Hezbollah and Israel, openly support one combatant but could not support the other. The userbox is about censorship and political correctness on Wikipedia, and if I were Lebanese I probably would not be voting for Hezbollah if that is your question. As far as AE, my description was sincere, I think you do try to edit with NPOV in mind, even if I feel like sometimes you fail. But the outright attacks on people you disagree with is a bridge too far, and the positives begin to be outweighed by the negatives when they are routinely repeated. I get you dont like Selfstudier. There lots of people I dont like. You can type out the most insulting string of words you want to. Just delete them before you press save page. nableezy - 13:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You edits regarding Israel

Your integrity-lacking attitude, and all of what you're doing -- won't help your cause IMO. In 70-80 years from now, you'll probably be gone naturally, and so am I. But Israel will continue to govern Jerusalem as its capital, and expand its relations with the Arab world, and its economy. A majority of English-speaking countries, who can read English Wikipedia, support Israel. I don't have the will to fight you regarding your obsessions (Jerusalem, 1948, apartheid, etc), but I guarantee you, as a person who was depressed before, that dedicating one's life to Consciousness Engineering on WIkipeda (or else) won't bring meaning or healing. Only a minority of people world-wide read WIki or use it as their only source. SO, in essence, you'd likely not change most people's mind -- as well as not influence actual reality (Israel will probably never divide Jerusalem, or give the Palestinians any more than the Trump peace plan. I wish you healing. Archway (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

This is the fourth time (I think) youve spouted some bullshit about the mental health of others. Once more and Ill be requesting a topic ban. In the meantime, try to get a grip on the rules for editing in this topic area. Toodles, nableezy - 18:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

4 October 2022

Can you remove successor and life span from Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast and Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast Russian occupation of Donetsk Oblast Russian occupation of Luhansk Oblast Donetsk People's Republic ,Luhansk People's Republic And change status of Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast as per your claim Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast. Anon-ymousTrecen (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2022

Why are there so many articles about this, jesus. Did what made sense I think. nableezy - 02:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Why Donetsk People's Republic and ended Anon-ymousTrecen (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Im not sure what to do there tbh, if the puppet state has ceased to exist in favor of some other administration as part of the occupation following annexation then I suppose that should be covered under that topic. If thers an Russian occupation of the Donetsk Oblast Id say this should just be a part of that, and the end date makes sense for when that puppet state is dissolved. nableezy - 04:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Russia

Russia has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.GordonGlottal (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)