User talk:Nableezy/Archive 9
 | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
blocknote
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. This is primarily about the edit war happening at Land Day, plus the formal warnings you've received above by PhilKnight. I will be happy to discuss content issues with you on your talkpage, which you can still edit, so that this can be cleared up without further disruption. Please consider. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Jaak tried POV pushing this material in about a year ago on the Land Day page, he cannot provide a single source that connects the Jewish exodus from Arab lands to Land Day. All he is doing is trying to create some false balance where any mention of wrongs against the Palestinians has to be countered with mention of wrongs against Jews. This is, frankly, bullshit. If he can provide a source that actually connects the two I wouldnt remove it, but he cannnot and continues. Also, is there a reason my "edit-warring" was disruptive while Jaak's wasnt? Also a note, I specifically asked PhilKnight to give me the formal notification, it wasnt a warning. nableezy - 01:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- See Talk:Land Day#Recent changes where this dealt with in the past. Jaak shows up to try to push the same material in as then, but somehow I am disrupting. nableezy - 01:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- (also, if you are watching, would you mind reverting this edit? thanks) nableezy - 01:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Here's the thing, though... it doesn't matter what the POV of one editor is against the POV of another. The problem with abstracting above editor (e.g., pro-israel, pro-palestine, anti-israel, anti-palestine, etc) is a tendency to take a generalization and apply it to an individual. This causes a lot of stress across the board. I'd rather that the next time you two come into conflict that you seek outside help, instead of this constant pursuit. So I'm curious in how you would convince Jaakobou that your reverts presented a better version, without accusing him (and he accusing you, no doubt) of these biases. They have no place when editing. Check out WP:Consensus statement (yeah, I just created it, but it came off of Kim Bruning's sandbox, and it needed to be added to project space at one time or another... it's a good essay for solving problems) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Got the vandal, thanks :-)
- That misses my point (well perhaps I shouldnt say 'POV-pushing'), he is continually adding connections to other things that the sources do not connect, and he cannot provide a single source that connects the Jewish exodus from Arab lands to Land Day. Is that not part of the definition of WP:OR. Is the person edit-warring to include OR not disrupting while the person removing it is? (also, thanks for the rv on the Sox page) nableezy - 01:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- So I guess my question to you is why is my "edit-warring" disruptive to the point of meriting a block while Jaak's "edit-warring" not? nableezy - 01:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- But, to answer your question I do not think I can convince Jaakabou, as he thinks I edit in an anti-Jewish fashion (also making false statements of what I think exists and what I think does not, but his exaggerations are well documented and there is no need to cover them here as well). Such people cannot be convinced, there isnt a point in wasting time to try. What I would do is ask if he can provide a source connecting the topics. If he cant I hope he would understand he should not be connecting them in Wikipedia, but it is clear he does not understand that, so again there is no point in trying to convince him. Once he feels he can get away with it he will just try again, as he did in August of last year and now. nableezy - 01:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- No doubt, you two are going to have to make amends if you want to continue editing the same project. That's why I strongly encourage you both to cut these pro's and anti's and act like editors instead of nationalists or otherwise. There are ways around these disputes, but edit warring is not one of them. The content side... I'm not a subject matter expert, I'll admit. But I need you to understand that consensus can only be achieved with discussion notwithstanding people's private POVs, which of course we all have. People can be convinced; If they can't, it's because there's no argument. We treat our fellow editors as rational human beings, so the only way to make progress it to come up with an argument. If you're not going to waste the time, as you say, then the assumption is that you've prejudged their rationality. Again, please consider. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I dont want to be too much of an asshole here, so forgive me if this question comes off the wrong way, but did you look at the history of this or just the last few reverts? This is the same material that was tried to be inserted a year ago, and was removed and not readded since then. Is that not what consensus is? An article that was for the most part stable without the material in question over the past year? Did you check the discussion at Talk:Land Day#Recent changes where he tried to push through these same changes last year? Where he is repeatedly asked to provide a source demonstrating the relevance, but only answers that it provides "balance to the Nakba narrative". Can you please answer my questions as to whether or not asserting that there is a connection between the topics when no source presents such a connection is OR? Also, is somebody who is edit warring to include OR not disrupting while the person who is edit warring to remove it is disrupting? nableezy - 02:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I have not "prejudged" Jaak's rationality. I have read most of the articles in A/I conflict area and their talk pages and archives. So it isnt a prejudgment, just a judgment, and one that I kept to myself until you asked how I thought I could convince him. But I have not focused on Jaak's rationality in determining whether the content should be included or not, I asked if there is a source substantiating the connection. Tiamut asked the same thing a year ago. Jaak has yet to provide one, yet continues to insist on making the connection in the article. nableezy - 02:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Again, I'm not a subject-matter expert. I did not initiate the block on a content issue. The burden does fall on him to substantiate his claims in a civil manner. It is still up to you to prove to him that your version is more accurate beyond edit warring. I have not seen a respectful argument; and both you and Jaak's rhetoric belies a pro/anti understanding of each other as editors... If you can't make a good argument, then you can't foster consensus. Jaakobou has a track record of generally being correct, policy wise. Doesn't mean he's always right, judgment wise, just that if you really want to out-do him - which is entirely within your prerogative, and is encouraged if only to create a better encyclopedia - then you will have to do better than this. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC) You can go for an unblock request, btw. Just please bear in mind what I've been saying. The Israeli/Palestinian dispute is extremely entrenched and dealing with it as a mediator and administrator can be very difficult with this behavior from all sides. That's all the bona fides I can really bring up...
- I dont plan on questioning the block, on the merits I was edit warring. And I realize the I/P area is difficult for administrators, so I am not trying to question your impartiality or anything of the sort. If you, an admin I have no reason to say acted wrongly in blocking me, thinks I should remain blocked fine, if somehow you change your mind and think it is not necessary to prevent further "disruption" then cool. I would say that I will not continue to revert on the page, unless he fails to provide a source for the connection. But I do not see why he is free to continue to include his unsourced comparisons to provide some sort of false balance. I dont really understand by what you mean "out-do him", I just want him to provide a source linking topics that he is trying to link in an article. I cannot see how that can be an unreasonable request. I did say things I should probably not have said on the talk page, but it was after he wrote "if a community of 600K is displaced because they back up a genocide attempt" about the Palestinian refugees and after he said I was editing in an antisemitic manner. I think it is reasonable to forgive my not assuming good faith after that. I guess my final question is why was my edit warring "disruptive" where his was not? nableezy - 03:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Again, I'm not a subject-matter expert. I did not initiate the block on a content issue. The burden does fall on him to substantiate his claims in a civil manner. It is still up to you to prove to him that your version is more accurate beyond edit warring. I have not seen a respectful argument; and both you and Jaak's rhetoric belies a pro/anti understanding of each other as editors... If you can't make a good argument, then you can't foster consensus. Jaakobou has a track record of generally being correct, policy wise. Doesn't mean he's always right, judgment wise, just that if you really want to out-do him - which is entirely within your prerogative, and is encouraged if only to create a better encyclopedia - then you will have to do better than this. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC) You can go for an unblock request, btw. Just please bear in mind what I've been saying. The Israeli/Palestinian dispute is extremely entrenched and dealing with it as a mediator and administrator can be very difficult with this behavior from all sides. That's all the bona fides I can really bring up...
- No doubt, you two are going to have to make amends if you want to continue editing the same project. That's why I strongly encourage you both to cut these pro's and anti's and act like editors instead of nationalists or otherwise. There are ways around these disputes, but edit warring is not one of them. The content side... I'm not a subject matter expert, I'll admit. But I need you to understand that consensus can only be achieved with discussion notwithstanding people's private POVs, which of course we all have. People can be convinced; If they can't, it's because there's no argument. We treat our fellow editors as rational human beings, so the only way to make progress it to come up with an argument. If you're not going to waste the time, as you say, then the assumption is that you've prejudged their rationality. Again, please consider. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Here's the thing, though... it doesn't matter what the POV of one editor is against the POV of another. The problem with abstracting above editor (e.g., pro-israel, pro-palestine, anti-israel, anti-palestine, etc) is a tendency to take a generalization and apply it to an individual. This causes a lot of stress across the board. I'd rather that the next time you two come into conflict that you seek outside help, instead of this constant pursuit. So I'm curious in how you would convince Jaakobou that your reverts presented a better version, without accusing him (and he accusing you, no doubt) of these biases. They have no place when editing. Check out WP:Consensus statement (yeah, I just created it, but it came off of Kim Bruning's sandbox, and it needed to be added to project space at one time or another... it's a good essay for solving problems) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Got the vandal, thanks :-)
- I don't understand why Nableezy was blocked for disruptive edits, when the initial disruptive edits were made by Jaakabou who also participated in the edit war. Although this block is a short one, it doesn't make sense that Jaakabou doesn't receive an equal punishment. I know it's hard for admins unfamiliar with the subject to get involved in the I/P area, but the fact is the info that Jaakabou was inserting, factual or not, doesn't merit inclusion in the Land Day article which is about the Palestinian commemoration of land confiscation in 1976. The short bit about the Palestinian exodus is necessary background and its presence doesn't mean the Jewish exodus from Arab lands should also have mention, at least not in this article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- To be fair, I was edit warring, though I think that other policy is on my side as relates to the content dispute it is not in the behavioral concerns. Though I also wonder why my edit warring was disruptive where Jaak's was not, it is not all that pertinent as to whether or not I was edit warring. nableezy - 04:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh I know you were edit-warring (you violated WP:3RR), but so was Jaakabou. This is why I think there needs to be equal punishment. Anyhow, the block seems short and you seem content with it. I don't think I should unblock you; if that's gonna happen, I'll leave it to Xavexgoem or another uninvolved admin. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I only had three, I was edit warring, but I did not break 3rr. Though Jaakabou had the exact number of reverts as I did. nableezy - 04:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- And I agree you shouldnt unblock me, but you could do me a favor and say welcome back to Tiamut for me :) nableezy - 04:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oops. Sorry about that 3rr point, didn't pay close enough attention. By the way, Jaakabou posted at my talk page with concerns that you followed him to the Land Day article just to revert him. I told him I didn't think that was true (right?), but if the problem persists I suggest you two basically avoid each other. And I see you've noticed that Tiamut has returned... I expected her to. She cares too much about the coverage of Palestine here on Wikipedia to totally abandon it. I'll let you say hi tomorrow. ;) --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is not true, I last encountered Jaakabou 2 weeks ago (he went to ani about hounding him there too, and was basically ignored for making a frivolous complaint). That would have to be the slowest progressing hounding ever. He has multiple times accused me of hounding him, even on articles that I was quite active in prior to him showing up. Like I said above, his history of misrepresentations and exaggerations is well documented. nableezy - 05:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, that's what I thought. I also am aware of Jaakabou's record and will relay this to him if he brings the "issue" up again. There was a similar issue between him and Tiamut a while back. Also, I have replied to his "balance concerns" at the Land Day talk page.--Al Ameer son (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is not true, I last encountered Jaakabou 2 weeks ago (he went to ani about hounding him there too, and was basically ignored for making a frivolous complaint). That would have to be the slowest progressing hounding ever. He has multiple times accused me of hounding him, even on articles that I was quite active in prior to him showing up. Like I said above, his history of misrepresentations and exaggerations is well documented. nableezy - 05:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oops. Sorry about that 3rr point, didn't pay close enough attention. By the way, Jaakabou posted at my talk page with concerns that you followed him to the Land Day article just to revert him. I told him I didn't think that was true (right?), but if the problem persists I suggest you two basically avoid each other. And I see you've noticed that Tiamut has returned... I expected her to. She cares too much about the coverage of Palestine here on Wikipedia to totally abandon it. I'll let you say hi tomorrow. ;) --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh I know you were edit-warring (you violated WP:3RR), but so was Jaakabou. This is why I think there needs to be equal punishment. Anyhow, the block seems short and you seem content with it. I don't think I should unblock you; if that's gonna happen, I'll leave it to Xavexgoem or another uninvolved admin. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- To be fair, I was edit warring, though I think that other policy is on my side as relates to the content dispute it is not in the behavioral concerns. Though I also wonder why my edit warring was disruptive where Jaak's was not, it is not all that pertinent as to whether or not I was edit warring. nableezy - 04:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, if you wouldn't mind, your block notice at the top of the section says I was blocked for vandalism, if you wouldn't mind adjusting that. nableezy - 04:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Done. I never noticed that was the hidden link before ^^;;
- But guys, seriously: respect. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. nableezy - 21:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The Tardy Hound. Barnstar for outstanding tardiness in hounding. | |
| Congratulations, I hereby award you this barnstar for your contributions to world peace through tardy hounding. To quote Machiavelli, “Tardiness often robs us opportunity, and the dispatch of our forces.”...which he failed to recognise as a good thing. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC) |
- Thank you, thank you very much. Although in my country saying somebody is a dog is fighting words. nableezy - 15:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- I considered that risk but I couldn't think of anything else that would work with the word hounding. Having given it some consideration, weighed up the pros and cons I thought, fuck it, it'll be okay. I'm happy to replace the picture with a picture of bird of prey or perhaps a noble gazelle having a bit of a rest. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Gamal Abdel Nasser
Marahib Nableezy. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt. We're talking about working together very soon to bring the article on Gamal Abdel Nasser to featured status. It's all a part of a new collaboration effort to bring Egypt-related articles up to snuff. I said you and I planned to work on the article, but we each had our prior commitments. I'm pretty much done working on the Ayyubids and I know you're not finished with al-Azhar just yet, but it would be great if you could also involve yourself with the Nasser article as well because as of right now it's just me and Diaa abdelmoneim. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah I'll try. nableezy - 21:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Good to hear. Hopefully we should be starting sometime this week. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just to keep you updated, work on the article will begin Monday. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- I went ahead and added your name to the participants list at WikiProject Egypt Collaboration. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- No rush, there's plenty of time. We already got some groundwork established and over half of the article has been rewritten and expanded. Also, much of the article has been cleaned up of unsourced and somewhat irrelevant or broad info. Anyway, Diaa has begun making some edits (as you noticed he too is a little wrapped up). I believe we (and possibly other editors like Arab League) will probably be paying most of our attention on the rayyes by the coming week. Salaamat, --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I went ahead and added your name to the participants list at WikiProject Egypt Collaboration. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just to keep you updated, work on the article will begin Monday. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Good to hear. Hopefully we should be starting sometime this week. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Missed you too
Glad to see you are still here. Where did your eclectic user page go? Tiamuttalk 10:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- My goodness. I just noticed the block you got above for edit-warring at Land Day. I see that Jaakobou's edit warring there which was equal to your own in intensity (and more disruptive given that he was reinserting WP:OR material a year after failing to provide a source that would make it relevant) did not get him a block. A rather one-sided and arbitrarily punitive outcome made by a random admin who failed to address the underlying problems once again. Glad to see that not much has changed here. Despite the difficult editing circumstances though, can't help coming back. Amazing really. Missed you very very much Nableezy. Tiamuttalk 16:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- I kind of felt that way too, but whatever. And I am very glad you were unable to stay away, with G-Dett, Nishidani and others gone it is getting difficult to find an intelligent post in most of these talk pages. As for my userpage, felt if I couldn't say what I wanted to wasn't much of a point in keeping it up. Wahishtina gidden ya Tiamut (everybody knows Masri right?) wa farahna inti ma3ana k'man marra. nableezy - 16:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Reliable source ?
Is there a central list of WP reliable sources?Historicist (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not really, though there are some ways of finding if a discussion has taken place at WP:RS/N. There is a list compiled at Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Links to reliable sources discussions for ones related to the A/I conflict and there is a search box at WP:RS/N that comes in handy as well. nableezy - 23:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- I looked at several sources on the Washington Examiner (which I have have picked up in D.C. and know to be a real newspaper, albeit with a right-wing stance, but with the usual articles about traffic delays and school funding, etc.) and read the discussion you referred me to.
The discussion does not appear to come to a conclusion about the D.C. edition, rather, some editors seem to feel that because it is a print newspaper it may be reliable, unlike the web site editions.Historicist (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes.Historicist (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think you are wrong on this. The Washington Examiner has a site at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/. This examiner.com site for DC is http://www.examiner.com/dc, and either way this is from an examiner.com article from LA: "Paul Kujawsky is an Examiner from Los Angeles". I am going to remove it again. nableezy - 23:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes.Historicist (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I love your new signature style meme. And again slight modification while replicating is a key to evolution. One note though - color has some meaning generally and in WP in particular. So I'm not sure #C11B17 ( red ) is the best choice - it usually means broken link in WP. Kind of confusing if you ask me. Live long and prosper. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for replying on my talk page. Making it random color? That's a thought. How can you technically do it? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Cool, advanced Template tricks! 10x for sharing. Would you just copy paste the signature from sandbox to Talk pages? What is this NUMBEROFEDITS:R variable? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Jewish Lobby name change
Historicist did the same thing there. The one time I tried to revert a move I screwed it up. Could you do that one too? Thanks!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- nope, that needs an admin to do it. nableezy - 03:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Not sure how one is supposed to tell :-( CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- you could bring this up on wp:ani to ask an admin to move it back until a discussion occurs. Though if you do that I would suggest just asking for the page to be moved back as you contest the new name and no discussion took place, but not bringing up who moved it or why or anything like that. nableezy - 03:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Great. thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk)
- you could bring this up on wp:ani to ask an admin to move it back until a discussion occurs. Though if you do that I would suggest just asking for the page to be moved back as you contest the new name and no discussion took place, but not bringing up who moved it or why or anything like that. nableezy - 03:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Not sure how one is supposed to tell :-( CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nab.
You created an ambiguous situation at the afd discussion, which I'm hoping you'd fix. You nominated the article for deletion and further down in the discussion you vote!d to delete. This has the strong potential of misleading other readers into thinking that the nom and the !voter are two different people. Although some nominaters add "Delete as nom" right below their nomination rationale, what you did was very different. Firstly, you did not add your !vote right below the nomination, but further down in the page. Secondly, you added a rationale to your !vote, instead of stating as is custom, "Delete as nom." Please fix this so that a reader will not be mislead regarding the concensus at the discussion. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ill move it if thats what you are saying, and I did say as nom as the two words immediately after the !vote. What happened was I wanted to include all the possible deletion sorting list so did that first, by then somebody else had !voted. I just wanted to expand on the nom. So what do you want me to do? Just move it up to under the nom? nableezy - 07:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever it takes to remove the potential to mislead. Moving your comment to above the deltion sorting section should rectfy the problem to a large extent. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Done. If you are at all willing to discuss your !vote I would be interested, but I leave it up to you. nableezy - 16:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever it takes to remove the potential to mislead. Moving your comment to above the deltion sorting section should rectfy the problem to a large extent. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Resolution to the "old" discussion and a request
There's an unfinished business in the psy-war discussion. Left a message for you there. Have no time for unnecessary stubbornness, so I made move in your direction, hoping you'll accept it. Another thing - a request. As a leading expert in wiki policies, I want you to take a look - there's an unresolved discussion, "Hamas response to rocket attacks", between Cryptonio and myself. Not the most important issue, but if you'll spare couple of minutes - that would be nice. In a nutshell - he inserted Hamas response to rocket attacks criticism in a controversial place. The question is whether to leave it or move to another section. Thanks. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Cryptonio is waiting,
Master. If you think you can not or do not want to contribute there - say so, so that we won't drag it for ages. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)- Aint no master here (just a Jedi Knight, havent gotten up to Jedi Master level yet), but thanks for the respect padawan. Responded, but as a note I do want to take a semi-break from that article for a bit, so I may not be responding to queries all that quickly. nableezy - 18:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- I guess we all need a break there. Question: do you have any idea what do i do with this one? (roll up and see the diff) thanks. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea. I dont really know if most of the things listed are really "developments". More "events related". The "developments" that I am aware of are the insistence that Shalit be included in the ceasefire, then the negotiations that failed, then the restart of the negotiations through the Egyptians. I understand this is an emotional topic for Israelis, I just dont know if all these things tangentially related to him and his current situation are needed in an encyclopedia article. The stuff about him and his current situation and developments in that situation absolutely should be in the article, but I dont see how the stuff about the play or cartoon is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. That particular edit should be reverted though, it provides no useful information besides a description of the photo used in the story. You see editors putting in words like "however" to put in uncited OR that should raise a flag. Is there a RS saying that this picture refutes the story? If not then at the very least the "however" has to be removed. I suppose the rest of the sentence can stay as it is an accurate description of the image, but just because something can stay does not mean that it should stay. I told you before, if a RS says something then we can repeat it, but we dont have to repeat everything a RS said about something. So, in a convoluted answer to your question I think that the edit should be removed but I also think that the entire childrens play should be removed but the "however" has to be removed. nableezy - 05:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Suppose I rename the whole section as "events" and not "developments". Suppose you're convinced the sentence about 'the play' deserves to be included as important encyclopedic info. Question: what do you do with this editor and his POV edit? (Mere deletions does not help, he returns and reinserts it. Of course, there are no RSs that say the picture refutes this story, this is his speculation; he uses the description of an unsuccessful single shot to ridicule the whole story). What could be a procedure to stop this? Noticeboard? Tag? I'm asking because I need an advice, how do you deal with POV and vandalism? thanks. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Have you brought it up on the talk page? Are other people reverting this user? nableezy - 13:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Suppose I rename the whole section as "events" and not "developments". Suppose you're convinced the sentence about 'the play' deserves to be included as important encyclopedic info. Question: what do you do with this editor and his POV edit? (Mere deletions does not help, he returns and reinserts it. Of course, there are no RSs that say the picture refutes this story, this is his speculation; he uses the description of an unsuccessful single shot to ridicule the whole story). What could be a procedure to stop this? Noticeboard? Tag? I'm asking because I need an advice, how do you deal with POV and vandalism? thanks. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea. I dont really know if most of the things listed are really "developments". More "events related". The "developments" that I am aware of are the insistence that Shalit be included in the ceasefire, then the negotiations that failed, then the restart of the negotiations through the Egyptians. I understand this is an emotional topic for Israelis, I just dont know if all these things tangentially related to him and his current situation are needed in an encyclopedia article. The stuff about him and his current situation and developments in that situation absolutely should be in the article, but I dont see how the stuff about the play or cartoon is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. That particular edit should be reverted though, it provides no useful information besides a description of the photo used in the story. You see editors putting in words like "however" to put in uncited OR that should raise a flag. Is there a RS saying that this picture refutes the story? If not then at the very least the "however" has to be removed. I suppose the rest of the sentence can stay as it is an accurate description of the image, but just because something can stay does not mean that it should stay. I told you before, if a RS says something then we can repeat it, but we dont have to repeat everything a RS said about something. So, in a convoluted answer to your question I think that the edit should be removed but I also think that the entire childrens play should be removed but the "however" has to be removed. nableezy - 05:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I guess we all need a break there. Question: do you have any idea what do i do with this one? (roll up and see the diff) thanks. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Aint no master here (just a Jedi Knight, havent gotten up to Jedi Master level yet), but thanks for the respect padawan. Responded, but as a note I do want to take a semi-break from that article for a bit, so I may not be responding to queries all that quickly. nableezy - 18:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
...for reverting vandalism at Talk:Muhammad. Your edit summary "thanks for sharing" was very amusing : ) Doc Tropics 14:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Re:Gaza
Damn it. I had a feeling I messed up. I was trying to completely unprotect it. I'll try to undo what I did and if I can't figure it out, I'll just ask another admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Ameer son (talk • contribs) 17:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think I fixed it, no exactly sure though. Even though I'm an official admin, I still have a lot to learn. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Gaza war casualties
Just trying to help. There are a few other articles where names of dead are listed.
Reenem
User talk warnings
Hey there, it used to be a "warnable" offence to remove legitimate warnings and there was even a template for it. Having checked WP:TEMPLATES it appears said template no longer exists which wouldnt appear to support your assertion that such a policy no longer exists. In any case I was pretty offended that Fipplet chose to remove and ignore my civil, well prepared and friendly notice without even a response. I thought his conduct was unacceptable and I wanted to tell him that in a pleasant way, there was no excuse for his disrespect in ignoring such a pleasant and civil warning (in place of an impersonal template which I could have sent him instead). AreaControl (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- WP:UP#CMT. You told him, he saw it, and then he removed it. What was the point of readding it? So he could see it again? nableezy - 23:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Do not be so hostile sir, there is no need for it. I was applying policy as I thought it was (or used to be). AreaControl (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am not being hostile, I am being to the point. Small difference, but take it how you want it. nableezy - 08:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think this issue has reached the end of its life some time ago, it's been a pleasure AreaControl (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am not being hostile, I am being to the point. Small difference, but take it how you want it. nableezy - 08:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Do not be so hostile sir, there is no need for it. I was applying policy as I thought it was (or used to be). AreaControl (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you okay?
I notice that you referred to yourself in the third person at Gaza War talk. I think that's supposed to result in an automatic 24 hour ban from the article. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- The great ones on occasion do such things. nableezy - 08:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Salam
Nabeelzy, we have not had the opportunity to talk before, but I have generally been impressed with your edits that I have seen. I was disappointed by your input here earlier today. I found it not only a little disrespectful, but also disregards the fact that I was indeed offended to see someone signing as "Supreme Allah". I was flabbergasted to see SD make that name change request and I thought the matter was over when his request was declined, but to find him actually use that name in a deceptive way showed me that his intentions were perhaps more dubious than silly. I was not aware that there was a cartoon character by that name, but that too is offensive. Regards, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- First, Salam. Second, he stopped. What else do you want? For him to be punished? That isnt how it works, and you too should stop all the nonsense that you have been doing. Yes, I know the history, and he has been off-base with the sockpuppetry allegations, but you need to rise above it and just brush it off. I really do not understand why the two of you are still going at it. Is it really that important if an Egyptian singer had Syrian background? Is it really worth carrying a grudge for this long? There is a particular editor on Wikipedia that I despise, or at least did in the not so distant past, but I dealt with it by either ignoring what that editor said or just dealing with the content issues. My sincere advice to you is to just leave SD alone whenever you can. It will make everything easier. Salam, nableezy - 17:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, SD did not change his signature until after the AN/I was put up; nothing short of a threat of admin action would have made him stop. He did not heed the decline of his request or even the advice from others to change his ways on that matter. For you to suggest that I am not trying to ignore him shows me that you do not really know the history. Look at the conversations going on where he finds it absolutely necessary to respond to each and every input I make even to conversations specifically addressed to others, and even when I take my conversation with others elsewhere, he's right there again, interjecting with his blurb responses. Just today, he called me silly and "advised me" to visit an optician because I see that he is misreading a statement in a source. I ignored both remarks. In fact, I have been trying to not read his input for as much as possible; they are hard to decipher and are silly on the surface. But, I have seen evidence of sinister intentions underneath the appearance of silliness. In any case, good luck. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- So what he didnt change until the ANI request, he did change it. At that point the issue is resolved and asking for anything more is just asking for punishment. If he refused it would be one thing, but at the point you wrote "too late" there was nothing left to argue about. Whatever though, no need to rehash arguments between others; good luck to you too. nableezy - 06:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, SD did not change his signature until after the AN/I was put up; nothing short of a threat of admin action would have made him stop. He did not heed the decline of his request or even the advice from others to change his ways on that matter. For you to suggest that I am not trying to ignore him shows me that you do not really know the history. Look at the conversations going on where he finds it absolutely necessary to respond to each and every input I make even to conversations specifically addressed to others, and even when I take my conversation with others elsewhere, he's right there again, interjecting with his blurb responses. Just today, he called me silly and "advised me" to visit an optician because I see that he is misreading a statement in a source. I ignored both remarks. In fact, I have been trying to not read his input for as much as possible; they are hard to decipher and are silly on the surface. But, I have seen evidence of sinister intentions underneath the appearance of silliness. In any case, good luck. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)