User talk:Nableezy/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Blocks

Hi. I see it got you too. Horrible times, with repercussions on Wiki, too. Thanks again for showing understanding when I was in the dock. Wiki is not such an important stage, but it can still sometimes sting.

If you can be bothered with this, and I'd fully understand if you'd ignore it: I was trying to figure out some Hebrew text concerning plants dumped onto a page and Gilabrand seemed like the perfect person to ask. Now I see she's banned indefinitely. Hard to believe, she does belong to a certain generation and its mainstream Zionist convictions, but she's equally Wiki-active and harmless, with tonnes of useful factual contributions. What unexpected crime did she commit? Do you know if anything can be done about it? Wiki militancy has reached painful proportions, cancelling useful contributors is seriously harming the project. Thanks.

May peace for all those who wish it come sooner than it looks. Arminden (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Gila was blocked for topic ban violations, and I thought that block was quite over the top and said so. Her appeal didn’t go over as well as I had hoped it would, with some part of it due to apparent copyright violations in her work over the years. I thought she was a very good editor and regretted the tiffs we had with each other very much, and I wish the ban had been appealed much earlier so that this block wouldn’t have happened. I don’t think there’s anything that can be done at this point, she’s either going to be blocked for the topic ban violations or the copyright violations. Sorry, wish I had better news for you on that front. Or any front to be honest. Take care Arminden. nableezy - 12:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Chicago City Council

Can't keep them Chicagoans down Selfstudier (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Undone revision: New Historians

@Nableezy: Please provide a rationale for reverting my edit to the article New Historians. The article on Palestinian refugees linked to states that refugees "fled or were expelled", meaning not all were expelled. If necessary, I can find a notable reference. (I've come across an estimate from Benny Morris before that 10-15% of the Palestinians were expelled by Israeli forces.) Thanks. Dotyoyo (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Expelled applies to those not allowed to return, so expelled by itself would work, but you can change to chased out to fled if you want. To pretend like it only applies to "some" of them is however a complete bogus assertion. nableezy - 17:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I now see that the footnote at the end of the 5th bullet point covers all the bullet points. I had thought that the first four bullet points were unsourced. Dotyoyo (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from blindly reverting edits while the RfC is now ongoing

@NableezyAs the source is most likely to be considered Gunrel, please make an actual argument for inclusion instead of blindly reverting; ironically enough, per FAIT FortunateSons (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not how this works, all your edits based on it being deprecated are invalid and I am going through them to restore them. You dont get to create a new status quo based on an invalid rationale, sorry. nableezy - 15:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

And you are not supposed to blindly revert edits, particularly those with additional backing and a likely unreliable source without an actual argument, particularly those that pre-date my knowledge of the noticeboard. Otherwise, I will have to remove all of those covered by Gunrel if the RfC closes as such, which is most likely as of now and covers most of my edits. I have not begun making changes based on Gunrel, and neither should you.

An exception can be made for the one I responded to at the talk page, because while your argument was not sufficient, it may be aboutself (founder about their org in EI) and therefore actually acceptable insofar as you agree with my assessment. FortunateSons (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am entitled to revert edits whose basis is not policy compliant, and your removals of a source as deprecated that is not deprecated is not policy compliant. Again, no. And I will challenge individual removals where I think the source is fine if it remains GUNREL, which it already was. But, again, the answer to your request is no. If that does not satisfy you then you can raise the issue somewhere else, but I have answered your request here and see no reason for further discussion about things that should be discussed on article talk pages. If you think the source is unusable in some instance you are welcome to make an argument for that. On the article talk page, not here. nableezy - 15:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

You are allowed to make edits based on that, but you are not permitted to make edits by directly going through my edit history, particularly considering WP:Hounding (I revoked my waiver of that a while ago, just fyi), of which you made me aware after finding one place to edit through your edit history.

I don’t mind you looking specifically for citations that are acceptable with Gunrel and unacceptable by a depreciated source, but I don’t believe this to be the case here. If that is what you believe to be doing, I would appreciate an argument beyond „no longer depreciated“ that you can add to your reverts.

And just to clarify, my removals were certainly policy compliant before you opened the discussion, and most likely after (before you asked me to stop).

If you prefer not to stop without a dispute resolution measure, I would politely ask you to inform me of that and have the same courtesy I paid you, to pause your actions during such an action if I choose to open it. FortunateSons (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

No, no part of that is true. WP:HOUNDING Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. (and no, you found several places, but I dont really feel like going in to all that either). You are well aware that I saw your removals across a range of pages without going through your contributions, and if you would like to report HOUNDING then feel free to do so. I dont really care what you believe, your edits removed a source as deprecated and that source is not deprecated. And in case you missed it the first time, EI was already listed as generally unreliable. So a close with that status changes nothing. And you need to justify the removals with something other than claim that is not true. If you continue to insist on badgering me here I am going to ask you to stop editing this page. If you think some of my reinsertions are improper feel free to raise it on a talk page. But for this topic there is nothing else to discuss on this user talk page. Please stop. nableezy - 15:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you mind if I go through your edits where it specifically concerns the reversal of past edits to open talk page discussions? That way, it will be faster for me. FortunateSons (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

By all means. nableezy - 16:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate the good faith FortunateSons (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Please take a look at this FortunateSons (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Dont see anything there that changes any of my thinking here. nableezy - 19:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Nothing at all? FortunateSons (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep. You really want me to ask you to not edit my user talk page again? Because thats the direction this discussion is heading. nableezy - 20:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks very much for your excellent work on Mosques. I personally have revamped this page, what do you think given your experience? Scientelensia (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks great, though I am generally not a fan of galleries. If you can expand the material to work the pictures in to where they would be relevant I think thats a solid goal. But great work, nableezy - 16:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! That’s a good goal which I shall soon begin on. Scientelensia (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For enormous contributions to articles related to Israel and Palestine, and careful considerations in editing disputes. Truly a Wikipedian gem! Ecco2kstan (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Chicago Community Bond Fund

On 8 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chicago Community Bond Fund, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Chicago Community Bond Fund sought to put itself out of business by eliminating cash bail? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chicago Community Bond Fund. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Chicago Community Bond Fund), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Accusation of US complicity in Israel's alleged war crimes in Gaza

Hello Nableezy. Do you have time to take a look at this draft and see if it's in good shape? Feel free to add or remove any content you like.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thats a lot of reading tbh, but I see it moved to article space so guess thats that anyway. nableezy - 23:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Nableezy. I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Intercept

Hi Nableezy. I speak Hebrew and listened to Anat's interview. I can honestly say that the claim of the intercept The Channel 12 podcast interview with Schwartz, which The Intercept translated from Hebrew, opens a window into the reporting process on the controversial story and suggests that The New York Times’s mission was to bolster a predetermined narrative is false.

We both know that the Intercept is not such a reliable source and since this is a BLP - it should be removed. GidiD (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The Intercept is a perfectly reliable source, and your say so does not trump what a reliable source says, sorry. nableezy - 22:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? 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/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Just as a matter of curiosity

I remember some years ago, some offwiki site estimated that, as a Hamas stooge, you had ridden Wikipedia of about 60 sockpuppets who, in their view, were simply editing to protect Israel. I thought at the time that this must be an exaggeration based on the inability to grasp that a sock is by definition someone who has already edited there and been banned, and that since a sockmaster like NoCal used at least a dozen different accounts, the figure must be far lower. Do you ever keep track of the precise number of these sockpuppets? Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

More probably tbh, but that just means the accounts blocked, not the individual people. It isn't just NoCal, it's the AndresHerutJaim socks, the Evidence-based socks (I'm pretty sure that Historicist and E.M.Gregory are him), then Ledeneirhomme/AFolksSingersBeard (pretty sure they were the same too), Dajudem with Stellarkid and Snakeswithfeet. But I dont keep track, could try to count em up though. For individual people, guessing ten or so? Accounts? Clay Davis captures my thoughts on the number. nableezy - 20:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

These are the blocked socks attributed to NoCal100 for interest. I guess the shape of a curve connecting all of the registration dates might suggest there are lots of undetected accounts out there. There are some unhelpful inconsistencies in the way sock-ness is stored in Wikipedia's systems, but the sock categories and/or comments in block logs probably finds most of them...I hope. Misassigning a sock to the wrong master is a problem. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit in article "Solomon's Pools"

Nableezy, I hope that you have been keeping well. I wish to correct an error in the article Solomon's Pools, where there is a superfluous word written in the "History" section, under the sub-section "Upper pools." The current edit reads: "The construction date of the upper (westernmost) two pools is uncertain but they was probably started during the Hasmonean period." The same edit should be corrected to read as follows: "The construction date of the upper (westernmost) two pools is uncertain but was probably started during the Hasmonean period." With your permission, I will make the edit. Please inform.Davidbena (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m glad to see you back David, and that edit would be fine. Take care, nableezy - 01:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Davidbena (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Another edit, with your permission

@Nableezy:, I'm sorry to disturb you. In the article Awarta, I saw a need for a slight expansion in the section "Ottoman era." There, I wish to make the following addition:

The site was visited in the 17th-century CE by Ottoman explorer, Evliya Çelebi. In his detailed travelogue, he wrote that Awarta was situated between Balāṭa and Ḥuwwāra as one traveled the country from north to south. In this place, he notes, is located the “house of el-‘Uzair,” erroneously translated as the ‘house of Ezra,’ but actually meaning the “tomb of Eleazar, the son of Aaron,” and which at that time had already been converted into a mosque.

References

-Davidbena (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Davidbena (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Fine as well David. nableezy - 06:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done

Edit to the page "Za'atar"

With your permission, I wish to add a reference (source) to the article Za'atar, at the end of the lead paragraph. I wish to cite from Gustav Dalman, using the following reference with a quote from him:

XXX

-

References

-Davidbena (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine to me nableezy - 23:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done - Davidbena (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)