User talk:Nableezy/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

User:Gytuu

I am guessing Gytuu is a sock puppet of the banned User:Captain Thoster based on how is racist editing of Gytuu style matches with that of the racist e-mails I have been receiving from Captain Thoster. Do you think that is enough to proceed with an SPI or should it go to A/E directly? I am not canvassing, I just have seen most of the vandalism and racism seems to be directed to you and I. -asad (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Returned. Also make a note there about the abusive emails, they can disable that accounts email access. nableezy - 20:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If an SPI goes forward, I would wager to guess that the IP 132.216.129.105 might be behind all of it based on the similar style of insults and racism that I noticed when my user page was vandalized a few months back. -asad (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for an SPI. See WP:LTA/Grawp. nableezy - 20:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sock account?

I think this account may well be a sock. Do you have an opinion on this? Prunesqualor billets_doux 01:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Dont know, sorry. nableezy - 07:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. That person was socking. See here.

Hey Nab, I think your pal Bree has been socking again NickCT (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Colours

If you don't feel honour-bound I don't want to hold you to it. But I don't think we deserve the Canuckistan label now that we've addressed the original criticism by spending more on defence and eyeing Middle Eastern types with more suspicion. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiLove

The Hookah Award

For your constant and relentless contributions to Palestinian, Israeli and Egyptian topics, I hereby award you with this Hookah. A Hookah (also known as shisha or nargileh) can be found in all three of these countries, with a primary purpose of allowing someone to sit down, relax and take a load off. So I encourage you, to take a break, sit back, relax and puff your favorite flavor -- you've earned it!! asad (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

One of my favourite pubs on the South Bank used to have lots of them too. That is, until the anti-smoking regulations put a stop to all that - sad really. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Look familiar?

Does this remind you of anyone? What about this? RolandR (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ledenierhomme/AFolkSingersBeard/OpinionsAreLikeAHoles who I think are all the same. nableezy - 13:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Cloud-based socking, very interesting. Is the suspected master IT-literate? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

He has long used proxies and cloud IPs, so yes, at least literate enough to do that. nableezy - 15:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Illiterate when it comes to simple morals and ethics though. One day I'll compile a list of sockpuppet's lies. It will be something to treasure. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Amends.

Okay, I know you and I have had our differences off and on wikipedia. But, I feel like I don't have the energy or desire to maintain this obvious dislike of each other. So, I just want to say hopefully we can collaborate in the future without drama and what not. I believe you are a good editor, even though we obviously have differing POVs on the how the world looks outside of here. I guess consider this a wiki-style olive branch. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont honestly know why you, or anybody else, think I care about such things. I dont. Bye. nableezy - 15:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop it (or an off-Broadway show titled Cognitive Dissonance, the Musical)

As another editor recently wrote to me - Wikistalking is not considered good form. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sock who has been "wikistalking" a number of users for nearly all of his substantive edits say what? nableezy - 16:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

And which account did this person write to you at? I dont see anything in your talk page history. nableezy - 16:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

here's the diff ->[1]. You don't deny you've been stalking - cut it out. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so they told you this 2 days ago? But yet you persist. How intriguing. nableezy - 17:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

JerryDavid89

..is back as RonaldMerchant. Same anti-British rhetoric, same copying sources out of the same book, same errors. Probably also equal to recent vandals like Year135Remembered. Zero^talk 02:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really familiar with this set, but Ill take a look in the morning. Well, maybe not the morning, but sometime tomorrow. nableezy - 07:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

ie yet another ldh AFSB OALAH sock. RolandR (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It didn't go away. Can you take a look please? Thanks. Zero^talk 10:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Ill open an SPI up later today. nableezy - 14:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, see User talk:RonaldMerchant#Indef block. Cheers. Zero^talk 08:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Oh, I see you did it already. Thanks. Zero^talk 08:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, the user was indef'd following this. Cheers, nableezy - 20:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Enforcement of previously-imposed topic ban

Hi. I'm on greatly-reduced wiki presence, and I wouldn't know how or where to follow-up on this, anyway, so I'm calling it to your attention. I see that user Reenem was topic-banned for three months re articles under ARBPIA beginning on 21 July 2011. But he's continued to edit ARBPIA articles like Jerusalem and Israel – United States relations. Both even have an ARBPIA edit notice. Would you be able to double-check the facts, e.g. verifying (?) that the topic-ban wasn't rescinded, etc., and following-up as needed? I'd be grateful.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as the edits dont touch the topic area then I dont see a problem, so I dont plan on asking for any enforcement on the basis of such edits. But no, the topic ban was not rescinded. nableezy - 14:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#ZionistSufi

Hello Nableezy. Would you have time to fix up some clerical details of this report?

• The report needs the date of filing at the top
• If you are willing to use the 3RR helper tool at http://toolserver.org/~slakr/3rr.php, it will fill in the times and dates of all the reverts and it will include the edit summaries. (Put a check in the box to get HTML output).

Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

done. nableezy - 05:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Topic bans

Hi, in two places I have seen you make interpretations of topic bans that don't match the actual words of the bans. See here and here for the wording. Both of them ban uses from editing articles related to I-P, not just from making edits related to I-P. They aren't supposed to make any edits at all to those articles, however innocuous. Zero^talk 13:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but discussing a centuries old tomb doesnt fall in the topic area. I dont know what you are referencing in terms of the second link. nableezy - 14:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Both of them ban uses from editing articles related to I-P". What isn't? September 11 attacks, Well poisoning, Kastner train? Please see What is the limit of the topic ban. Chesdovi (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A Palestinian rabbi for you!

Thanks for your support at the Afd on Palestinian rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

@User:Nableezy→Speaking of which, how do you reconcile the fact that you have no qualms endorsing a definition of Palestinian that is only one of several, another being "of or pertaining to Palestinian Arabs," at the same time that you reject the use of the word Israeli in some contexts, when its most common or only definition is "of or pertaining to the State of Israel"?—Biosketch (talk) 08:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because that does not accurately reflect what I think or what I have written. What I wrote regarding the WPPalestine template what that this template is meant to be used on talk pages for a number of topics and that the most inclusive link for that is Palestine. If however, in an article, we wrote that Haifa is a Palestinian, or Palestinian, city that would be a problem, the same problem that users, such as yourself, try to pretend does not exist when saying that X place in the occupied territories is Israeli. In the future kindly do not misrepresent my thoughts. Thank you. nableezy - 20:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring specifically to your vote at the AfD, on account of which you were awarded the image of the rabbi above. But since you brought up the Template, the problem isn't that the link is to Palestine or that the flagicon is the Palestinian flag. The problem is the WP:SYNTH that results in associating one with the other.—Biosketch (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so you think that saying an article should exist under the title "Palestinian rabbis" covering a topic that an abundance of sources call "Palestinian rabbis" is somehow inconsistent? Thats nice. As far as "SYNTH", and for that matter all content policies, that applies to Wikipedia articles. That is a template that is placed only on talk pages, so any argument about it not being "NPOV" or "OR" is misapplied. But even if it werent, the view that the flag of Palestine applies to the whole of Palestine, from the river to the sea, has about as much support, if not more, as the view that the flag of Israel does the same. Yet, you have no problem with plastering the flag of Israel across the talk pages of any number of subjects concerning the occupied territories. Funny how that works out. nableezy - 18:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You know what, forget it. Something you said to me a while back had left me with the impression that you were interested in constructive discourse. Clearly we're communicating on entirely different levels, though. I'll see you around.—Biosketch (talk) 07:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so you were looking for "constructive discourse". For some reason I just dont see it in your comments. Oh well. nableezy - 14:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

But if you want to be "constructive", maybe you should consider if you should withdraw the comment show me where I ever said the flag "should only be used in places in the Palestinian territories." Don't make things up that I never said – it's not a substitute for being incapable of responding to my arguments above. given my response here in which I quote you saying exactly what you claim you never said. That would be "constructive". nableezy - 16:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know what shtick you're trying to pull with that quote. I didn't say the Template should only be used in reference to places in the Palestinian territories; I said the flag in the Template should only be used in reference to places in the Palestinian territories. You're either deliberately misrepresenting my argument or else you've genuinely not understood it. Personally I'm more convinced it's the former.—Biosketch (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Shtick? You wrote the following: show me where I ever said the flag "should only be used in places in the Palestinian territories." I responded with a quote from you saying the flag, which is a political symbol, not be superimposed over the entire region of Palestine and instead be used only in reference to those areas designated as the Palestinian territories. So, in response to a demand that I show you where you said the flag should only be used on places in the Palestinian territories I provide a quote from you saying that the flag should "be used only in reference to those areas designated as the Palestinian territories" and you claim I am deliberately misrepresenting your argument? This just gets better and better. You do remember that the internet is written in ink, right? And that people can see what you wrote. As somebody once said, making things up is not a substitute for being incapable of responding to my arguments above. nableezy - 07:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, shtick. There are two things going on here that you're failing to distinguish between, and I can't for the life of me comprehend how after three weeks of us discussing this it still isn't clear to you. The first involves the placement of the WP:PPAL Template at articles that aren't in the Palestinian territories. I don't care about that – regardless of what flag is in the Template. Do you copy? You can template the Discussion page of the Moon, for all I care. What does matter is the association of the Palestinian flag with the region of Palestine in the Template itself. In case you didn't notice, I left a query for you at the Template's Discussion page asking if, as a Wikipedia editor, you think that the region of Palestine corresponds to the Palestinian flag. Your answer will potentially help put your perspective into context.—Biosketch (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, everybody can see what you wrote, so blustering it out and continuing to claim that I am misrepresenting clear words may not be the wisest thing. As far as the discussion at that talk page, I think my last comment should suffice. That being You are not in a position to say what can and cannot happen, as you clearly do not have consensus for your position. You are free to continue with this waste of time, but dont expect others to pay you much attention. This is me not paying you much attention. nableezy - 15:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering your inability to distinguish between "in places in" and "in reference to," you're hardly in a position to be lecturing anyone about wisdom. As far as consensus is concerned, recall what prompted me to bring this to the community's attention in the first place. User:Tiamut had asked that any changes to the Template be products of discussion and consensus. Some time after that an editor pushed the Palestinian flag into the Template, without having discussed it with anyone and marking his edit as minor. So "no consensus"? That argument works both ways – except that where my argument has a core Wikipedia policy on its side, all yours has is verbal contortionism.

Oh, and way to avoid answering the question that is the crux of this issue. In as much as it's true that silence speaks louder than words, your nonanswer speaks volumes.—Biosketch (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You may think that your position has a "core Wikipedia policy" backing it, but at the noticeboard thread for that core policy you failed to find support for your position. My so-called "non-answer" might speak volumes, but you are misreading what it says. It means that the operative sentence in my last reply to you was the final one. I find it to be more of a chore than it is worth dealing with such crap, so when it is unnecessary, as in this case where you clearly do not have consensus for your proposed edit, I dont see much of a point continuing to ride the merry-go-round. But if it makes you stop annoying me, Ill give an answer there shortly. nableezy - 07:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Fatah

If you have a moment, synth at Fatah. I'm out of time. Thanks, Zero^talk 11:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Fishiness at Mount Hermon

You said I was annoying you, so I was going to give you a few days' break before picking up on our PPAL discussion. But then I happened to notice this revert. Your edit summary said "Revert to revision 447179235 dated 2011-08-28 18:55:53 by Racerx11 using popups." But there's a discrepancy between your "revert" and the version of the article as it existed at that time. To wit, you appear to have replaced the word "controlled" with the word "occupied," unrelated to any versions of the article going back all the way to 20:59, 16 July 2011. Now, I don't know how the popups utility works, so maybe I'm missing something. Why did you change "controlled" to "occupied" but indicate in your edit summary that all you did was revert to Racerx11?—Biosketch (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? [2]. nableezy - 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And you can pick up whatever you want whenever you want. Like I wrote earlier, I find it to be more of a chore than it is worth dealing with such crap, so when it is unnecessary, as in this case where you clearly do not have consensus for your proposed edit, I dont see much of a point continuing to ride the merry-go-round. There is a clear consensus against your position, I did not hear that game playing notwithstanding I dont see a point in wasting more of my time on something that both does not matter and has a consensus supporting the status quo. nableezy - 14:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Roger that, my bad. I take back the fishiness suggestion. Sorry about that.—Biosketch (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Catriona Drew for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Catriona Drew 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/Catriona Drew until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. RDN1F (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Damn yo, that was a little quick dont ya think? nableezy - 21:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Re

A. Sorry for writing you on your user page. B. Sorry for not signing previous posts. C. Who the heck decided that posts are "signed" by inserting 4 tildes? RBK613 (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Prior accounts

No. Plenty of edits. No prior accounts. Sorry. REmmet1984 (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

we'll see. nableezy - 13:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Need Arabic help

Hi, At Talk:Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus‎ (search for "Abbas") there is discussion of a statement supposedly made by Abu Mazen in a PLO journal. This discussion did not have access to the original Arabic source, which made it somewhat speculative. Allegedly, the original is copied here (p205). Can you look please? Zero^talk 02:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That page isnt viewable on google by me, Ill see if I can find a copy. nableezy - 00:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Google's algorithm for selecting pages to view is a mystery. I sent a screen dump by email. Zero^talk 01:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Been a bit busy, will take a look today. nableezy - 13:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Zero meant p305. I can see it. Let me know if you need a screenshot and stick it on docs.google.com. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

...might as well do it as I was already there, full page for context, relevant part. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The first two lines do say what is claimed. nableezy - 18:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Catriona Drew

Well you put more effort into that than any number of stubs of minor characters I see around the place. I.e.Isabel Kershner. Academics are wipeable, but journos not. The former write little, over time, the others drivel on according to deadlines, and are wikiable.Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Cmon now, that wasnt much effort. nableezy - 23:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Memri - wp:rs - npov - ...

A look at this.... 81.247.84.166 (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but Id rather not get involved there right now. nableezy - 23:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

FT2 is not at all at ease on this issue and his description lacks some points to give a completely different picture.

1. He puts the whole matter in front of the Arbcom who did not decide to follow him. The version he gives to you is the version that preceeded the case.

2. He disclosed information about contributors to FBBZ, as FBBZ proved in putting a screen capture of his email on the internet...

3. FBBZ is a sock of HupHollandHup ie NoCal100, which makes the "not completely innocent" sounds funny.

81.247.129.47 (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

All-Palestine government flag

I raised a question on this issue here Talk:All-Palestine Government#flag. Thanks.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Improvements

I have added many pushpin maps where they were previously only coordinates and added duram -> sq miles automatic conversion which was missing in the old template if I recall correctly. Cheers,--Nero the second (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The latter, if it had been not available in the original, is certainly an improvement, and Id thank you for that. However, pushpin maps were already available in the initial template. If an article had the coordinates and not the map that could have been corrected with the prior template. So, besides the inclusion of the sqmi conversions, was there any added functionality? Because I can add that conversion to the initial infobox. And honestly, the original looks much better than the new. nableezy - 01:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

One more thing I can think of right now, is that the old template didn't have a field to add the seal/logo of the municipality. It just had two separate fields, named confusingly "Image" and "Image3" (no Image2 for some reason) and its use was not consistent, so I tried to move the seal to the right field which of course was absent from the original template. Did the original look better than the new template? I guess that's a matter of preferences, but the new template at least doesn't have that weird green halo behind transparent pictures.--Nero the second (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps of interest to you

An article that you have been involved in editing, Falafel [[3]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Veritycheck (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don' mind doen janatorial woik, man

but I need a clean-up guy to fix the mess I left behind, and you're it. Thanks, but if you check, I'm sure you'll find a lotta stuffed-up rough edges and twisted refs in there still after your initial remop-up. So, raghead, get to it, agin.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Think I got it all, but let me know if something else is messed up. nableezy - 19:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I never know when I mess up, which is frequently. I need others to point that out to me. Thanks for cleaning up.Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Your very own catcher in the rye. nableezy - 19:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

AE

FYI: It's not clear what the sentence "just outside of a 1RR violation" is referring to, since the two links just before it are to different pages. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

corrected, thanks. nableezy - 18:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Long time not see

Sorry about this; I misunderstood the discussion here. Sigh, I have been gone so long (on another project) that I had even forgotten my password here. Well, back to my 48-villages ;) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries, and it is good to see you around again. Anything I can help with (images, whatever) please dont hesitate to ask. nableezy - 22:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to handle this

I'll take responsibility but technically I've no idea how to do it. Could you look at the Jacob de Haan page and the chap reverting 3 times there? and report him to AE, on my behalf? He's doing quite a bit of damage to everything I edit in from RS. Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

All right, give me a minute. nableezy - 18:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#SwaRajSwaDesh nableezy - 18:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nab Get stuffed, Nabster. Now I go to bed with guilty feelings about manipulating people to do things I should grow up and learn to do. But then, I kinda like guilt, and shamelessly embrace opportunities to feel the agenbite of inwit.Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The nub of one's objections re the I/P issue was articulately put by Slavoj Zizek here Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Mufti

Could you check if the Arabic in the footnote on al-Husseini's page is correctly copied and pasted, pal? Sorry for this further bother. You'll find the original on my Nishidani page, in the link to my sandbox and its notes. Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It was fine, but I put it in a {{rtl-para}} template. Also removed the half of your note in the ref that is no longer necessary. nableezy - 13:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Imagine a scraggly pold bobbing in kowtow fashion, damn ya.Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Re this comment your input is welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

تحياتي

شكراً على نصيحتك. أعلم أن صفحتي وردي ستثير ردود فعل غاضبة من مؤيدي الصهيونية الكثر هنا، وهذا لا يزعجني، بل على العكس يدعو المزيد من الناس لقرائتها ومعرفة وجهة النظر الأخرى، مع علمي أن معظمهم لن يغيروا آراءهم بسبب خلفياتهم الإيديولوجية المعادية للعرب تلقائياً. أنا أساهم بشكل رئيسي في النسخة العربية في مجال تخصصي الزراعي، وقليلاً ما أهتم بالمواضيع السياسية هنا أو هناك لعلمي أن النقاش لا طائل من ورائه، وبسبب إيماني بأولوية الاهتمام بالعلوم وترجمتها. أرجو رؤيتك على النسخة العربية أيضاً. تحياتي

عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

إليك بعض البقلاوة العربية

مع التحيات عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

University of Al-Karaouine

Hello,

Please take a look at what is happening here as you've been previously involved. A couple of users team up to impose a euro-centric view and refuse to give this institution the same treatment as Al-Azhar. I am asking your guidance. Thanks. Tachfin (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Merging Isdud into Ashdod

Merge proposal of Isdud into Ashdod has recently been relisted for further discussion to receive more clarifications and find consensus prior to merger. As a former contributor please clarify your opinion. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Socks, socks, socks

Hi. I think FT2 is right. Foo Bar Buzz Netz should be the subject of her/his own SPI. The complaint against Noisetier, such as it is, shouldn't be muddied by the diversion of whether FBBN is a sock. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That shouldnt need an SPI as it isnt, as far as I know, even disputed. Im not trying to divert, but the absurdity of it makes my head spin. nableezy - 00:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse my thickness. But where's the complaint against Noisetier?Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noisetier nableezy - 17:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I give up. When a ragheaded jihadi lout like Nableezy and a marauding, vicious antisemetic ratbag like myself have to struggle for a sense of perspective and natural justice on behalf of a a pro-Zionist historian's damaged rights, only to see admins trusting a sockpuppet of a notorious wiki sockmugger of productive and highly informed editors, then anything's possible in this world. But I s'pose you don't need wikipedia to learn that. Just read the NYTs or the WSJ.Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I would love to block Foo Bar, but I think I've been too involved in the discussion. I don't know why no other admin has stepped up to the plate, though. This should be an open-and-shut case. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Its NoCal on a cell phone. Given Rym torch was using a cell phone a CU may be able to connect them, but he may not be able to as well. But given that FT2 admitted that a past account of FBBN contacted him about Noisetier, and that HHH said he emailed FT2 about this very issue, I dont see why a CU is necessary or why any CU clerk hasnt just blocked the fool and been done with it. This is becoming more and more unbelievable. nableezy - 19:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No, pal. Keep out of it. This is distinctly badland stuff, where even the Gary Coopers, Glenn Fords, Henry Fondas, and John (Maria) Waynes of this world would get secondguessed, read-betwixt-the-lines-for- paranoically-intuited-ulterior-motives, and generally rumourmangled out of what ever reputation for fairness they have. Keep ya nose clean. It's a pity. I had some really tough arguments with the victim, but he was a very valuable acquisition to the project. Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well, there is balancing act between the "right to vanish" and "Clean start", where FT2 takes a rather untenable extreme position, methinks. There was an interesting discussion here. At the moment you have to have a phD in wikilaw in order not to make mistakes. And with a notorious stalker around? (Who, for some reason is given a free pass? And since Tiamut is not around much these days, he has one less to stalk.) Badlands, indeed. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Might be worth composing a list of editors who actually do something whom he's managed to get banned, sanctioned or permabanned. Ashley Kennedy, who had his faults (who hasn't) walked right into his trap, you could see it for miles, and when I tried to josh him into sidestepping it, I got sanctioned by an admin who hadn't the faintest idea of want was going on, and Ashley was walked off. He used a double to corner me (with a little help from friends), and now, banned, still manages to fuck up perhaps, after Zero, the most informed expert we have on I/P periods 1920-1960. I'd suppose the jerk's popped the bubbly bottle and smacked another 'kill' on the side of his rangerover. Despite a weird life, one thanks one's lucky stars one doesn't live or think like that, in enmity and gelid contempt.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There was one point that two different NoCal socks opened AE requests (both denied as frivolous) against me within days. There is also a diff somewhere of one NoCal sock using an edit warring report I made against some other NoCal account as proof of my using ANEW as a "weapon". Good times.

But if you want a list, you will have to go through more than a few usernames, some of which I do not know because Isarig's account is still vanished to Former user 2 (talk · contribs). nableezy - 20:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Nah, fagedaboudit.There's too much editing that's needs to be done than to tickle the fancy of a jerk who watches from the sidelines and thinks he's important. But a mere anecdotal list is probably worth making, from memory. Count as scalps AK, Noisetier (though the JIDF gang seems to have been in on that as well) and of course, yrs truly. I'd think of more, if I weren't watching the Robert Downey Jr-Jude Law Sherlock Holmes on the boobtube, between ad breaks.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember Ash getting into a Nocal sock-party (up in Banias, was it?); and that you (Nishi) also your edit-warring with his socks helped you to a topic-ban. And of course old Isarig was the one who first helped Tiamut to a block (for edit-warring on Arab citizens of Israel, no less. (But everyone seem to be stalking her). So yeah, he has a few wikiscalps. And it would be shit (but up to, or rather down to Wikipedias usual I/P standard) if he can add Noiseter as another one. :(

But, I guess any Palestinan activist can look at it positively: wp creates more new Palestinian activists than any other web-site that I know! I am not kidding you: I don´t know how many have come here half-interested, stumbled into the I/P area, and left (or been kicked out) totally, completely disgusted with anything that smells like Israeli policies. "Winning the battles and loosing the war" is an expression which comes to mind. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Al-Hamma, Tiberias

Hi, I´m trying to get Al-Hamma, Tiberias DYK-ready (was tempted when I saw there were pictures on commons..) Would be very happy for any help, especially co-ord., which are now missing. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ill do what I can, but it wont be much. Zero0000 may be able to help with the coordinates. nableezy - 19:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

fact tags

I'm going to assume that while reading the sources in Neve Shaanan Street bombing, Sonol gas station bombing and Allenby Street bus bombing, you just didn't notice that the information you restored multiple fact tags for is in fact supported by those source. I wouldn't want to think you just went ahead and placed a tag at the end of every paragraph whether the sources already included supported the information or not. As these articles are under a 1RR restriction, I can't fix your mistake at the moment so perhaps you should. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It was not a mistake. You may "fix" the issue by supplying an in-line citation for each of the sentences where a citation was requested. In fact, you probably could have done that in the time it took you to write the above. Please read WP:V. You dont even have to go past the lead, as the operative sentence is in the second paragraph. I'll even do you the favor of quoting it here: This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material. Feel free to provide those inline citations at any time. Simply removing a request for a citation is not one of the available options. But while you are here, perhaps you would be so kind as to answer a question. Why do you and your pals resist just adding the citations? Why this petty game of pretending to not know that this is all you have to do. Just add the citation and that is the end of the story. No passive aggressive posturing required. nableezy - 21:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that if there's a citation at the end of a paragraph, and the very next sentence is supported by that citation, not putting the citation again at the end is not policy compliant?

You're kidding about the passive aggressive posturing, right? I mean, that's what restoring those tags obviously was (in articles you never edited before I did, I should add). So how about you stop projecting? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Each of the places I restored the fact tag to was a stand-alone paragraph without a single source cited. And no, I was not kidding. Can you answer my question? Why is it, instead of coming here or to Huldra's talk page to cry about the Bad Man eating all your candy, you dont just add the requested citation? Why all this fuss? Because you know what I do when somebody requests a citation? I add it. nableezy - 23:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Seemingly, he's been crying at me (later correction - someone else, not him 20:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)) about it on IRC, too. Which makes no sense. Because, like, what the hell do I know about it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't used IRC in close to 15 years, but whatever.

Anyway, your opinion that an inline citation is required for every paragraph even if a citation in the previous paragraph covers it is duly noted.

Apparently you think it's ok to go over someone's contribs and add fact tags to every paragraph that doesn't end with a ref in dozens of articles, regardless of sources available in the article, like Huldra did. That is also noted.

Looks like you also followed my contribs just to add fact tags as well. In the past you accused me of doing something like that and called it "hounding". Intellectual honesty was never your strong suite, though, so that's no surprise. I find it somewhat amusing you do stuff just to be a jerk and then act all innocent as if you really expect anyone to buy it. I hope this answers your question. Bye. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

In order: Thats nice, Im proud of you.

That isnt my "opinion", but note whatever you feel like.

Yall choose to bring this to my attention by your comments at Huldra's talk page. That and the edit by brewcrewer which reverted as vandalism a perfectly legitimate request for citations was on an article in my watchlist. I looked to see what Huldra had added fact tags to, saw that she was reverted on spurious grounds, and corrected that error. If you think that is "hounding" you can continue to think that, Ill leave your imagination intact.

You actually havent answered my question, but honesty, of any kind, was never your strong suit. Bye. nableezy - 01:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, since this is where the party is, this is where I go :) To No More Mr Nice Guy: you seem to think that is is bad to follow "attacks against Israelis which you got from a list or template......" ? Well, I did not do that. But, just to make it clear: I edit mostly after the 48-village template, and I am perfectly accustumed to editors who obviously have followed that template to come along and tag them..for deletion, non-notable, or lacking sources. Whatever. Here is Markwitz, back last autumn. And do notice that s/he uses only one minute between edits! Lol! (Just how many seconds does it take to see that an article does not have inline sources or citations? The answer is: Not many. ) I could find you equal diffs from Chesdovi, (I think it was) ..and two or three others. Well, do I go acting drama-queen on Marokwitzs talk-pages (or others) when I see that? Noooope, I "fix it", add the sources needed, & remove the tag. Simple! Most of all because, well, Marokwitz was right. In this case! And it absolutely does not matter what way s/he came to the article..."stalking" me, following the template, or whatever.

I still think my my call for sources/citations was correct. Though, to repeat; which one of the myriads of Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles I should have used, can be discussed.

And hmm, I wonder who this very new user is. Completely new, I am sure. Lol! Cheers,Huldra (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)