User talk:Nableezy/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Patience

I don't know how you've managed to be so patient. Your last comment was so restrained given his insistence on discussing irrelevancies and on mocking the media of a nation from which you originate. I just wanted to say well done, keep it up. I'm losing my patience honestly, but I'm trying to keep myself from saying something stupid, because if he continues running around in circles and re-tagging things, I'm eventually going to have to take this thing to AE and do not want to be burned myself. Anyway, kudos. Tiamut^talk 18:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I am close to saying fuck this place and a number of people who contribute to it. Between this and the bullshit being compiled at this pretend article and the nonsense at Golan Heights and everywhere else that simple basic facts have to be discussed over and over with people who are both unwilling to do some reading on the subject and unable to keep their own misconceptions (and sometimes their own racism) from being prominently displayed in an encyclopedia makes me want to be done with this place. But I did promise Al-Ameer I would work on the Nasser article (though I have been swimming upstream in too many other articles to do so) and there was another article I had been working on that shouldn't attract the same morons I run into everywhere else. But really I just dont want to leave the few editors here that work on actually presenting a NPOV account of these topics to fend for themselves. I see you compiling rock-solid references from Israeli historians and that gets torn down by a group of persistent editors. On the other side, an editorial by an AIPAC director is used to name the AFSC (a Quaker group) and the ADC (America's largest civil rights organization) as anti-Israel groups who do not work for the betterment of the Arabs (and in both those cases they work for many more people than Arabs) but rather their aims are "inimical to the existence of the state of Israel" and their activities are centered around destroying that state. I really cannot stand how such bullshit is allowed to continue, how editors like NoCal, who really contributed next to nothing here of any value, are put in the same category as Nishidani, how complete morons who should not be allowed to even access the internet are influencing content in an encyclopedia. I'll hold on to my sanity as long as I am able, but I wouldn't expect that to be for much longer. nableezy - 18:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Bleezy baby ... I so hear you, but you got to chill man. The exact same frustrations led to my leaving a couple of months ago. But what did that accomplish? Nada, zilch, zero. I know its insane to have to deal with such crap when all you want to do is share in the exchange of free knowledge, learn a few things, pass on a few things, and maybe even make a few friends in the process. But if you leave, this place will be so much poorer for it.

Look at the gains we are making. I mean when I started editing here, we couldn't even write the word Palestine anywhere without a shit storm descending, even though two-thirds of the world community has recognized it as a state. Now, we have an Outline of Palestine! Sure, we still have to fend off ignorance and attitude from people who see us as lesser human beings, unworthy of the same consideration accorded to others. But whatever man. Byte by byte, we are building a real people's encyclopedia. It's driving some people who would prefer that we remain voiceless and faceless forever nuts. But I could care less. Let your backbone slide ... (I think I just aged myself with that comment). Anyway, hang in there Nableezy. You are so appreciated by me. And after losing User:G-Dett and User:Nishidani and the others, I need you man. Don't leave me alone. Cool? Tiamut^talk 20:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And this is for you ...

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your fine contributions, including, most recently, the excellent page shaping up in your user space on Al-Azhar mosque. Tiamuttalk 20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I know it's hard being an Arab my friend, but never let the monkeys get you down. Tiamut^talk 20:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

'elf shukr Tiamut (but I havent added anything to the Nasser article (yet, I hope)). And I aint leaving you to yourself, seeing you come back gave a much needed boost. Until you hang it up I'll be around. nableezy - 20:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was you making Nasser better, but now I see its Al Ameer son. Doesn't change anything though my friend. You desreve the barnstar anyway for many many other things too. I've changed the text accordingly and can't wait to see Al-Azhar up when its done. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 20:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Just got this from a lovely editor who has nothing to do with our editing arena. Thought I would pass it on. Tiamut^talk 17:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(hope you dont mind Tiamut, moved this up here, but I am rather interested in Yn's response that is hopefully forthcoming. That was a pretty big accusation he made (that I said Israeli editors do not know basic facts) and I would like him to either clarify or strike the comment.) But thank you very munch not a typo, nableezy - 17:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Translations

It seems like an awfully long file. Is there something specific you're looking for? If not, I can probably run it through Google Translate properly for you tomorrow. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just now I actually had the time to look at the Land Day article and read the discussion (as well as the recent discussion about it on your talk page). I am disappointed that you have made obvious inferences against certain Wikipedia editors, as well as a personal attack against NoCal100, as "fair game" because he was banned. Please work to calm the situation and treat other Wikipedians with respect. I find especially insulting what you said about Israeli editors supposedly not knowing basic facts—from my experience, it is actually editors who live in Israel who have by far the greatest knowledge of all I–P-related subjects; but this is irrelevant for this discussion.

About Land Day: You will notice that I rewrote the lead, which included some elements from your version and some from Jaakobou's. Basically I improved the style of Jaakobou's version and added some lacking details like the amount of land expropriated and the amount of injured. Some other details in your version however are irrelevant and possibly incorrect, and are too detailed for the lead because the same facts are not found in the article body. Please be reminded that the lead section summarizes the article body, technically it shouldn't be sourced and no facts should be added to it that don't already exist in the article.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted Ynhockey changes. I did however remove the mention of tanks from the lead because he removed it and I am assuming he has the same problems Jaakobou has with their mention there, and so, given the lack of consensus, I thought it best to leave it out.

I've asked Ynhockey to provide a better translation of the paragraph on Land Day in the government source so that we can include it attributed to them in an accurate fashion. This is something I notice you already asked him for, but I hope he actually responds to the request this time.

About his other comments ... I find it strange that Ynhockey would single you out for the one questionable comment you made in frustration, while ignoring several comments made by Jaakobou that are equally if not more inflammatory. I also find it strange that he feels free to criticize you just after making a unilateral edit that removed formulations that were a result of the extensive talk page discussions in which he did not participate. I have raised the issue of his double-standards in the treatment of editors who do not share his personal POV previously, but he is not very open to this kind of discussion. Nevertheless, I thought it worth noting here.

Happy editing my friend. Tiamut^talk 11:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yn, I dont think I said anything about Israeli editors not knowing basic facts. Certain Israeli editors sure, but the editors I have had the biggest problems with are almost without doubt from America. I think you took "a group of persistent editors" the wrong way. You cannot seriously come here and say that there is not a problem at this site with persistent morons who edit based on feelings and not sources (and I recognize those morons on "both sides" of the arguments). If you could point me to what I said that you took such offense from it would be appreciated. It certainly was not my intention to cause any offense. nableezy - 13:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I did make a personal attack of sorts on NoCal (though not because I think he is fair game because he was banned, I said the same things about him before that as well), but you wont see me apologize for that. His only use was to drive other editors away. I stand by that statement, and as you have the buttons, if you really take issue with that you can do something about it. nableezy - 13:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut: If you find something that Jaakobou said that was even close to what Nableezy said, please point it out, and I will take a look and possibly warn Jaakobou. I have not however encountered anything of the sort (in the past year anyway), and I watch/edit a lot of the stuff Jaakobou edits. In fact, the double standard is in reverse. If Jaakobou was to write a soapbox about how some editors have "ignorance and attitudes that see us as lesser human beings", he'd probably be warned or blocked (for accusing others of racism, or something). Both of you should really stop taking content disputes on Wikipedia personally and keep in mind what Wikipedia is and is not. One thing that Wikipedia is not is a battleground, and when you're making it into a place where everyone is "out to get you", this does not create the proper editing atmosphere. Any personal/real-life related discussions should be kept off Wikipedia, both positive and negative. Giving barnstars for blocks and edit conflicts doesn't help either, and creates a deceptive impression.

Nableezy: It is also important that you read the above, but please don't take it the wrong way. I tell you my personal take on Wikipedia and such, and will continue in the following paragraphw, but I speak only for myself.

I came to Wikipedia in 2004, thinking it was really cool that someone was finally making an organize resource for purely informational content (I had a website in 2002–03 offering free guides on web programming). It did not involve any political motivation and of course I had no idea that nationalistic disputes even existed here. I spent the next year carefully reading policies, learning WikiMarkup, and later (when school ended) actually editing, mostly in Japanese anime-related topics. The idea was to contribute my knowledge to everyone for free. I only started heavily editing Israel-related articles later (mostly about towns, villages and the IDF) and was inevitably drawn (eventually) into the shitstorm of I–P. Back then, personal attacks and violent outbursts were very rare in I–P. This got worse with time, and naturally I also became more vocal in my support of the Israeli view, but never at the expense of Wikipedia's basic spirit of making information free. I am sad to say that this does not apply to most (probably about 90%) of the editors in I–P who come to Wikipedia in order to spread their POV and edit little else.

This has since become my main problem with Wikipedia—single-purpose accounts. These exist aplenty on both sides, although I sad to say that, in fact, the overwhelming majority of I–P SPAs are pro-Palestinian, which is why I might sometimes sound unconditionally supportive of pro-Israel editors; this is not the case however, and I am only supportive of pro-Israeli editors, as well as pro-Palestinians, who have shown a commitment to subject matters other than lame content disputes. One example of such an editor is al-Ameer son, who enjoys my full support almost every time we meet on Wikipedia.

I assure you that most long-time Wikipedians, especially those not involved in I–P, think along similar lines (believe me, I have talked to many, and have met many in person). The distinction is simple: If you edit I–P because you are interested in Wikipedia, that's fine. If you edit Wikipedia because you are interested in I–P (and not Wikipedia), you should probably find a different pastime. I am not saying that you have been an SPA until now, this is simply what I say to every editor who asks, so please don't take it the wrong way. The reason for the original comment directed specifically at you however, is that I simply inferred that you were misunderstanding what Wikipedia was all about. If you wish to ignore me, feel free to do so; if instead you are willing to take my advice, I might suggest mentorship as a way to improve.

Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be frank Ynhockey, but what a load of crap. Nableezy is not in need of mentorship and I did not give him a barnstar for any reasons other than to motivate him to keep editing in quality content instead of wasting his time in discussions with Jaakobou who tries to provoke both him and I by soapboxing about Arabs and their media on the talk page. If you don't see what's wrong with his comments there, you are not looking very hard.

And about battle atmospheres, forgive me for thinking there is something amiss, but in the last two days, I've had a new user come to my page and ask me to help him AfD Palestinian people. And I've had another user show up at obscure page he never edited before to revert my restoration of sourced material there. And you want me to believe that these are friendly forays in editing? Please. I may have to assume good faith, but I don't have to be so naive as to serve as a doormat. Tiamut^talk 23:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yn, she is right about her recent experiences with another user following her around. Perhaps you would be willing to talk to No More Mr Nice Guy and caution him against such actions. The pattern really is surprisingly obvious. Articles I wouldn't even known have existed if I hadn't looked at Tiamut's contributions in succession are magically found by a relatively inactive user. Maybe a nudge from a "friendly" would persuade the user from continuing down, as you would say ;), such a path. nableezy - 03:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you are looking for examples of Jaakobou recently accusing others of racism you can look at this which followed my removal of the Jewish exodus in the Land Day article (a removal that has not been reversed because nobody has yet to provide a source for the connection). If you are looking for examples of soapboxing you can look at where you already have been, see his rants on the Egyptian media at Talk:Land Day (too many diffs to pull up). But as to the substance of what you wrote. If you look at my editing history you will see I started sporadically staying away from the I/P with no more than 100 edits before the Gaza War article (more on this in a bit). So it is fair to describe me as a SPA for the most part, though I have contributed to other areas of interest, mostly sports related, but nothing too serious yet. I dont think I act like a single purpose account, have you seen me participating in the usual advocacy in either my talk page edits or my edits to articles? Have you seen long diatribes about the real world issues? Can you actually point to an instance where my edits to an article reflected my supposed bias? I think I have been pretty consistent, with a few lapses early in the Gaza War article, in not soapboxing, not airing my personal views anywhere but my userpage (as an admin you can see that I soapboxed pretty heavily on that page at one point), and working with those who were reasonable and respectful. I get along pretty well with a number of users who are ideological opposites to me, even work well with some of them. I thought I got along with you, though your tone makes me question whether or not I was right. You may be right that most SPA accounts are pro-P, but those are the ones that leave after 200 edits. The ones who stay and create the most havoc are almost overwhelmingly pro-I.

I said I would speak more on the Gaza War article and how I started editing in this area. What I did from the time I registered (really a bit before that) was read. I read all the I/P articles, all their talk pages and archives, and the arbcoms and an/i complaints. Reading all this made me realize that to fix what I saw as basic errors of either deliberate misrepresentation of the sources or selective selection of sources would be impossible in most of these articles. They are too far gone to come back, so I stayed away. When the conflict in Gaza began in earnest I looked at how that article was shaping up. The very first thing I saw smacked of bias to me. The belligerents were listed as Israel and Hamas. At that point most of the news media reports (and I read a wide selection) on the initial attacks were about an Israeli attack on Gaza, though the official statements from the Israeli government were emphatic that this was an attack on Hamas. So I tried to correct what I saw as an error by going to the talk page. So began my involvement in the I/P area. I only really got into it when users were trying to remove the Arabic interwiki link because that user objected to the name that the Arabic article was using (مجزرة غزة (gaza massacre)). After that I got interested in the process of making an article as divisive as that. I wanted to see if it could be made neutrally and if it would maintain its neutrality after things had settled down. You can note that the article has not had a NPOV tag on it for some time (though there are areas of the article I take issue with as I am sure there are parts the 'other side' would). That article does not read as though it is trying to prove how bad Israel is or how bad Hamas is, for the most part it simply presents the facts as reported by the sources. From that article I started to branch out and work on others. I dont see anything wrong with that, nor do I see anything wrong with working in an area that I feel somewhat equipped to contribute to an encyclopedia in. I am interested in other things (currently (or at least sporadically) working on something not at all related to this topic, made another and plan on working on a few others (this, this, this and you get the point). But I just cannot stand when people keep saying the same bullshit over and over without giving a source backing them and eventually, through sheer will, are able to put that bullshit into article. That is the reason I have not helped Al-Ameer on the Nasser article, that is the reason I haven't devoted the time necessary to my al-Azhar draft, that is the reason why I haven't brought my extensive knowledge and research into Kush to the article. Because jackasses are allowed to keep pushing in propaganda into encyclopedia articles. Propaganda like the Golan Heights are in Israel. Propaganda like American Friends Service Committee or the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee are anti-Israel organizations (and if we are being honest here Yn I have a healthy amount of respect for you, but your position in that article caused quite a dip in that. To say it is NPOV to call any of those organizations anti-Israel is mind boggling to me. Would you react the same to an anti-Palestinian lobby article including AIPAC and the ADL?). Propaganda like this map which was in use in the Sea of the Galilee article (modified from its original.

But back to what you wrote above. If you think mentorship is something I need can you show some specific examples were I acted out of line? I will admit my comments on the anti-Israel lobby were a bit much. That article had me very frustrated, but I recognize that and I wont be writing another word on its talk page. And I do not think I have been ignoring you. But you did ignore the one thing I asked you to respond to. Where did I say that Israeli editors do not understand basic facts, what you said you took personal offense to? If I did say such a thing I think you should block me for making such a statement. If not please retract the comment. nableezy - 00:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The above is a fairly good indication that you have missed the point of my post. Firstly, I did not call you an SPA, or even implied that you were one—I merely pointed out that SPAs are causing major harm to Wikipedia, and saying that you can either go down that path, or a different one, making it obvious which I suggest.

Secondly, my main problem with you derived from this diff, which is inappropriate for obvious reasons. I do not intend to block you for this or any other perceived offense, because this would be contrary to everything I said in the above post, and you chose not to pay attention to (see part about WP:BATTLE). IMO, it is your net loss and hope that you take the time to understand the essense of my words again (although I also wouldn't care if you didn't and listened to Tiamut instead). I certainly do not have a personal grudge against you or any other Wikipedian, and if other Wikipedians have a beef with me (there are quite a few!), feel free to be vocal about it, but this probably isn't going to change my personal position on Wikipedia editing.

Finally, about "propaganda" and what you said in the last paragraphs—obviously you got a very different education than myself, and many of your views are diametrically opposed to mine. However, this is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia or this discussion. It's funny how many Wikipedians consider themselves "NPOV", which is ridiculous because everyone has a POV. I have one. However, aside from my support for Lieberman, you will probably not hear much about it (my opinions are not relevant to Wikipedia articles, obviously). If you want to hear my POVs, please feel free to contact me on GTalk or MSN Messenger (details on my user page) and ask about it. Not to brag or anything, but I have a fair bit of knowledge on the conflict and its background :) so maybe we can learn some stuff from each other. I'm cautious though, because the last time I did this with an editor, it didn't work out too well.

Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to interject here, but Ynhockey, you said "I do not intend to block you for this or any other post ..." Just to make something crystal clear, even if you wanted or intended to, you can never block Nableezy (or me) for anything. You are an involved admin in the I-P article domain. And that precludes you from carrying out blocks, particularly against people with whom you have had content disputes. I understand that your statement was intended to be reassuring, but its not within you power to do so, even if (god forbid) you ever decided you wanted to. Tiamut^talk 03:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, I dont think that is quite accurate, I think he can block for personal attacks or such things (so long as they were not directed at him), but not carry out any arbitration enforcement blocks. Now whether or not he should block somebody who he has had a content dispute with is another thing, but there isnt any thing that prevents him from doing so as long he is not currently involved in a content dispute with that person. nableezy - 03:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Not by my reading of WP:BLOCK. It says, Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. To me, Ynhockey is disqualified from blocking you or me since there is a potential conflict of interest given his, your and my heavy involvement in editing the same subject area and our often differing views. Like I said, I don't think he ever would, but he should be more careful with his choice of wording. Because he made it sound like he could if he wanted to and he cannot. Tiamut^talk 03:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair to him it was my suggestion that he block me if I did say that Israeli editors are ignorant of basic facts. He used my words, not his. But good looking out sis dont know how well that translates, nableezy - 03:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you please quote what I said that led you to say that I said Israeli editors are ignorant of basic facts? I am not trying to change your opinions on anything, I did not say you called me a SPA, I said it would be fair to do so. When I said you should block me for saying such a thing it is because it is my opinion that somebody who makes such a demeaning generalization should be blocked, not because it would promote a battleground atmosphere. If I did say that I should be blocked. If I did not you should retract it. I understand you may take issue with what I said in that diff, but you accused me of effectively being a racist, and if there is not evidence for that I hope you would have the decency to strike that comment. I am quite sure you, and many other Israeli editors, have a fair bit of knowledge of this conflict, which is why I would not make such a statement. Can you please quote what I said specifically that caused you to say I said such a thing. Either that or strike the initial comment. Please. I can deal with it when it is Jaakobou and just delete it and pay it no mind, but from somebody I actually respect it is a bit harder to swallow. nableezy - 02:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you didn't mention Israeli editors (my mistake!), but instead implied it about pro-Israel editors. It doesn't really matter, the idea is the same. You're clutching at straws here, and basically saying that insulting a group of editors is fine because it's not racism. This is exactly the kind of behavior I was talking about 2 posts above. If you do not intend to listen to what I say, perhaps it's best that you avoid taking more of my time which is better spent elsewhere (believe me, I have quite a few things to work on!). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not say pro-Israeli editors either. I was specific without naming names. What upsets me is you are saying I am making a generalization I did not make. I tend not to do that. I said a group of morons without specifying what that groups membership is. It was certainly an attack on a number of editors, but it was not the sinister attack you are making it out to be. nableezy - 02:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And just so you know, it was exactly 3 editors I had in mind. Not a large group like a group that could be described as 'pro-Israel' would be. nableezy - 02:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

But do as you wish, though I am listening. And I said if you think I am out of line somewhere say so. You brought the one diff on this talk page. Fine. That was out of line, said in a moment of frustration in which I should have just left the keyboard for a while. nableezy - 02:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as you realize that the comment was out of line, I believe we can continue on a collaborative path which can only benefit both sides! To change the subject, you might be interested in this new map I made: File:Israel administrative 2009.svg. You can't really see anything, but if you're making derivative works, this should be much much better than any of my previous maps (you should be able to fully see it in Inkscape, although it might be a bit too heavy for it, not sure). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I hereby promise I will no longer call other editors, named or unnamed, morons or ignorant. I'll take a look at the map, though that really was just a brief foray into an area I am not all that talented in. Out of necessity for the templates I was working on, not because of any real competence in SVGs or map making. Peace and happiness Yn (though I still would appreciate the remarks above at least being clarified if not stricken, but if not whatever) nableezy - 02:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

On second thought I may just have a crack at that map. Would have to do some work copying the paths Fjmustak added to the File:Palestine_location_map.svg for the districts in the West Bank. But very impressive, well done. But, as a question of interest, did you include E. Jerusalem in Israel proper? nableezy - 03:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the first stage of the map, it's made for users such as yourself who might want to make derivative works. The first stage includes, as the title implies, just Israeli administrative subdivisions, and does not include anything that's not an Israeli administrative subdivision. This applies to all areas, including Jerusalem. If you need other lines, like the Green Line, the Dead Sea, or historical district boundaries, I am afraid you will have to be patient :) This thing takes many many hours, and the process of drawing it is slow. It was originally intended as a one-year project at the very least (including topography), but maybe I'll draw some other lines before the topography which is the most difficult part. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Patient I can be; it is a very impressive the level of detail even now. I'll play around with it, but it will likely take longer for me to add something like the Jordan River and Dead Sea along the West Bank then for you to complete the whole thing. nableezy - 03:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the way you conduct here on wiki. You are very reasonable even when we don't share the same view and you are always civilized, which I appreciate. Fipplet (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you for the compliment. Though if you look above you can see I am often not civil or civilized, but thanks anyway. nableezy - 15:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

a request

Hi Nableezy. Can you do me a favor? A welcome note with the link to wiki policies to the Jim Fitzerald guy? Thanks. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 10:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I knew you would do it swiftly. IOU. I see the welcome note is upgraded since the times you welcomed me here. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 17:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There are actually a number of different templates, ones that are basic, ones for users with problematic edits. You can see them here. Also, if you wanted to easily use these templates, enable the "Friendly" gadget in your preferences. On user talk pages an extra tab "wel" will be added which will let you choose from the different welcome templates to use. Not sure if it works with ie, but then nobody should be using ie. nableezy - 18:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I didnt know that !!--Gnosisquest (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

?? nableezy - 18:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

1967 revision - postponed

When we'll be over with 'Gaza War', maybe then I'll deal closely with the 1967 War, its outbreak and outcome. But in the meantime, I can't just let you go with bare hands. Take a look here, U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE. It has authentic words of a key draftee of Resolution 242, A.J.Goldberg, and the text of the resolution itself. One more interesting thing, which unfortunately I can't back up at the moment. One of my sources provides different words of Lord Caradon: "We knew that the boundaries of ’67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers; they were a cease-fire line of a couple decades earlier. We did not say the ’67 boundaries must be forever.... The essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary ... It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967. … That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to". Sorry for doing this again, but different rules are applicable to you talk-page, aren't they? And you have to appreciate the enormous effort I made today not to dismantle your sources sentence-by-sentence. Have a nice day. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Country Box

I think it will fan the flames of the discussion, especially as regards "Capital" etc. Personally, I don't think it is a problem, but I try to approach things from a more balanced perspective. Perhaps I should have phrased my sentence more carefully on the talk page--sorry. -- Avi (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Illinois apology

Thanks. I know that your governor has had a lot on his plate so I wasn't expecting an official apology but it is nice to have it now. I was actually surprised that there was an article on the pilot. I was expecting to only link the incident article but it didn't mention Illinois whereas his article did.

I would rally Canadians to defend that article. But a big group like that might look suspicious and someone could drop a bomb on us so I'll just stay out of it.

But it really is surprising how defensively nationalistic people can be on WP. I mentioned once that Paisley should go to a disambiguation page instead of that little Scottish city. I wasn't expecting that would be controversial but I encountered some rather upset Scottish editors. I thought I responded with logical arguments but nobody wanted to talk about it. They're still wrong of course. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That would take some careful structure. Sort of like a James while John thing. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

West Bank

I don't accept the term 'West Bank' but as long as my editing remains NPOV, my personal opinion should not be an issue. We all have POVs, and Harlan did a no-no by removing only Netanyahu's remarks and backing that edit up by his POV. For better and worse, counterclaims are fair in WP and usually keep WO NPOV. BTW, I like the disclaimer at the top of the page. --Shuki (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That is fine, just noticed the quotes around WB when I was quoting you. Glad you liked the disclaimer, equally glad you didnt see the need to actually do what it allows. nableezy - 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL :-) --Shuki (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Some Info on the 1988 Declaration

User talk:Harlan wilkerson/The Real Meaning of the Declarations

harlan (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, very interesting reading. I have been very impressed with your work, what little I have seen. nableezy - 02:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Good catch..

..on Igor's meaty recruitment stuff. I'm concened about sockpuppets too although I just have possibly paranoid circumstantial evidence e.g. Igor is very fond of the phrase to call a spade a spade and he was working on an article about an Icebreaker ship exactly at the time that new user 'Warm as ice' arrived at Palestinian people spouting nonsense which started 'lets call a spade a spade'. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasnt me who caught it, just brought it up to his mentor. Unless of course you are saying the "new" user who posted this is my sock. Which would be the second time you placed fighting words here. nableezy - 02:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I few years ago when I was having lunch with an Egyptian guy from an Egyptian oil company who was complaining at length and with some passion about drivers in Cairo I said something like 'Do you think that believing in God's will makes people worse drivers ?'....stunned silence. Not my finest moment. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Worse? Please. Name a so called "developed" country whose drivers are so jedi that they fit 5 cars in 3 lanes and a half of a shoulder? When I come back to America from Egypt I see all these inefficiencies in the driving and parking that it takes at least a couple months for me to think that this is "normal". nableezy - 03:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I lived in Portland, OR before moving here and the contrast is striking. Here it's 2 adults, 2 kids, 1 baby, 1 weeks worth of shopping + an ironing board on 1 motorbike. Pretty efficient. Hey, would you be interested in giving a third opinion at Talk:Gilad_Shalit#Hamas.27_children_show ? I don't think I'm helping. The story in a nutshell = Sceptic added some info, an editor spotted that it needed some qualifications, I noticed it and got involved, low level edit war ensues. This diff sort of sums up the conundrum. [1]. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with your recommendations. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That is quite a compliment, thanks. Unfortunately for the you two there is a bit of a time difference between Chicago (really Madison but shhh), Ashdod and Bangkok and I am currently smoking my good night joint, so I'll take a deeper look in the morning (my morning) nableezy - 05:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Hi. Thank you for your note. I put back the quote from Elijah Muhammad, using one of the sources you found. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Some info

Salam do you know any sources which state that Ayesha (R.A) was 16-19 at the time of her marriage ? I have found a source here but I need more sources in English to prove that the original source is not a fringe theory. Is the book 'Muhammad man and prophet' by Adil Salahi peer reviewed.If you do know please tell me.--Gnosisquest (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really, most of what I have seen puts her at the most 16. And honestly not something that I think matters. Salam, nableezy - 03:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks,If you ever find any scholarly source mentioning this POV please do tell me also
http://catalog.fcla.edu/ux.jsp?Ntt=Masudul+hasan&I=1&No=10&N=0&S=2171249530963707&Ntk=Keyword&V=D&Nty=1#top
Is this person considered reliable according to your info,just wondering .... --Gnosisquest (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No idea, sorry. But really, this isnt something I think matters, my perception of the man doesnt change if she was 9 or 25. I dont expect the perception of him by those who try to use this as "proof" of something would change if she was 25 either. This is a sideshow, and honestly not worth the time or the effort. I would say you shouldnt look for sources that say she was older, just look at all the sources you can find. Read what they say and make a determination from that, not just read what agrees with what you think right now. nableezy - 04:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right :-) Thanks for your advice,Though I still wish that it were possible to add such a statement.If you ever need any help do not hesitate to contact me. --Gnosisquest (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Who are the Palestinians in April 9, 1948 ?

I've asked the same question there. Please reply where is more suitable for you.
P.S. Thank you again for your advice. - Igorp_lj (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfair

I also enjoy some limited uncivilly. Still line of argument like: "treating the Israeli government narrative ... as gospel truth ..." is not Wikipedia worthy. This position tries to argue about who I am and not what my arguments are. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

no it does not. Your arguments are trying to put in the Israeli government narrative as though it is the gospel truth. Has nothing to do with who you are but rather it deals with the substance of your arguments. nableezy - 00:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I heard some former US president, who is actually dead started twittering. And you're right, behind legendary WP meme actually hides a former Israeli PM ;) And Thai language article - those are my long arms again. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

confused. nableezy - 23:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wording on Hamas' children show

Can you help us once again with Hamas' children show please? --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed it

btw, are you Palestinian?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian, born in America and raised in Chicago. nableezy - 19:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring

I was on my way to post something here to let you know I reported you, but got caught up in a response to another editor over at Kafr Saba. It seems you either have the 3RR board on your watch list, or perhaps are watching my contributions, so you were promptly aware of this report in any case. In the future, I will try to be more prompt about notifying you. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

watchlist, though I might ask if you are watching mine as you were pretty quick with the 3rr report on a page you have never edited as far as I can tell. nableezy - 22:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I have Golan Heights on my list - I have been watching with interest the edit warring over the CIA map for a while now. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice that I changed it to one that should be acceptable to everybody to try and end the dispute? nableezy - 00:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with that edit, but 3 of the 4 reverts you made today had nothing to do with the map. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that, 2 were of the removal of the word "settlement" as redundant and the other was the removal of information on UNGA resolutions. I wouldnt have reverted the settlement edit again, but Hertz seemed to accept it after 2. The other issue has been going back and forth with a user presumably logging out to edit as the IP to avoid the 3RR. But whatever, you can easily see I was not the biggest warrior of all at that page and for some reason I became the object of your attention. I dont give much of a fuck, it is nice to have fans, but it is slightly comical of you filing this report and oddly saying I use the 3RR rule as a weapon using a report I voluntarily withdrew before any block was given for 6 reverts. Just a bit funny. nableezy - 02:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

my claim that you use 3RR regularly against your opponents was made primarily to show that you are aware of 3RR, so whether or not you withdrew it is immaterial. However, it was based on more than the report you filed against Ori. here's a partial listing of additional cases: June this year, June this year, April this year, April this year, April this year, March this year - it is pretty obvious that you are a "regular" on that notice board (and having it on your watch list would be another clue). Anyway, I see the page has been protected, so we can see this entire incident as just a big warning flag. Go forth and sin no more...LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at those reports. How many of those have 5 or 6 reverts listed? Only one of those were reverts of only my edits, the others were reverting multiple people consistently. Besides the one with Ori another one up there was withdrawn when the user without doubt would have been blocked. That is what I use that noticeboard for, when users just keep going nonstop without a word on the talkpage without any movement at all in their edits. And every page I have edited is in my watchlist (except for our first "collaboration" which I removed). But speaking of sinning, if you dont mind me asking, why did you blank the section link from the edit summaries on the AN3 noticeboard? Based on what I have seen in articles I watch you usually use the edit section link which prepopulates the edit summary with the section. If you did that here you purposely removed the section link. Add that to not notifying me, though I accept you were on your way here to do so (agf and all that), seems a bit shady. nableezy - 04:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And bringing up the NoCal one is just funny. A use is repeatedly putting in language that was the subject to an arbitration case in which he was topic-banned indef then later banned for socking, and on top of that adding that Judea is an area in Israel. That one still makes me laugh. nableezy - 04:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not look (and do not intend to look) at the details of each 3RR report you filed, because I am not interested in your motivation for filing them, or in the righteousness of them - they are listed merely to show you are well aware of 3RR, and quite willing to report others for violating it - which, as 7 reports in as many months show, you clearly are. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

But you said I used it as a weapon. The reports listed to do not show that. And feel free to continue to ignore the questions I ask of you, that also is a tactic I have run into in the past. nableezy - 04:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I will strike out that 'weapon' reference, if it makes you happy. To answer your question: there was nothing intentional or shady in my actions, I sometimes leave auto-generated edit summaries in place, I sometimes add to the, and i sometime replace them with my own. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to make me happy. nableezy - 05:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I've contacted the editors involved to see how they view the situation. If they feel you were trying to resolve a dispute rather than edit warring, I will happily withdraw my report. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

<- I thought bringing up NoCal was quite funny too. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

about Palestinian refugee page

Yes I know there was sourced material, but it false portrayed Morris, given that I gave a direct quote of him recently, while the page sourced someone else of course interpreting Benny Morris(as opposed to a 14 year old reference we cannot see), and also claiming there to be a consensus when there really is none today. not to mention, there already is a page about the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus so why turn the general page which talks about Palestinian refugees info that should be on another page, by virtue of the fact it exists?Tallicfan20 (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

When a secondary source says something you cant just use your own understanding of the primary source to dispute that. Doesnt work like that. nableezy - 14:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Benny Morris quote I quoted is directly from him, himself. He's more a primary source than what was there. It should take priorityTallicfan20 (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats the point, we have a reliable source summarizing those views, you cant just pick a few quotes you feel contradict that. Primary sources are not given higher priority than secondary sources. nableezy - 15:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So you're basically saying its ok for someone else to twist his words, which in turn twists what the actual author himself" means to say about the broader picture. That makes no sense. Benny Morris is more a reliable source to summarize his views than someone else.Tallicfan20 (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that a secondary source can summarize his views better than you can and we cannot use your summary in place of a reliable secondary source. See WP:SECONDARY, specifically "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". nableezy - 15:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Its BENNY MORRIS' summary himself in his own words. And that is a reliable source, written by himself, not a mere "interpretation"Tallicfan20 (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

But it is not a summary, you are taking a single quote to summarize something that is much more complex. You are making an interpretation that the quote you provided summarizes his views. It doesnt. nableezy - 15:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Deadlinks

Thanks for the tip, I didn't know about that template. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)