User talk:Nableezy/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

tight

An antipodean idiom apparently, like several others I've used today, because a friend recently sent me a very funny comic book replete with these ripe expressions they use. How's things? Sorry, I can't keep company on that other page much. Far too much noise still.Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What often depresses is not so much the reality, as the amount of 'reality' not reported in 'Reliable Sources'. Last night 'fortunately' a part of the real world seeped into reportage on Gaza. A team from the Italian investigative programme 'Presa Diretta' (RAI3, 08/03/2009 9:30 pm, Italian time) covered Gaza from inside and went, with a registered foreign observers' group to the north, to show what happens when one tries to grub a bare living even beyond the 300 metres that separate their cultivated fields from the border. A local groups of Palestinian farmers, in shirts, disarmed, went out into the rich parsley fields and spent some twenty minutes gathering in the crop from a huge green area, always keeping 300 metres from the border with Israel. Observers in luminescent yellow jackets stood among them. The control tower on the Israeli border was visible. Within a few minutes, jeeps arrived, soldiers took up positions, and a few warning shots were fired over their head. The foreign observers communicated by phone, megaphone to the Israelis, identifying themselves, guaranteeing the labourers had been frisked and were unarmed. The shots got closer. They repeated their identification, said they were only there to gather in the parsley crop, were beyond the 300 metre line (i8.e. 320-350-400 metres from the border)) within which Israelis exercise the right to murder any Gazan. No deal, the shooting increased, the Palestinians dropped their swathes of parsley, all marketable for a pittance, and jumped into pits. The observers stood still, repeating their assurances, until the sound camera registered the whiffle of shots coming closer to their heads. In the end they were all forced to run for cover, and as they did you could see the bullets plinking into earth and ramshackle masonry where they took cover. Israel's security means you can't gather parsley in your own back yard. In the fishing part, local fishers said their limits were first 20 kilomtres, then 12, then 8, then 5, then 3 kilometres, and even then, as the reportage shows, they get shot at by powerful motor-boat patrols. The video will be mounted on their site within a few days.Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Gideon Levy

On the subject of information, who gives this, read the passage about the 'cheerleaders' in the studios in this piece. Gideon Levy Nishidani (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

2nd favorite living Israeli (Uri still has the number 1 slot for me). Thanks for that. Nableezy (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Civility

No this is just my online persona. In real life I'm quite a bastard. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, don't let Cptnono fool you with his use of the Nableezy vernacular.this post --JGGardiner (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Image

That image would display like this thumb He just put the full path in by mistake. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, thanks gangsta Nableezy (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol

Wrong user lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hhaha sorry I thought you were confusing me wit Mbz1. Let me look at the article I haven't read it lately. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I honestly wouldn't mind leaving the picture in the article considering my bias, but you are obligated to remove it solely based off wikipedia rules. If he reverts, forward your concern to the noticeboard. They'll take care of him hopefully. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis

I just left a compliment for you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis only to look down and see that you had sort of insulted me. /c: Maybe you'd consider showing goodwill and leaving my name out of the "pissing contest" comment. I'm not answering every comment...in this particular case I was mentioned by name and dragged into it. --Boston (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

fair enough, will remove just meant as friendly advice. When I see the same name over and over again in an AfD or whatever !vote it looks bad to me. But will remove the names. Nableezy (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries! You're correct in your feeling that I should get my hands out of this messy pie for a while. Thanks and best wishes. --Boston (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] These are the islamophobic and anti pakistani comments by the Indian American user Wikireader41 he has a habbit of abuse and lies so dont worry about his comments regards 86.151.123.180 (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I really am not trying to get into a Desi fight to the death, too many problems on the Israel/Palestinian pages for me. Some of those comments are certainly uncalled for, but it doesn't have anything to do with the AfD, I dont really care why he created that article, motives dont matter much to me. I saw the article, thought it was not worthy of being in an encyclopedia and explained myself. I dont need to say that X user is biased against Pakistanis or Muslims or whatever. Sure, people do have those biases, but at that discussion it is not really relevant what he said on Kashmir pages or wherever else. It doesnt help anything to keep bringing up those points, and actually does sway people against you or your arguments just because they dont like the hostility. I would say if you have something to say (and you are not a sock of a banned user) about the article as it relates to arguments for or against its deletion then say it, but it is counterproductive to keep bringing that type of stuff up. Nableezy (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Civility

		Civility Award
		Maybe you saw the edit summary and thought this was a warning? Nope, it's an award for rising above the din of incivility and setting a good example for others. Thanks and best wishes. --Boston (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks. You know I had intended to give you a Palestine barnstar of national merit after I heard you were a Hamas operative but apparently they're all controlled by Fatah. Oh well. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I posted this in the article talk too. I'm tired. Oh well. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Human Shield

What article has the kid being used as a human shield? I'm not seeing it but there are lots from Haaretz and it also might have been deleted.Cptnono (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

the vandalism of homes story, quote: "sometimes soldiers asked a child whom they forced to accompany them, as a human shield, to hand it out." from here. Nableezy (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at 2009 Hamas reprisal attacks. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

how sweet. Nableezy (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

2009 Hamas reprisal attacks

I've blocked you for 12h for edit warring at 2009 Hamas reprisal attacks William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

fair enough Nableezy (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

time to smoke a fatty and forget about wikipedia for at least 12 hours, ima be high as hell so if anybody leaves a message i probably either wont respond or will in complete gibberish, peace and happiness yall Nableezy (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad Image talk

I watch that page mostly to protect against vandalism. Apologies for the revert, but it looked like talk page vandalism at first glance. No offense intended. It looks like we're both trying to do the same.

Totally agree that image talk can bog down the article terribly, however, you didn't fully identify the article you were sending the discussion to. I only now found it at Talk:Muhammad/images. (The main article's talk page has, what, eleven headers?) Maybe a link in the summary would've been clear to casual editors on that page. Ciao, MARussellPESE (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

All good, and next time I'll make sure to place a link in the edit summary. Nableezy (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

to anybody who happens by

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073243.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h-wDadHkpVcg1DVFpsgF9RL5hnPQD973RJ0G0
http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSLN537222

and this

http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery03232009.html

Note

Heyo Nableezy,
Regardless of my assesment that Nableezy seems like a nickname of someone from Nablus, I can't recall dismissing your points when they had valid relevance. I'd suggest a collegiate atmosphre is something we aspire achiving even in disagreement so this type of commentary is counter-productive.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hows this for dismissing my points based on where you think I am from? Nableezy (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't fool everyone with that Chicago disguise. I saw where you let your guard down and admitted that you are a Wisconsinite. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fuck that, place of my birth dont mean a damn thing. Raised in Chicago coming from Egypt, all that matters. I aint no cheesehead goddamit! Nableezy (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, are you a self-hating Wisconsinite? --JGGardiner (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I AM NOT A WISCONSINITE, I dont know what you are talking abooooooooooooooot. Nableezy (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You know in Canadian English the proper spelling "abooooooot" with only seven Os. By the way, if you need content to pretty up your user page, you might like this graphic.[9] --JGGardiner (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Now thats a flag I can salute; O Canada, our home and stoner land. True potheads wake, and fall asleep again. God keep our land, full of kush and bc. O Canada, we'll pass out for thee!!!! Nableezy (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's what "with glowing hearts" refers to. Is BC popular out there? I thought it was more of a west coast thing. You know, our provincial motto is "Splendor sine Occasu" -- "Splendor Undiminished". --JGGardiner (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We get it out here, though it aint that popular, the BC we usually get isnt all that great. Especially when we can get shit straight from the Hindu Kush Mountains that is, and this is not an exaggeration, the cure to all the worlds evils. They say it is Afghani, though I am not so sure, but it is super duper duper bomb. Nableezy (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If kush is the cure of all evils and it originates in Afghanistan then why is Afghanistan such a hellhole? BTW I created this userbox for you, tell me if you like it, I will be happy to move it to your userpage --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This user does not use intoxicants

uhh, dee dee dee, the number you have called is no longer in service. Please refill the bong and try again :). (And Afghanistan is in such a hell hole because the governments of the world see fit to deprive the population of the world of Afghanistan's finest export and deprive Afghanis the ability to profit from their natural resource. Just think, if instead of the poppy fields they just grew acres and acres of kush and made it available at a decent price, Afghanistan would be one of the richest nations in the world.) Nableezy (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Um no. Everyone knows that the Afghan people were so high and semiconscious that they stood by laid by as the Americans, Soviets, and Arabs used their country as a battlefield. As for the userbox, I guess you didn't like the colors, how about purple? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The kush aint purple its lavender

The kush aint purple its lavender (line from a Jadakiss song) Nableezy (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I hope this lyric is not the one you're planning to place on your userpage. BTW, someone requested the pic on your userpage to be deleted [10] because it is 'photoshopped'. It seems that your userpage is being attacked from every corner, poor you. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That was on this list. A simple google search of 'banksy guardian' will show the picture us authentic. But that just shows how good Banksy is, his real work looks it is a 'Photoshop that claims to be a photo'. Nableezy (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole deletion request is funny and strange, I never seen anyone request that a photo be deleted because it looks like a photoshop work. I think photoshopped work is permitted and the user's first edit was requesting that that pic be deleted. Someone is targeting your user page! Do you think it is that incredibly annoying and slow guy that we both hate with a passion? Think about it -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Naw, its his first edit to commons, not to en.wiki. Nableezy (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice point, I agree that it could seem like I was making a comment based on locality and that, it could seem as though I was discounting a perspective. My real concerns, however, were regarding an anti-Israeli narrative/push by a small click (e.g. Nishidani and Tiamut) and had little to do with discounting the Arab perspective but rather with the discounting of the Israeli one. Certainly, the points you've raised at the time were not dicounted but I'd be happy to go over these points again if you are interested in reviewing the issue I was concerned with. At the time, it seemed like a small cabal was dominating the article and refusing honest discourse and an attempt to maintain a neutral presentation on the events, censoring out the Israeli perspective. All due resepect, but some Arabs use more than just their userpages for ideological platform promotion and that seemed like the case at the time. Anyways, your point stands and my offer to go over your point stands as well. Is there any other event you'd like to raise or is this it?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats as much as I know about, if you want to talk about any specific article or edit that I have made with me feel free. Peace and happiness, Nableezy (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

One note though, if I were to make a list of what I think are the best editors on Wikipedia, Nishidani and Tiamut would occupy 2 of the top spots. And it isnt because they edit with an 'anti-Israel' bias, it is because their edits are always well-sourced, their arguments and readings of policy are consistent, and their dedication to making these articles worthy of the title of an encyclopedia entry are nearly unmatched. In fact, it was Nishidani who first brought the Cordesman analysis of the Gaza war to the talk page. Why would he do that if he wanted to hide information that could portray Israel in positive light? He did it because his concern is not pushing an 'anti-Israel narrative', his concern is making an encyclopedia article. We all have biases, and having read nearly every page in the I/P conflict that wiki has, as well as their talk pages and archives, I know where many of the 'players' stand. But I have never seen either of those two be disingenuous with their edits or their reading of policy to justify those edits. So, my final words here are as follows; if I can end up being half the editor of either of those two I will see this little endeavor of mine as incredibly successful. Respect Tiamut and Nishidani, sickest people they are! (In Chicago, calling somebody sick is a compliment of a very high order) Nableezy (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage

Hello. I noticed your userpage is, in my opinion, in breach of the soapboxing clause in Wikipedia:User_page#Inappropriate_content.

I'm not the kind of person to push this kind of thing, so I'm certainly not going to rush off to some noticeboard, or delete it or anything like that and particularly because a) you're a user in good standing and b) I recognise it's my opinion on interpreting a (probably deliberately) fairly woolly policy.

So I'll just leave it to you to deal with or ignore as you like. I'm happy to discuss this with you, btw, if you wish, or feel free not to reply. I don't take offence easily.

NB Yes, you're not the only one with a problematic userpage and yes I would leave a similar message for others if I find them, regardless of the topic of the soapboxing, although it's hardly a focus of my editing time! I notice you quote User:Tiamut - Tiamut's userpage, by way of contrast (and, again in my opinion) is totally in line with the policy, in that it includes unambiguously political content, but in a way and within an overall context that reduces it way below soapboxing levels.

I hope you take this gentle note in a positive manner - you seem pretty reasonable. --Dweller (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and I certainly will take it in a positive manner. When I first started here the userpage was nothing but userboxes proclaiming my love of marijuana, until I was inspired to change it a bit. I have been thinking about changing it, but one note. I don't think it reaches the level of soapboxing, I really am just trying to point others to articles that I think are important. But I see what you are saying, and will think on it. It isn't going to change right away, at least until I can think of something to replace it with. I am guessing the biggest issues you see are with second and third paragraphs, maybe the first as well. Any specific criticism on it? Another user had brought this up (one user even called me a Hamas operative because if its contents), so I asked Avruch what he thought of it, and while he did agree with you that it went into soapboxing territory, he didnt see it as that big a deal. You can see the discussion here. But I will think about what I could do to change it up a bit, and any specific criticisms would be more than welcome. Nableezy (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I like your attitude. And there's no rush. I'd encourage you to balance it out with some material related to your editing here, whatever that is. Some people like userboxes, some despise them. Some include personal information (best anonymised to avoid harassment), some do not. Anyway, that'd help balance it. Tiamut avoids any possible problems by, if I might paraphrase, finding a replacement for personal polemic by quoting from articles or posts on Wikipedia, which is quite an elegant solution. Just to be clear, it's not the choice of topic, but the personal political polemic that makes it soapboxy, well that and the fact that it's nigh on 100% of the page. I'd have the same response to a userpage that was dedicated entirely to a user's opinion that Maggie was the greatest Prime Minister of all time, or that, I dunno, Germany should bring back corporal punishment in secondary schools. Whatever. Anyway, nice response. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to start making some changes, unfortunately some of my ideas have been shot down by those who know more about copyrights than me. I removed pretty much all of the personal commentary, left the quotes and picture for now. I really dont want to remove either of those two things, but I request your opinion on whether or not they are suitable material for a user page. I am struggling to think of what else to add, don't have much of an editing 'career' to talk about. To be honest with you, if somebody had come with a more hostile tone I probably would have reacted differently, might have just ended up filling it up with quotes from various people that speak to the same issues but with a much harsher tone. So anyways, thanks for being so chill with this, gave me a chance to actually consider it. Nableezy (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Your changes are good. Getting rid of your personal comments was probably the biggest difference you could have made. Ideas you might be interested in: Babel boxes, showing your proficiency in other languages (v useful when people want to discuss with you) pages you created or are proud of your efforts with, links or userboxes for WikiProjects you join, barnstars you receive. Or white space :-) Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. You might want to <ahem> correct "which one's which?" for Nasser and Castro! --Dweller (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, but I just assumed everybody would know Che never wore a suit. Nableezy (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say your user page sucks now. Rap music, sports and Chicago, three things I really hate. Please revert your page back because I said so. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

cmon, theres truth in those lyrics. how can you not like 'I love you Mommy'? Nableezy (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am teasing... I don't hate Chicago. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically though it's not a rhyme --JGGardiner (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically Canada isn't a real country, but you don't let that stop you. Nableezy (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That's somewhat out of date. In 1982 we politely asked the UK if we could have our Constitution back from their Parliament. They were kind enough to agree. We even got our own flag in 1965, partly because of your friend Nasser.

Now if you need some real rhymes, I could try to think up some clever limericks for you. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nasser, ya huriya (the one who freed us)! He even set Canada free. Should have just made it a province of Egypt though. Nableezy (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In fairness I think the Egyptians were just using our flag at the time, which contained a Union Flag as an excuse to exclude us from conducting the peacekeeping mission by ourselves.

So you're passing on the limericks then? I'd already worked out the first rhyming couplet:

There once was a family from Gaza
whose house became a piazza. --JGGardiner (talk)19:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that's a rhyme. A nonsensical one but makes more sense than any of the lyrics on wannabe gangsta's page. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing gangsta among those rhymes, or lines for JGG's benefit. But no limericks, and I could say something right now about a Canadian's intrinsic inability to have any rhythm, but that might get me in to some trouble. Nableezy (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because JGG doesn't invent words or use random words to force a rhyme doesn't mean he doesn't have any rhythm. F*** tae kwon do/I tote da fo'-fo???? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All right, let me break down that rhyme for you. a fo-fo is a .44 caliber handgun. When he says '* taw kwon do/i tote da fo-fo' he is saying he doesnt need to know things like martial arts, he has a gun. Beyond that there isnt much meaning in it, but if you hear the song you will recognize how sick the flow is. It is hard to do justice to that line, or really anything from biggie, in pure text. Sorry if you dont see the genius in it, but trust me it is there. Nableezy (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Belly is a Canadian who is more gangsta than me. And he even raps about the Middle East sometimes.[11] --JGGardiner (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You showed me that before, but he isnt really Canadian so that doesn't count. Just because somebody raps in Canada does not make him a Canadian rapper. Sorry, but better luck next time Nableezy (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're just used to the American system. Whereas in Canada, people come here from other places and they get to be Canadian. And you can't get more Canadian than living in Greely, Ontario and rapping about the local NHL team.[12] I think I just showed you his article before but that was just because I suspected you were an anti-Canadian bigot who only enjoyed Palestinians and rap. But I didn't show his actual "rhymes". He starts by saying that he has a lot of shit on his chest. That sounded kind of Nableezy to me. He also did one with Keshia Chanté. Maybe she's more your cup of tea. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Mahmud az-Zahar‎

Could you do me a favour and have a look at this page Mahmud az-Zahar‎. I've violated WP:3RR according to IronDuke whatever that is. Wodge (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually already had it in my watchlist, but you should know these types of messages are generally frowned upon. Nableezy (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And one of the people you are dealing with is a bit off a professional gamesman an editor quite adept at running people off with these types of maneuvers. Mind the rules about actual conduct, he certainly tries and will attempt and often appears to bait others into breaking them, all the while not caring too much about the rules that govern actual content without actually taking care of content rules such as proper sourcing and NPOV. Nableezy (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I don't know who you're referring to, but I don't think that kind of name-calling is helpful in any case. I hope you'll reconsider. IronDuke 16:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Calling somebody a professional gamesman reaches name calling for you? C'mon, one of the things I actually liked about you (read a lot of your work) was the sometimes sarcastic and often witty comments you make. And relax, I wasnt talking about you, I was actually pretty pleased with the fact you politely asked Wodge to self-revert. But if you really think it is that big a deal for me to write I could strike it. Nableezy (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you also said the editor in question was running people off, baiting them, and ignoring rules. I'd say that's... not very friendly, wouldn't you? (And thanks for the kind words about my prose, I do appreciate an appreciative audience ;). IronDuke 16:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

While those statements are not verifiable in the wikipedia sense that they do not appear in a RS, there is a bit of history backing up each of those not so friendly comments. But to satisfy you, I refactored the relevant portion of my comments. Probably wont go as far as you may like me to, but that is honestly the best I can say about the unnamed editor in question. Nableezy (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I very much appreciate the effort. IronDuke 19:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could oblige, though I hope that isnt one of the sarcastic comments I spoke of earlier. A note for you though, there is now a username of Ironduke. I was under the impression that names that closely resemble current editors are not allowed, thought you might like to know. Nableezy (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No no, no sarcasm meant. As for the other Ironduke, he actually predates me. In theory, he could have made a stink about my usurping his name (though I had no idea at the time I chose mine I was doing so). But since he has very few edits and they were years ago, I think I'm safe. Thanks for the heads-up, though <again: no sarcasm>. IronDuke 19:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you should familiarize yourself with the WP:3RR policy, I would hate for you to get blocked especially when you did not know you were walking into it. Here are the more important points of the policy: "A contributor who reverts the same page, in whole or in part, (whether or not the edits involve the same material) more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain circumstances, may be blocked from editing. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part."-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll have a read of those. Am I about to get blocked? Wodge (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I already changed your edit so you cant self revert, you may just get a warning. Nableezy (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you revert your edit, would it be possible for me to revert mine then? Wodge (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not going to make a difference, just reply to the noticeboard saying somebody left you a note to self revert and by the time you could somebody else had already done so. But 3RR is only a part of edit warring, I myself got blocked for 12 hours though I did not exceed 3RR. Dont be too worried about it, even if you are blocked, and you will probably just be warned, it will be for 12 or 24 hours. Nableezy (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Wodge (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh noes, I've been blocked from editing that page for 24 hours Wodge (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Its all good, there are countless other articles that could use some help. Nableezy (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Material Support

Maybe. But from everything that I know about you, I think getting back into the States would be your biggest worry. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that to Wodge. I guess I shouldn't have said it quite that way. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one of the secret decisions of ARBPIA was to entrap all of your troublesome editors into getting yourselves banned. Then we can be done with the articles for good. We've had mixed success so far. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

ARBPIA? Wodge (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, should have mentioned that to you as well, read up on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions Nableezy (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Nasser

Marhaba Nableezy! Thank God someone is going to work on Abdel Nasser! I'll be sure to join you when Saladin is wrapped up. I have his biography by Said K. Aburish, Nasser, the Last Arab. I found it at my local bookstore. I used Aburish with the Yasser Arafat article—he's a good, neutral author. Also, I passed by [Egypt under Nasir] by R. Hrair Dekmejian on google books, but I didn't have a chance to read it. The article section structure right now seems good, although chronology is usually favored in biography articles. When you start editing it, we could look deeper into how to organize the article. I really hope we could collaborate to bring sayed Gamal to Featured status. Make sure you tell me when you start improving it. Cheers brother! --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I feel you. We got a picture in the living room, and I carry one in my wallet. The sandbox should work for the meantime, until you get your information sorted out. I already read the bio, but will scan through it again to be reacquainted with the details of his life. Two weeks sounds good (at least for me). Inshallah, Saladin should be ready for some kind of review by then and I could concentrate more on the Last Arab. Salaamat! --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahmed Yassin

Hello, Nableezy.

As Hamas is considered a terrorist organization, and as Yassin, on a personal level, specifically called for the destruction of Israel, martyrdom against Israelis, and called reconciliation with Jews a crime, I find it difficult to understand why you removed the terrorism category. Further, there was discussion about the category (see the archives) and the cartegory remained. If you wish to open a new discussion, that is what talk pages are for, but please realize that your edit could be viewed (hopefully mistaknely) as posthumous hagiography. If you could bring arguments as to why Yassin should not be considered a terrorist on Talk:Ahmed Yassin, I'm sure a reasonable discussion can be had. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Avraham, I removed the category because I cannot find a single terrorist act that Yassin committed. He certainly exhorted others to commit such acts, but my thinking is the terrorist cat should be used for people who actually committed an act of terrorism. Calling for such acts doesn't reach that threshold for me. Not too big a deal for me, but I'll leave a note on the talk page. Nableezy (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Nableezy.

Thank you for the quick response. Per Category:Terrorists "Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence." I believe that would cover Yassin. Thanks again! -- Avi (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

All right, I was about to bring it up on the talk page but that just answered my question. Peace and happiness, Nableezy (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And to you as well! -- Avi (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's nice when people are collegial and respectful, makes the discussions so much easier. Thanks for not coming in with a 'why are you supporting terrorists, you dirty anti-semite' attitude. Had to deal with a few of those in the past and all it does is make every successive interaction between people into a confrontation. Again, thanks for not doing that here. But I do think the definition used in the category is overly broad, but Yassin clearly meets the requirements of the cat. Overly broad because George Bush would qualify, so would every leader of a country that participated in a war of aggression, by definition an unlawful use of violence. But that discussion would probably just be too contentious for me to start, so I think I'll just leave it be. Nableezy (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thank you for responding in kind. I have found that most people, when approached with respect, respond in kind, and I try to do so (although I have failed, and chances are will fail again). The fact that you and I have had very different upbringings and likely have strong differences of opinion about specific political issues should in no way prevent each other from dealing with said issues like two human beings with mutual respect for each others' inherent humanity. There are enough levels of mediation and compromise that if both parties to a debate are willing to concede some things, a medium can usually be found—usually . The P/I area is one which engenders many deeply-felt emotions and righteous indignation on both sides, some of which is justified on each side, some of which is justified on no side. The dificulty, at least for me, is trying to separate the emotional response from the logical requirements and responsibilities of building an encyclopedia for everybody that does not unduly vilify or canonize anyone. Wikipedia as a microcosm for life, eh? :) -- Avi (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist leader category

Hello, Nableezy. You bring up an interesting point, having a subcategory "Terrorist Leaders" to differentiate from actual perpetratirs. Of course there would be some overlap; someone like Ulrike Meinhof would belong in both categories. Perhaps raising the idea on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism would be a good idea. If you do, could you drop me a note? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Your latest massive revert in the "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" article

I am sorry if I have offended you in any way with my latest edits to the article. my aim is defiantly to establish a non-biased balanced history outline section - therefore, if you have any problems with the way I have phrased my sentences or with the facts which I have presented, please refrain from reverting all of my edits and instead point out in the discussion page what the problematic sentences are, in your opinion, are I promise that together with your help I’ll rephrase my sentences in a way which would be balanced. In addition, I promise to supply references to any sentences or facts in case you would insist that I’ll do so.

If you would be willing to co-operate in a civil manner, I promise that I’ll try my best to reach together a version which would be balanced and un-biased.

I hope we'll be able to work this out in a civil manner without a "Edit war" or the need for any Administrators intervention.

Sincerely, TheCuriousGnome (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've only made one 'massive revert' and I saw problems with all the edits. I am more than happy to have a discussion on the problems, but if you look at the history of that article you will see such drastic changes in the article are best started in the talk page rather than an editor unilaterally inserting the material. Your edits substantially changed the tone of the article in ways that should be fairly obvious. For instance, this edit every Israeli action is preceded by something resembling the following: In response to Palestinian terror attacks, Israel launched . . ., whereas the 'Palestinian terror attacks' are presented as the start of the reaction. That really represents my biggest problems with the edits, it slants the article to the perspective that all Palestinian actions are unprovoked while Israeli actions are really reactions. I would suggest you seek consensus for such large changes on the talk page before implementing them. Nableezy (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

actually, you know what, I aint even messing with that article, it is too far gone for me to even try. put you changes back at will, thats going off my watchlist. Nableezy (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be very glad if you'll change your mind and help me reach a balanced unbiased version. I would only be capable of doing it with your help/feedback. either way, for now, I am going to revert the changes to my last edit (while keeping several of the changes made by you). please continue to discussing the problems with me. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

But as a general practice you really should provide citations at all times, not just if somebody challenges the material. Citations are essential in such articles, at least for people like me. I go into an article on a topic as contentious as this one believing that everything I read will likely be bullshit. Anything that looks at all out of place or inaccurate I look for a citation to check on it myself. Without citations one cannot distinguish between bullshit a wikipedia editor made up or bullshit that is well-cited (don't take that the wrong way, I am not saying your contribution was bullshit). Nableezy (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In the near future, I will add many more citations to the article. especially if you challenge the material in the discussion page. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is really difficult to write an article like this and phrase it in such a way that would be excepted on both sides - each side has his own version of history. It is very important that we rise above that and bring the cold facts in a balanced unbiased way. Therefore, in my opinion, only with assistence from Palestinian users like yourself, whom are willing to discuss this in a civil manner in the discussion page we would be able to reach a more balanced version if I would get. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not Palestinian but I think there is a simple answer. Don't say x was a reaction to y unless there are an abundance of sources saying so, if you do that you end up in a spiral where then somebody says that y was a reaction to z, then z was a reaction and so on and so forth. Intentions of each side should be phrased as the stated intention of that side. In a dispute this contentious everything is a reaction. Any time there is an Israeli action 'in response' to a Palestinian action, that Palestinian action is in response to an Israeli action, and so on an so on. Nableezy (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a very true observation - each side blames the other side for the reasons to why he had to act in the way he did. Nevertheless, I don't think it is biased to say that Israel initiated Operation Cast lead after Hamas had been making rocket attacks on civilian Israeli targets. The Israeli act, as I see it, were a preventive measure in their essence aimed at the Hamas fighters (Hamas launched rockets from within populated civilian areas forcing the Israeli troops to strike within civilian populated areas in Gaza) while Hamas' acts targeting Israeli civilians were purposefully (even though the Hamas claims their attacks are a legitimate way of fighting for their rights). Either way, I would much rather we had this important discussion in the discussion page in order to try and reach a more balanced version. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree on the end of that, but I will assemble some detailed notes on the current state of the article and specifics as to where I think it can be improved and post them to the talk page. Peace and happiness, Nableezy (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. I hope to have you participating in the discussion page of that article soon. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism

I noted your exchange on the topic. Wiki is completely, in practice, incoherent in this. But it would require too much useless remonstration and warring to get anything altered according to clear principles, for contemporary acts of terror. The past is another country as Hartley's novel (953) reminds us. At Ehud ben-Gera, one reads:

'He was just a normal man who was strengthened by God to kill the king of Moab.'

Piety, like politically-motivated acts, at times, knows no limits. I thought I'd finish my essay today, but have just almost decapitated a finger in a garden accident, and this alone has taken me 10 minutes to type! Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Another reason to stay away from vegetables (my mom would be deeply disappointed with me for saying that). I do suspect this is a road to nowhere that I am taking in trying to add some clarity to this, but what the hell, its not like I am doing anything really useful with my time. Stay out the garden in the meantime, wiki needs your fingers. Nableezy (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't stay out of the garden, three families depend on my salads year round. A moral crux. Fixing articles for a silent Palestine, or providing for food. I think I'll drop into the hospital for a consultancy, appear to need several stitches.

If you do work on a thing like that, work slow, and off line and compile a list of comparable incidents with different choices. Only when the evidence is massive should you make a case on Wiki Israel/Palestine collaboration etc. Otherwise, it's not worth the editing stress over just several articles. I had the same problem, most recently at Samir Kuntar. But now to the surgeon. I'll bribe him with a bunch of carrots Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Map

Hi Nableezy! The idea of that specific map was to show Israeli localities within the southern portion of the West Bank. I wasn't even aware of the alt property in the image, and changed it to avoid POV issues. However, I don't see what a duplicate would accomplish in this case. I will later experiment more with these things and find out exactly how the alt property works there. FYI, the alt property in general is meant for accessibility purposes only (e.g. blind people or browsers without images) and no one is actually supposed to hover over the image to find out more about it (that's what the caption and article are for). Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I know where the alt text is stored, that's why I said that there was no point in creating the duplicate. What I don't know yet is what else this text influences, so I don't think it would be wise going around changing it to unrelated stuff. In fact, I was very hesitant to change it from the 'tried and true' value of simply 'Israel'. WikiMarkup is not just the output we see, but also a lot of metadata which can be used for accessibility purposes, and care needs to be taken before changing stuff like this on a template level. For example, you may have noticed that the entire alt text is linked, therefore it might indeed be used for something else. I intend to look more into this, and also ask User:Zocky, who apparently created the original location map tempalte. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Banksy

I withdraw my objections to File:Mauer-betlehem.jpg Thanks for the information. Ryan Cable (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As a Commons admin, I have closed the deletion debate as a keep. However, I note that the licensure may need to be verified. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

thats your hook

"The game registered a 22.3 Nielsen rating with a 38 share, the highest rated game in the history of the NBA.[1][2]"

--Cerejota (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

pretty close to what I wrote [13] Nableezy (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

also my claim to notability should the need to present it arise ;) Nableezy (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

you have done it right, with out my advice! OH NOES!!!!!--Cerejota (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

not exactly right, but ah well I tried Nableezy (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I vandalised your user page, and it was shameful of me. I am sorry. I know this isn't necessarily the place for it, but I wanted to apologise here for it. Gamesformay (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyer

Didn't know it was such a crappy term. Understand you want to vent but don't worry about it. As I stated, I meant someone who knew the ins and outs of making sure things being included meet Wikipedia standards. Agreed on the stupid flag argument but keep in mind that not everyone on your side is as accommodating as you when it comes to discussions. Several editors on both sides during several discussions have had bad attitudes.Cptnono (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Some editors (I still can't get over the flag thing) will argue whatever they have to for a "win". The law section should be simple enough. I'm sure I missed some stuff so doesn't hurt my feelings if is completely different.Cptnono (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

He has done it on other pages. I must have had a bad enough attitude myself during a touchy subject that he has done it several times since. Assume someone might have said the same about you in the past (I disagree with them) and know some say it about me!Cptnono (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on it. Talk as much as you want about it by the way. People get pissy over editing styles, the conflict in general, and anyhting else on such a sensitive subject. I'll usually rage until someone puts in "Or we can fix it by just doing this" and then I feel like a dick. Good look to your boys tonight!Cptnono (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sanctions and Antisemitism

I didn't want to start something on the page where you posted: "what people object to is not the accusation itself, it is the refusal to back it up with evidence."

Considering that even large well known organizations, not to mention some wiki-editors, consider an antisemite anyone who tries to put any "negative" information about Israel on wikipedia, no matter how well known, accurate and reliable the source, I wouldn't given anyone that much leeway. The comments for which he was sanctioned are mild compared to what we overly timid editors let him get away with on Gilad Atzmon and who knows how many other articles, for how long. See User_talk:Malcolm_Schosha#Uncivil_behavior_in_this_article for a listing. It's really important to start encouraging editors to complain to WP:ARBPIA when these things happen. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As somebody who has dealt with others calling me a 'Hamas operative' and an antisemite (multiple times), never with any type of justification, I understand what you are saying. But there are antisemites in the world, and it is likely that there are antisemites on wikipedia, in fact I have no doubt that there are neo-Nazis here. If somebody does say something that is antisemitic, and not the nonsense definition that those organizations that you speak of, they should be sanctioned. If somebody can put forth the case that another editor made an antisemitic comment they should do that. And if it is demonstrated that the editor did make an antisemitic comment they should be sanctioned. But if it is demonstrated that the editor did not make an antisemitic comment then the complainant should be sanctioned. My own view, and while it may give more leeway than perhaps should be allowed, I think it is reasonable. Nableezy (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Haven't really seen any antisemitism, just intense criticism of Israel and its lobbies. (Though if a non-Israeli military veteran/non-Jew were saying some of the things Gilad Atzmon says, i probably would be ready to question them quite strenuously.) As for accusations, as an activist, every time I'd join a new email list I'd send out a mild mannered email from some Israeli peace group to find out how many people would start screaming antisemite, as one measure of whether the list, group, was worth my while!! One just has to be very specific in defining antisemitism so as not to give some people rope to hang you. I think Atzmon is right that the word has become an empty signifier just because it means a wide spectrum of things from the tiniest criticism of Israel to only if you hate ALL Jews, as Murray Rothbard once wrote in one of his many amusing tirades on various subjects. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link

That's interesting. I check in with Fisk every so often but I hadn't seen that yet. I don't agree with the government but I think that the position is at least consistent. If you're going to say that all of Hamas is a terrorist organization, then that is the logical outcome. Otherwise you should list only the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, like the UK does.

Oh and congrats on the football player but writing messages to yourself is the first sign of Wiki-madness. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand the feeling. And then people like your friend will be saying it was a stupid move if Cutler underperforms at some point. Also on sports, you may have noticed that Vancouver and Chicago are most likely going to face each other in the first round of the NHL playoffs. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of like a cross between football and figure skating. With a little MMA mixed in.

Hey, you seem like a tech-savvy guy. Someone inserted this photo[14] of Paul Martin, the last Canadian PM posing with some students during "no pants day" at a university (where he apparently did speak). One editor thought it looked photoshopped and I agree. Note that Martin is taller than George W Bush who is 5'11 according to WP. I'm just curious but what do you think? --JGGardiner (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, actually I had seen the larger original and that made me doubt my original doubts. Still, something seems odd about it. Oh well. I wonder what Mr. Fisk would think of our weird governments if he saw that. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha

Apparently I hate muslims and I'm nazi-esque now. Would you be able to do me favour and check out the Jihad watch section of my talk page and perhaps try to explain to the user Canadian about how wiki works on neutrality/attribution ? He might listen to you. I seem to have failed to convince him. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

hey it's like you're psychic.. thanks! Sean.hoyland - talk 01:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Settler violence

Just in case you didn't see my comments at the deletion discussion. Seen this UN OCHAOPT report "Unprotected: Israeli settler violence against Palestinian civilians and their property" ? Could be useful since you foolishly offered to work on the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

started a sandbox with the current article, any help you would be willing to provide would be appreciated. User:Nableezy/Settler violence Nableezy (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess the keep AfD result means we can work on the retained article ? I'll try to get a few tables/charts. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah, i should work on it but been doing other less controversial stuff for a lil bit. I'll lend a hand (but I was also planning on starting work on the Nasser article, also need to rework the international law section in the gaza war article). Nableezy (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)