User talk:Nableezy/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Michael Jordan userbox

How do you get the Michael Jordan userbox? CollisionCourse (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The userbox is {{User:Paulinho28/MJ}} Nableezy (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. CollisionCourse (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

challenge to wikifan12345

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

closed, sorry wikifan but it looks like you failed

---

Since he is sure he "could find 20 users who want Nableezy gone" I ask him to do so. If you would like me to leave please sign your name below. Good luck wikifan Nableezy (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Me!!! -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I am kidding

Is there a time limit on this? Obviously I wouldn't want to make such an important decision without thinking it through. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

you have already made your decision, these 2 are binding signatures. Making it a lil easier on WF. Nableezy (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You are counting that as a signature just because I posted here? Does that mean that your signature counts also? --JGGardiner (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. If and when my signature is included that will be my last edit to this site. Nableezy (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay so the count is, me, FfQ, Untwirl and of course Wikifan him/herself. So it is getting up there. And don't forget that your boss also wants you off of WP. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

can we start a section on users who want nableezy's cone(the australian version)? i'll sign that one! untwirl(talk) 16:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

you just signed this one, i wont take it personally though, my cone is full Nableezy (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

damn, i was high and fucked that up. can i refactor and start my new section, bob? (not wanting to miss out on that cone) untwirl(talk) 16:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bless young and ignorant

Nothing new under the sun, isn't it? There was something before Durban 1 and 2, it was called United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379. It condemned Zionism and equaled it to apartheid, racism and colonialism. Not sure you are familiar. But if you do - forget it. Regards. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

yes I was. FYI, Im done with that page for a while, just too aggravating. Stay well, Nableezy (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I liked what you did today, especially removing that horrible Cryptonio sentence 'Since the team entered ...'. Aren't you afraid of Cryptonio's aggravations? I hope you don't, but if you do - I'll try to back you up. Your addition to the 'occupation' sentence hurts, but it is true, so no objection there. I placed 2 more pictures of Rayyan on a talk page, choose whatever you seem appropriate and insert it in the infobox (I'd like to keep the original in the article too, but something says me you might oppose this). Ah, those pictures need appropriate tag, your help would be appreciated. They are taken from PALD public forum, so there shouldn't be a problem. Regards. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

collapse inanity
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Deleting content based on grammatical concerns is considered disruptive editing. I request that you self revert this edit, and fix the content to be written in a manner that resolves your grammar concerns. Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 15:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) That has nothing to do with 'grammatical concerns' it has to do with the meaning of words. I would suggest you look into a mirror before accusing others of being disruptive. Nableezy (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

[1]Of course the BBC is a RS. So is the JP. However, the names have to mentioned in order to manifest the contradiction. Read the paragraph according to your edit. The whole point doesn't jive. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. I just saw the 'according to the BBC.' fixed. Also, quick note here, your 'refuses to archive' problem was that the bot requires 2 signatures to archive, anything with just 1 will stay. Nableezy (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

what do you mean "two signatures"?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean it requires some sort of reply?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, if there is only one signature (with a timestamp) in a section it will skip over that. Nableezy (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So what am I supposed to when some troll crawls his way to my talkpage (i.e. User talk:Brewcrewer#well, why don't... with some comment that doesn't even merit removal?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

either archive it manually or write "to archive" with your sig. or do what i do, just make fun of them for saying something dumb. but really, why dont you ... :) Nableezy (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Chaps, you might already have seen this, but it's always worth rereading WP:DNFTT. --Dweller (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Non Free Images

Looks good to me. The others will need to be deleted, but that one is the least provocative, smallest, and probably bets quality of the bunch, so I'm glad you found the sourcing for it. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:BobSmith007

Re: your message: Yeah, probably the same editor or a tag team. BobSmith007 is now blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

It's pretty cool of you to apologize in such a heated situation. But as for my behavior, c'mon, the guy is a total bullshitter. You know I yell at bullshitters from the other side too. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

collapse
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Palestinian refugee. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Boatduty177177 (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Thats nice, thanks for the message. Nableezy (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) your message to User talk:Boatduty177177 could have been phrased in a more pleasant fashion. True, this is a new user who entered angrily and throwing punches. But surely the best way to deal with very angry, very new editors is to encourage them to learn the rules. Rather, that is, than attacking them.Historicist (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I looked at the page again. You were not trying to help a new editor, were you? You were trying to drive him off the island. The pity is that it probably works. Wikipedia editors are so nasty to new editors whose politics they dislike that lots of them probably go find something else to do with their time. I don't blame them.Historicist (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC) You really have no basis for that. if an editor doesnt come in 'throwing punches' I will try and help them as much as I can. If an editor comes in and does nothing but revert others for no apparent reason other then to oppose them, and follows them around just to continue to revert them I wont be so helpful. Especially if that editor doesnt shout out "new user in need of guidance" but rather "vindictive sock looking to piss people off." And there is no way you can take my messages to be 'attacking' them. What was the attack, the standard 3RR warning? Or "please do not continue making the same disputed edit, take your concerns to the talk page." Or was it "Also please dont WP:HOUND others." Maybe it was the final message, that came after continued following of my contributions just to oppose me: "You really have no reason to be going through my contributions to oppose me wherever you feel like it. It is pretty obvious what you are doing and I again ask you to cease WP:HOUNDing other editors. Thanks." Would you mind enlightening me on what attack is in any of those? Or do you just want to stand up and shout for no apparent reason other then to protect somebody that you see as a potential "ally"? Nableezy (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC) And I get along with plenty editors whose politics I dislike, just not the ones who act like douchebags. Nableezy (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Please clean up yor language. The first message you left was accusing the guy of violating the 3RR. Perhaps you could have begun with welcome, or with something like, "You appear to be new here, and perhaps you are not aware that..." The 3RR rule its new editors like an ambush. Who know? Certainly a new user would not. And what makes you think this is a sock? All that I see in the first day's edits is evidence of someone who got really, really angry at the way Israel is treated in this encyclopedia (you don't see it that way, clearly he does) and tried to fix what he say as unjustified language. He went about it the worng way, but he's new, help him learn. If he doesn't learn after warnings and polite advice, that is different. But I really think we chase a lot of good people away with aggressive editing.Historicist (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Almost all of his beginning edits were straight reverts with the edit summary blanked. Newbies dont know the history page and certainly wouldnt think of the edit summary. New users generally wont check people's contribs so they can revert at other articles. This user did. And his response to the warning was to copy it to my page and revert again. I would think a newbie would check the links in the message and see what the fuss is about, not immediately continue in the same behavior. And I don't think I was "aggressive" with me editing, I think this "new" user was. Perhaps a welcome template would have been more appropriate, and I did consider doing that first, but before I did that I see the user following me around just to revert whatever shows up near the top of my contribs. Needless to say I didnt feel all that welcoming after that. Also, at that point I was convinced this wasnt a "new" user so no welcome was necessary. Nableezy (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC) You may be right, but I suspect that you underestimate how confounding Wikipedia can be to even new users who are facile at editing on other sites with intricate software (many group blogs, online publications, and institutional sites use software that is very good training for editing on Wikipedia) but even if you know how to readily find your way around a new site, you will be blindsided by the 3RR. And by the un-collegial atmosphere. I was. It hit me when I was new here. I wwas trying to put up a well-documented piece of information that got onto the page after a huge battle that raged for, if I recall correctly, three months. There was no dispute about fact or evidence, just a lot po people who did not find the facts politically acceptable. I was shocked. I am still shaken by the aggressiveness with which users will argue against documentable facts. I know that you disagree with Boatduty's politics, but surely you can understand that rage at something a person finds politically anathema can lead a person to edit. That person will arrive angry as hops. But, why not give them the benefit of the doubt and hope that they will stick around and lend a hand. It's not like the encyclopedia has sufficient editors to do the work.Historicist (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC) You think this has to do with his politics, it doesnt. It has to do with his inserting of his political leanings into encyclopedia articles, and then insisting that it remain, all the while following other people to piss them off in other articles. This is how this user behaves: his first edit was a revert of Untwirl, seven minutes later he followed Untwirl to another article to perform another revert. Next he arrives at the refugee article to revert me. He then returns to reverting Untwirl at yet another article, then comes back to me at yet another article I had just edited to revert me in an instance where he lies about what a source says, which suggests that he did not read the cited source and reverted just to annoy me. Then he carries on reverting two users, then returns his attention back to me again. He follows me to another article to make another revert. And then another, in which he continuing to insert things that have been reverted by multiple users (me and Ynhockey, wait am I supposed to like his politics?). And then he follows me, again, to where you presumably first encounter him, again just to oppose me. And then he continues his opposition to me in the last article he followed me to. How can you come here and expect me to be ever so gentle with this user, his entire time here has been spent opposing me or another user he reverted. And then come here and say I acted the way I did because of politics. I suggest you actually look at my interactions with a number of users whose politics I supposedly do not like, you can start with another user who came in with a very clear and demonstrative POV on a controversial page, but because that user showed promise as an editor I welcomed and provided advice to them and encouraged them not to get frustrated so that they do stay around. His name is on this page, think of the most obvious name that would demonstrate a POV and you should be able to figure it out. This has nothing to do with my not liking his politics, this has to do with the behavior this user has demonstrated since the moment he registered this user name and began reverting others and following them around. Nableezy (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Certainly. No wikipedia editor would ever react on political grounds.Historicist (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Yes they do, and I am pretty sure that I didn't say that they, or I don't. It colors peoples perceptions and views on every topic. But you are saying I reacted against the editor because of political reasons, not that I objected to the edits on political reasons (an argument that is likewise fallacious but not completely foolish). But even if it were true that it was "political grounds" that cause me to revert the user (though I am not sure that is possible anyway, because again multiple users of widely diverging political leanings reverted this user) it is a leap to come to the conclusion that I attempted to scare off this user because of his politics. That would imply that I am both vindictive and petty. If you feel that way fine, though I wont flat out say that you are doing it because of your political feelings. But you made a lot of assumptions about me in defense of a user that has made zero positive contributions, zero original contributions, and can be demonstrated to have hounded multiple editors to multiple pages, even after being politely informed that such behavior is frowned upon. But again, I wont say you did so because of your political feelings, Nableezy (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC) And all this time spent defending a user now indef blocked as a sock. Who saw that coming? Nableezy (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Not yet, but it will happen. Nableezy (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Thank you for the welcome :) Halfacanyon (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

talk page deletions

Hello, I was under the impression that users cannot delete their talk pages and that it is separate from deleting the user page as Wikipedia:CSD#U1 specifically says not user talk pages. Am I incorrect? Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nableezy,

You are indeed correct. Did I hit a talk page incorrectly? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. It's been restored. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

my friend

you realize what I have done for that Golan page? before I registered it said "Golan is currently part of Israel" I am the one that got them to change it, If it wasn't for me that whole disputed/occupied discussion wouldn't have started. And btw, I thank you for your comments on the Golan page, you are good at debating and I appreciate your input. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian refugee

Just a comment: even a brief read through the talk page shows theres contention over the use of that term, I can see from your history and user page that you have a clear preference for what you would like the page to say; in any event I have no serious interest in the page but I foresee a future edit war over the neutrality of Nakba. Most pages I've read on Israel or Palestine (or issues related) are either good, horribly pov one way or the other, and the first time I read the refugee page I was thinking it was more the former than the later. Fuzbaby (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If you looked at my history you should also see that I have no problem working with those who oppose what my apparent POV is and on articles I attempt to ensure that the articles comply with NPOV and RS (you apparently have no problem with my wording on another page, also note that page was already in my watchlist as I had edited it previously, not following you around though I considered it might seem that way). The arguments at the Nakba template talk page currently that the name shouldnt be used (if and when that is decided, likely by the RfC on the topic, the template will be at that name or a different one and would be reflected in the article) and the other on the inclusion of a specific event (the Israeli War of Independence), and that too will be resolved by discussion on that page. But that template helps present information on a set of related topics, so whatever name it ends up being under it should be in that article. I did not revert it because it uses the word I prefer (I really have not made up my mind, if you look at the RfC the one comment I supported so far was more an overview and a partial endorsement, but open to the idea of another term. My current thinking is that this is an Arabic word, and I would like to examine more of the literature before determining whether or not that this Arabic word has been used in English by the majority of the scholars for it to be used as an English word in articles), but rather because the information that it provides in its content is relevant to the refugee page. I obviously have my own views on these subjects, and that obviously shades how I see things, but this was not about my POV. The "Palestinian exodus" or the "depopulation of Palestinians" or the "Nakba", whatever you want to call it, resulted in the people currently called Palestinian refugees. That template is relevant and links to articles that have a direct relation to the article in question, so I dont think there is any question that the template should be on that page. Nableezy (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

First, let me say thanks for fixing my talk page; I'm not sure what happened but assumed some template got fiddled with. I'm going to read more into the background for these pages and the RfC, as right now I feel that I have an uninformed opinion based just on my "feel" from reading through the article. As an aside, I didn't mean any offense by commenting on your obvious position on the issue, rather, I think it is laudable that people with strongly held opinions can work together with others who may not share them to try to present information in a neutral and fair manner. Best, Fuzbaby (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I know you edit on similar topics and you've struck me as a pretty reasonable person - thought you might take a look at Talk:Deir_Yassin_massacre#.22Invasion.22. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable? Lets just see if we can convince you otherwise, Nableezy (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

rofl --Dweller (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing intlaw section

hi. being busy more than usual, i can't find enough time. but trust me i will and we'll continue. taking a swift look at your talk page, you are not too bored meanwhile, aren't you? regarding some minor changes you'he done there, you are correct - palestinian section was constructed well, but it indeed clogged the contents. i've just separated one para. back, though, since we're talking about distinct violation. have you noticed we're trying to make the same for israeli part? my english is far from perfect; if you see/feel like some wording needs to be rewritten - you can point out the specific sentence and we will work it out. as long as the essence is preserved, you'll get my full cooperation. last but not least - if you think (or if you think that this is what hamas thinks) that hamas 'resists' israeli 'occupation' of the disputed territories in the west bank and jerusalem - man, you need an urgent update. Nizar Rayyan article is a good place to start. don't be hurt if some of my remarks are sometimes sarcastic - it is one of those 10 virtues of an average editor, isn't it? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Check this article out, specifically this line from Meshal: Hamas sees this fight as part of a bigger campaign leading to the capture of Jerusalem. “As we won the Gaza war, so we will win a war aimed at lifting the siege and opening the crossings, as a preliminary to the liberation of the country, the return [of the refugees], the liberation of Jerusalem, and extricating ourselves from the occupation,” said Hamas political bureau chief Khaled Mashal.
Hamas does in fact say that they fight to allow for the return of refugees and to end occupation of all Palestinian lands, including E. Jerusalem and the West Bank. Style related stuff, I am sure we can work it out, I'm just waiting for you to say it has what information you think is needed, then I plan on going through copyediting it. And dont worry about the sarcasm, I have a pretty thick skin, and, as you might have seen, sarcasm is a staple of my communication techniques. Nableezy (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't gone over it too much but know you did some much needed reworking a few weeks ago on the international law section. Originally, Falk was mentioned in the poor opening sentence. I came across this opinion piece and thought (regardless of if you agree or not) that you might find it interesting.Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I read this article. Not what I could have expected from you. The very first sentence: 'The Gaza victory has paved the way to Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, the Negev, and the West Bank,” said senior Hamas official'. I think you are not that indocrinated to realize that when Hamas say Jerusalem - they mean the whole Jerusalem and not just the Eastern part, and when they say occupation - they mean the whole Palestine (or at least 22% left of it after the 1922 division) and not merely the parts that were illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948-1967.
I found Trumpet extremely interesting reading, especially this sentence from linked article: 'But the most important and inspiring lesson of the Gaza war is this: It means the climax of end-time events is very near—events that will culminate in Jerusalem with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ!'. This is a joke. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know, most of the time, though they do often talk about East Jerusalem and just the occupied territories, for example when talking about a long-term hudna. Nableezy (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I have a record of some very interesting Hamas statements, saying that 'we agreed to accept Palestinian state within '67 borders, but we never said we accept two states'. Pure tactics. But why talking about Hamas all the time? Just a couple of month ago Fatah senior stated that they don't ask Hamas to express recognition of Israel simply because... Fatah and all the other resistance fractions never did, all except PLO. And what about the moderate Abu Mazen and his comrades? They advocate the two-state solution, yet refuse to recognize the Jewish nature of Israel, demanding the West Bank to be Judenrein. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There are some responses to be made to those (first to recognize the Jewish nature of Israel wouldn't include the West Bank as it is not in Israel, second it would also relegate the Arabs living in Israel to second-class citizenship both in name and in practice, whereas currently is it only in practice, and third while Mr. Netanyahu has accepted the words "Palestinian state" anybody who read or listened to what he called that would have to agree that he did not accept an actual state for the Palestinians.) But we really shouldnt be carrying on with this convo here; if you would like I could enable the email function and we can continue off-wiki. Nableezy (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the Trumpet piece, anything that inflammatory (regardless of the opinion) is always a fun read!Cptnono (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the article was completely retarded, the only useful part was the quotes. The actual analysis was garbage. Just used them because I would rather not link to memri. Nableezy (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of first and second classes of citizens - there's a lovely revelation from Palestinian PM:Fayyad: Jews can be equal citizens in Palestinian state. If you want to explore it just beneath the surface, give me a call, here or via email. The answer will not be prompt, I guess, but I'll try my best. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Formal notification of the ARBPIA editing restrictions

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

PhilKnight (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Kush

Well normally I wouldn't stereotype people based on appearances. But come on, that's a pothead if I ever saw one. And if you read on in the bio, it says this: "Kirk said that as kush may sell for up to $600 (USD) per ounce these increases in penalties are justified, saying that 'if you can make as much money selling pot as cocaine, you should face the same penalties.'" Now I may be wrong but I think he's saying that when you're spending that much money, you might as well be doing cocaine. So perhaps he's just trying to broaden your horizons. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you thinking of leaving? Remember, there's no reason to quit when you can just half-ass it like I do. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well just remember that if you quit, the terrorists win. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the phrase is supposed to refer to actual terrorists. It's just a "Hannibal is at the gates" kind of bogeyman thing. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad

My opinion is that this edit wasn't trolling, this individual was trying to improve the article even though they are biased. This editor has the rightful opinion that no article should take out the criticisms of an individual and put them into a different page, which arguably isn't what Muhammad is doing anyway. I think you should revert, but, I'll leave it up to you. --Afghana ^[talk] 20:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The trolling was the "Remember that Muhammad's fascist ideology islam killed more people than Hitlers ideology did." and the comparison he was using throughout the post. Qualifies as trolling to me, Nableezy (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think one sentence is enough to disqualify an entire comment! Anywho, someone else reverted it. --Afghana ^[talk] 23:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That was the biggest problem, but the whole post was trolling. Comparing Muhammad to Hitler is the act of troll, and that post was nothing but that comparison. I dont care too much though, not enough to keep reverting it. Nableezy (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Rabin "Academia"'s testimonies & "unneeded" (sic!) sources, about

I's mainly for you: 17.3 Second paragraph (Rabin "Academia"'s testimonies & "unneeded" (sic!) sources, about

Please reply.
- Igorp lj (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

First, not sure why you typed (sic) as "unneeded" is a word that is spelled correctly and correct in the context, but it is your life. Second, responded. Nableezy (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

HA HA!!!

"From your IP address it looks like you would be traveling from Israel to the Golan. You would not need to apply for a visa from Syria as Syria does not administer the region (it cannot because it is occupied by Israel)".....classic. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what was funnier to me, the logic that because an Israeli can travel to the Golan it magically is Israeli territory or the answers to the questions I felt compelled to provide. This really is a pain in the ass, and without editors like Nishidani or Tiamut I get to read justifications for using this piece of pure bullshit (original) rather than enlightening posts filled with sources that actually educate instead of propagandize. Nableezy (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There's always Harlan wilkerson. He's seems to know more than anyone around here about this stuff. Maybe it's not on his watchlist. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request

Why? Please don't tell me you are leaving Wikipedia! --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

not quite yet, at least I dont think so. Still havent finished the al-Azhar article. No real reason, at least one I feel like typing out right now, but as the friendly neighborhood admin if you wouldn't mind obliging ... Nableezy (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't leave at all. I can't tell you how immeasurably important your contributions have been here, especially in the most controversial articles. We have lost too many quality users and we can't afford to have you on that list. I have been keeping watch on the al-Azhar Mosque article and I truly believe it has the potential to be a Good article. Also, don't forget about Abdel Nasser. We still have to work on his article ;). I'll delete your user page if you really want to though... --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it appears somebody else has done the job. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries, and thank you for the kind words. It really is a pain in the ass dealing with those articles though and I do not know how long I am willing to continue to do so. And the al-Azhar article could probably be a featured article with enough work, I havent even completed 20% of the architectural history or even started on its history in Egyptian society. If I could get my hands on one source (vols 1 and 2 of Muslim Architecture in Egypt by K. A. C. Creswell) I could probably triple the current size. Nableezy (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your frustration (actually I have never had to endure what you endure) and that's why when you run out of patience with those articles, just take off a few days to cool down or better yet work on articles that will attract less controversy. A perfect example is the one you are working on now. On that matter, I will try to find additional sources in the coming days. When you move it into mainspace then I'll help out with the editing. Salaamat, --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not "enduring", this is nothing, the subjects of these articles endure, I just whine. But thanks and salam, nableezy - 02:16 11.07.2009 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if I can be of any help, or if you want it restored later. Plastikspork (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Nableezy (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to chime in on this with a concurrence. I posted appeals to every wikiproject I could find on Sholam Weiss, and you were the only one to help fix that mess. I don't know about the other articles you worked on, but you sure made a difference there.JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sholam Weiss

Glad you stepped in on this article. I agree about the Sholam vs. Shalom issue, and was thinking of changing it myself. The article remains problematic in several areas, but is less of an appellate brief than it was previously.

I think I may reinstate the wanted posted further down in the article, if you think that's OK. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If there were to be a section specifically on his fleeing and extradition and challenges (and I think there could be) then the picture of the poster would fit, otherwise dont really see the point. I cannot find anything about the "fugitive disentitelement" as it relates to appeals in the US against his criminal conviction only as to the dismissal of his appeal against extradition. But you did a very good job with that article taking it from where it was to an actual account of the events. nableezy - 22:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, I kind of hastily put back in the poster before seeing your comment. You know, given that his notability relates a great deal to his being a fugitive, I don't think it is too terrible. But if you want to remove, feel free.

On that fugitive disentitlement stuff: I wonder if maybe there is too much in the article on that. He is notable for his crimes and for being a fugitive for a while , not for the legal mess he created by choosing to become a fugitive. I tend to think that maybe it should be toned down a bit. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but this did go all the way the UN Human Rights Committee with views being published by a number of organizations on human rights. I think that is pretty big deal that would merit a subsection under a section on his run and subsequent extradition. nableezy - 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but it didn't get any news media coverage as best as I can tell. That makes me a little wary. I'd feel better if a reliable source had talked about it. I'll take another look through Google News.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)