User talk:Nableezy/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Arbitration Enforcement Block

You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for violating the 1RR Parole stipulations on Golan Heights. As indicated on the talk page and the edit notice, all reversions must be explained. You did not explain this reversion, nor did you notify the other editor he was reverted or why. Edit warring on that article needs to come to an end, it won't if changes are reverted and biting the newbies is not helpful. --WGFinley (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary explained the reversion. That edit was vandalism, it intentionally introduced factual errors without any sources to back those errors. It is not a "content dispute", it is not a matter of good faith. It is a "newbie" editor making as their first edits in months the very same contentious edits continuously made by supposed "newbie" editors. This is similar to edits made to the Jerusalem article changing "capital of Israel" to "capital of Palestine". Those edits are reverted as vandalism without any controversy. I understand you have to stay "uninvolved", but that doesnt mean you dont have to think about the actual content or treat every reversion as equally "bad". nableezy - 03:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

And, again, it specifically states revisions need to be explained on the talk page, that didn't happen. You also assume that person isn't new, part of what creates edit wars is the failure to AGF. Rules on that page apply to everyone, have blocked others for it. --WGFinley (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason bots dont make blocks. If it were as simple as x >= 1 -> block x there wouldnt be rfa. (And the editor is not "new", the account was registered in 2007.) But thats fine. nableezy - 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Assistance with meat-puppet investigation

If you have a minute, could you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Curvesall and see if you have any suggestions? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Scope of Racism in the Palestinian territories

Hi. I've attempted to systematize the discussion on the scope of Racism in the Palestinian territories with regard to racism by Israeli settlers and soldiers at Talk:Racism in the Palestinian territories#Proposed resolutions. This debate does not concern whether such racism exists, merely whether it is an appropriate part of the article. Issues of WP:POLICY are currently being discussed. You've previously addressed the issue. Please contribute your opinion.--Carwil (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Drork redux

You write that civility does not exist on your page, however it does exist on MY page. I therefore reported your unwelcoming behavior to whom it should concern, on the page called ANI. Kàkhvelokákh (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. nableezy - 13:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

1RR arbitration enforcement block

You were placed on a 1RR restriction here. You violated it on this article and this article. Since this was on two articles and was less than three days after your last block for violating a 1RR restriction under the same case, I've blocked your account for three days. You can contest the block via the usual means.--Chaser (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. I was made subject to a 1RR for articles on specific Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Golan Heights. That was the locus of the dispute that caused that restriction. Could you please check with PhilKnight, the admin who wrote the sanction, if these edits fall within the area I am subject to a 1RR? Additionally, the reverts at the article Israeli settlement are contiguous edits, they count as 1 revert, so even if I were subject to a 1RR on that article I did not break it on that article. nableezy - 02:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, the wording I used was 'for all articles which relate to Israeli settlements in the West Bank', and I'd accept that Israeli-occupied territories and Israeli settlement are covered. However, I agree your edits to Israeli settlement are contiguous, so you didn't go over 1RR there. Under the circumstances, I guess you could ask Chaser to reduce the block. PhilKnight (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine, I didnt even consider the possibility that the 1RR extended there. But so I am clear on this going forward, is the entire article Israeli-occupied territories covered or just anything dealing with the settlements? nableezy - 12:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction is just for anything dealing with the settlements. PhilKnight (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd also point out to Chaser that the last block wasn't for a 1RR violation but for not explaining your edit on the article's talk page. Contrary to what Chaser says, the Golan Heights 1RR restriction is also separate from your sanction.     ←   ZScarpia   13:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Chaser, given that half of what you blocked me for is not a 1RR violation, would you be willing to reduce the block? nableezy - 23:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that is reasonable, so I reduced to time served. Unrelated to the above, would you mind adding a link to your user or user talk page to your signature? It makes it easier for talk page readers to leave you a message if they don't have to trawl through the page history.--Chaser (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a link, and on any other page it would work. Any wikilink that is a self-reference to the current page will not show as a link but instead will be bolded. The default signature gets around this by, when used on the user's own talk page, not just link to User talk:Example but will link to User talk:Example#top. Compare how the next two wikilinks show. talk and talk. The custom signature doesnt do that, it will always link to User talk:Nableezy which on this page is a self-reference. I suppose it could be coded to act as the default sig, but I dont care enough to figure out how to do it. nableezy - 00:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my confusion. Thanks for explaining.--Chaser (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Salami

Thankfully there is beef salami and bologna, at least the Kosher ones are either beef or poultry. No pork, of course :) -- Avi (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

cmon Avi, thats cheating. nableezy - 17:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Responding

As you may recall, you and I once had cordial relations despite our many differences. But then you made an off-wiki remark about me that ticked me off. What's worse, you tried to out me to a banned user (in that off-wiki forum). I admit to making mistakes but if you had an issue with things that I wrote, you could have emailed me rather than making deprecatory remarks and trying to reveal my identity--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Your point is taken. Which part of the above-statement is untrue, the part that we once had cordial relations or the part that you talked shit about me behind my back at an off wiki forum?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I should not have employed that phrase.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The term Islamofacist.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with non-belligerency, if you are.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Socks

Dear Sock Slayer, Does User:Federalostt seem worthy of your attention? Zero^talk 11:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ill take a look. nableezy - 13:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I am just letting you know. I have no opinion on the issue yet The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was closed too quick for me to call somebody an idiot. Damn. nableezy - 19:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You could compensate yourself by going over to Wikibias to comment on editor wiki02138's articles (including the one discussing you). I wonder if he or she is deliberately missing the point at this one: There is, after all, no apartheid in Israel where black and white Jews live together, work together, serve in the army together and marry each other.     ←   ZScarpia   20:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Naw, I aint giving that fool a single extra page view. I dont care about what he thinks or what the people who read it think. Too many stupid people here for me to worry about ones over the rest of the internets. nableezy - 20:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Do off-Wiki idiot identifications count? If they do, I reckon you can sleep easy tonight.     ←   ZScarpia   20:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Did the old wikibias pull in the meat puppets like this one? I assume it's the same writer. Sol (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not the same writer. nableezy - 00:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Feedback

Hey there Nableezy! Seeing as you probably might be interested in the page Battle of Karameh and have quite a good reputation on Wiki I would appreciate it if you could take a look at this and submit your opinion or advice in order to lessen the pro-Israeli bias that seems to be present in the article. Thanks. Ymousa (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but Id rather not. nableezy - 20:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I thought we could get to know each other a bit. May you provide a reason why you'd rather not or is it merely mazaj ? Ymousa (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(Egyptian here, so mazaag). No, not that. I just havent done enough reading about it to provide any informed opinion. There are too many people here that go into an article to support a "side". They have no knowledge of the topic and in fact are proud of being ignorant of the issues. They would rather make an uninformed argument instead of opening a book and learning something. In case Im not clear, that is a bad thing. I dont know enough about this battle to contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way. nableezy - 20:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Yes yes, you make an excellent point; decisively clear. Thanks anyway. Ymousa (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I still suck the dummy

I've learnt thanks to some Dr Spocky lessons from your disesteemed selfhood, to wipe meself and change nappies when it comes to this template technology, but still find myself in the 'suck-the-dummy' stage on some of the finer points. I wonder if you could crawl out a dem der trenches, cut through the salients under heavyweather gunfire from maraunding socks, and fix the mess I've made over the dual authored Hope and Holston templating? It's a warzone there as well, at Edward De Vere, but there's a lull for the mo', so I can promise you the shibboleth and safepassage towards quick and untroublesome sapper duties for this sad sap. Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeez! Greased lightening! Get stuffed!Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Think thats all of them. Let me know if I missed something. nableezy - 15:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Megaidler

I think he was unfairly blocked. I really don't believe that he socked and I don't think that he had a reason to do so given that his account was in good standing. What is the best course of action in this case?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You can reverse the decision by either hoping that MuZemike agrees to run a CU (and it comes back clean) or by raising it at WP:AN or by asking another CU. I dont know what the connection between Golan heights is our and Stellarkid is, that one actually surprise me, but unless Stellarkid was doing somewhat complicated things, things I doubt the user knows how to do, then if what Megaidler wrote about his or her location is true, which can be established by CU, then there is no chance the two are the same. You can either wait for MuZemike to respond (you really should do that either way), post to AN (where if you come across as strong as you have on MuZemike's talk page most people will ignore you), or you can ask another CU to take a look. nableezy - 05:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I should add though that I think your old friend has once again graced us with his presence with a new, different, account, which is one of the reasons I doubt Megaidler is the same. nableezy - 05:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ty--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing restriction

Due to an ongoing dispute, you are restricted to 1RR for the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, until the end of December. PhilKnight (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. nableezy - 17:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to let the rest of us know what Nableezy did wrong recently, may I ask Phil or Nableezy to explain this? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This was the result of a report made at AN3. nableezy - 21:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, I shouldn't have said you made "numerous complaints" -- I was thinking of all the talk page arguments the two of you were having, and spoke incorrectly. I think it was wise of you to remove your message from Chesdovi's page, by the way. Looie496 (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

PNG location map

Can you teach me how to create a PNG location map? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Whats the map? nableezy - 02:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Two maps, one of Syria and one zoomed in at southwestern Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean give me a link to the actual maps. nableezy - 18:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

[1] both can be created from this one. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The full Syria map already has a location map template, Template:Location map Syria. To make it you need to know the coordinates of each of the edges. If you just need a basic map it is pretty easy after that. If you want to do something more slick, like have a larger map on the left and the zoomed in portion on the right like the maps Ynhockey has made (eg Template:Location map Israel Golan) you need to do some added math to get the numbers to work correctly. Make the maps you want and I will see if I can help make them location maps. But you gave a link to an svg file. You should keep the maps you make from it as svg. There is a free svg editor called Inkscape. It isnt the easiest thing to learn to use but it is relatively simple. nableezy - 20:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

When I rightclick on this I cant copy it: [2], so I used the printscreen button, but then I have to manually cut out the image, I cant find that button in Incscape. I have managed to create one in Paint but its a PNG file instead of the original svg, is it alright? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Right click on the link and press save file or save target. The file should be saved as an svg file. Then use Inkscape to open the file. nableezy - 13:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In inkscape, how do I cut out a specific part of an image? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Im not sure, sorry. You can save the svg as a png and modify that if it is easier for you. nableezy - 15:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Im done: [3], can you make this the Golan location map? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ill try. Do you have any idea what the coordinates are for the north, south, east, west boundaries for the Golan side of the map? nableezy - 18:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know any of the measurements. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the two sides might not be of the same size. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

They dont need to be, I just need to find the coordinates for the right half. I can calculate how that translates to the coordinates we will use in the template. nableezy - 19:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Zero says on his talkpage: "West=35.4975 East=36.1015 South=32.6252 North=33.4520. Give or take an inch." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, Template:Location map Syria Golan now uses the map you made. nableezy - 14:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Just curious, why the P in Sulayman Pasha al-Azm (سليمان باشا العظم‎) ? I ask because I happened across something about someone living in سليمان باشا in Cairo =(google translate-speak "a vital region of the cultural aspect, and full of cinemas, theaters") and it caught my eye. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It was an Ottoman title, so it kept their pronunciation. The pronunciation that I have heard is somewhere in between basha and pasha. These titles were no longer used in Egypt after Nasser. We also stopped wearing those little red hats, though I do have a picture of my grandfather wearing one and from what I know about him he was not the happiest man when they went out of style. nableezy - 15:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Those hats would have been banned in Europe eventually anyway for being too red or something. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about this Im not so sure. I know I have heard it sound more like, but never exactly like, a p, but Ive also heard it with the normal b. Ive heard "Ibrahim Pasha" with the p-like pronunciation when I asked "who is that?" (if somebody was that close and wanted to take a picture why on earth would they not walk around and get a lil closer??? Id do something about it next time I go, but its a hassle bringing a camera with you when you go out to downtown Cairo, and I dont care enough about this place to actually do it), but Ive also heard it with the normal b when people are using it in jest, which is really the only time I hear it used. nableezy - 05:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Much better. Now I dont even need to pretend that there is no decent picture of that statue. nableezy - 05:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This says it was pasha in the 1640s in Turkish, bash earlier and was bashaw in English in the 1530s. I'm curious what happened between 1530 - 1640 to change the b to p. That first photo is marvelous. Might add it to the Road traffic safety article. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman Turkish language made no distinction between the bilabials /b/ and /p/(unvoiced) though the further you go back the voiced /b/ was apparently how it was heard by Western travellers. Thus at a raw guess pāshā/bāshā, (from the word for 'head'(bāsh, in Eastern Turkish dialects, pāsh ) cf. Arabic rais: رئيس Arabic/Hebrew rosh: ראש‎) came into Latin through the medieval Latin form of the word bassa. With the intensification of Ottoman-Western contacts, esp. after the excommunication of Elizabeth by Pope Pius V (1570), trade between England and Ottoman merchants underwent an extraordinary boom, and by 1620, England had outmanoeuvered both Venice and France as the leading trading power with the Ottoman empire. This involved quite an intensive investment by London trading houses at that time in encouraging their traders in the Levant to master the relevant languages. Heightened familiarity therefore, by about the 1640s, a few decades later, would have effected a sea-change, or rather a b to p change in the transcription of the title. Just guessing.Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds very blausible. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Napleasy would concur.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My father, an immigrant, came home one night and said one of his co-workers seemed upset with him. He said "I dont know why Baul is so upset ..." I asked if the co-worker was bald (he was) and then explained to him that the name was Paul and that his pronunciation sounded more like "bald" then "paul". nableezy - 14:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully his surname was Pollocks. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you care to participate in this discussion

Template:World_Heritage_Sites_in_Israel asad (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is doing great

Thanks for the good wishes. I've missed you too. Been lurking around now and then ... I stalk your contribs, reading the discussions - better than TV if you are looking for entertainment heavy on absurdity. :)

Don't have much time for virtual things these days. I'll try to pop in more often. Just reading over articles reveals much work to be done but its hard to do with all the squabbling. Eats up too many hours and I need those for other more beautiful things. Take care of you, Tiamut^talk 18:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a few things

• First I wanted to thank you on your help on the User:Megaidler situation. He has been unblocked.

• Second, I wanted to let you know that what happened to both you and Chesdovi sucked. Neither of you should have been sanctioned. Please also note that, in keeping with my word, I scrupulously avoided using your name during the controversy.

• Third, I do not wish to gain any advantage over you during your 1R restriction and I will attempt to voluntarily restrain myself to 1R in articles that you and I have disagreement, for the duration of your restriction.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment, but that isnt necessary. Im a big boy, if I get a sanction I can deal with it. I dont really mind having a 1RR. But if I could make one request from you; could you please tell me if this edit was acceptable to you and if so could you say so on the talk page. Like I said there, I dont want to add the views of a bunch of other states to the lead, but if users refuse to remove the US views Ill start doing so. nableezy - 18:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look over the weekend when I have a bit more time.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I had a look. Just for clarification, do you object to insertion of the US reaction just in the lead, or does your objection extend to US reaction anywhere in the body text.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A sentence in the body, along with other reactions, is fine with me. But the lead of the article? I honestly cant believe there was this much opposition to removing it. nableezy - 06:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I can live with its removal from the Lead so long as it’s somewhere in the body text. How many pro Goldstone approvals do you intend to add? The reason why I ask is that most of the non-aligned usually stack up against Israel whereas Canada, Australia and some European countries generally are supportive of the Israeli position. What I’m getting at is that we could potentially be looking at long lists, which would look silly. So can we just remove it from the lead and place it somewhere in the body text and leave it at that? PS I'm beginning to envy Chesdovi--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Id probably remove the Congressional resolution and keep Obama in the body, adding the EUP vote. nableezy - 03:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Re. your reverted edit in the Gaza War intro (dropping mention of Obama and congress). Judging from the above, Jiujitsuguy now seems to accept your position. My last contribution to the talk page discussion (2 days ago) was a fairly detailed defence of your edit, and has not been challenged or rebutted. Your position is also supported by Bjmullan, and Sean.hoyland. Is this enough "consensus" to warrant reinstating your edit? Prunesqualer (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont know, I suppose. That doesnt answer what happens when a twit of a user decides it isnt acceptable according to their own special consensus. nableezy - 14:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Prunesqualer. This was a dialogue that I was having with Nab and not you. I have no regard for you as an editor in this topic area in light of this edit that you made and blatant disregard for an WP:ARBPIA warning that you received less than 24hrs before your block. At this stage, there is consensus for nothing. Sadly, such is the current situation that prevails in the I-A area.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If the two of you have something to discuss you can use one of your talk pages. Here, as always, you are free to insult me but not each other. But Jiu, I thought you were all right with removing it from the lead? This latest comment seems to contradict that. nableezy - 20:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Just let me think about it for just a bit longer (wiki ain't going anywhere) and sorry for the exchange with Prunesqualer.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. nableezy - 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As you are aware, the Israel-Arab area is rife with endless bickering and recriminations by partisans from both sides. To the uninvolved outsider, both sides must look insane. Arguments over seemingly unimportant words and phrases carry on and on with no end in sight. It is quite frankly, exhausting. Back to the specific edit in question, obviously in principle, I would oppose the removal of US reaction from the Lead. However, to break the impasse, not just in this article but in the wider Israel-Arab topic area, I won’t object to the removal and I’ll even do it myself. My expectation is that this small step will demonstrate some good-will that will hopefully be reciprocated in other articles by partisans from the “other side.”--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A proper response to this will take more time and energy than I have to spend right now. Ill get back to it. nableezy - 19:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Please see this [4] but my offer above still stands. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Seen and responded to. I still have to respond to the above, Ill do that today. nableezy - 15:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Salutations Nableezy. Just letting you know that I left a comment here that mentions you... I didn't want it to get lost among your watch-listed items etc. Regards --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 07:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but if you dont mind Id like to discuss this here instead of there. Is there a reliable source that says a UNESCO World Heritage Site named "Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls" is in Israel? nableezy - 15:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about Cptnono answering your question

Look, I don't care if Cptnono answers your question or chooses to ignore them. The discussion isn't an us vs. them argument, it's an attempt to compromise, to come to an agreement on what we can include. And it's not written in stone. You wrote that "the problem here is people seem to think that the 'consensus building process' is more important than getting the content to be accurate and well sourced." If you're implying that that's my thought, then you're dead wrong. The current proposal is neither inaccurate, nor is it poorly sourced. Do you agree with that? I'm not saying that adding under "international law" isn't better, or more accurate, but the current proposal is not inaccurate. So your harping on Cptnono doesn't come across as someone arguing that the proposal's content isn't "accurate and well sourced", it comes across as someone arguing just for the sake of arguing, because they don't like the other editor, or because they're not getting their way. You argument doesn't come across as someone trying to improve the proposal, it comes across as someone trying to prove a point in an "I'm better than you" sort of way. That's not a way to win friends, but it's a good way to ensure than others will vote against you just because you're you (I'm sure you've experienced that before on here).

All I would ask is that you please consider being more constructive in your approach. You can achieve more being nice than being abrasive when working with others. I think you probably have some great ideas, and you could probably come up with a better proposal than the current one. So why not write up a counter-proposal? I would have no problem supporting a better proposal. ← George ^talk 20:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I care if he answers the questions, that is why I asked them. "Compromise" is something you do when there are multiple valid positions. You dont compromise with stupidity just for the sake of compromise. Im not here to win friends, Im here to get things done. I dont care if you are anybody else likes me. What some random person on the internet thinks about "nableezy" is really not something I plan on thinking about.

You asked if I agree with the statement that "the current proposal is neither inaccurate, nor is it poorly sourced". No, I dont agree with it. Its inaccuracy lies in its ambiguity. Nobody disputes that under Israeli law settlements are legal. The international community and countless scholars however say that Israeli law does not apply, what applies in the Palestinian and Syrian territories held under occupation is the GCIV which allows Israel to make changes to existing law in very limited circumstance (military necessity). This is why settlements were not a huge topic prior to the Begin government, even though more than a few were established before 78. The ones that were established were placed in positions of military importance and the view among the world was that these are temporary and militarily necessary establishments. When Likud came to power settlements began sprouting up all over and the view became that this was a simply colonial enterprise with no military necessity and as such could not be justified under the military necessity clauses of GCIV. By just saying "considered illegal by the international community" you have an ambiguous, and as such an inaccurate, sentence. It is under international law that the settlements are illegal. That is what the sentence should say.

Why not write up a counter-proposal? Probably because I think this is a waste of time, no matter what happens there will be users like brewcrewer who say that that project page cannot force their consensus on articles and will instead force us to have this same argument at each settlement page. Other reasons may lead to my being blocked if I were to share them. nableezy - 21:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!" ← George ^talk 21:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasnt really a fan of Team America, but thanks for sharing. Id rather you keep the conversation serious. nableezy - 22:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, on a more serious note:

• It's less disruptive if you ask him that question on his talk page the second, third, and fourth time. Asking him in the middle of the discussion is totally fair, repeating the question ad infinitum is disruptive.
• I don't consider either proposed version "stupid".
• You don't need friends, but enemies make it nearly impossible to get anything done.
• I don't think it's that ambiguous, though I can see your point. I thought it was pretty clear that the international community would weigh in on international law, because it doesn't ever weigh in on national law. I have no idea how editors can read that sentence as a comment on Israeli law, but that would explain why Shuki keeps bringing it up.
• So you think the discussion is a waste of time, yet choose to partake in it. I'm going to assume that you partake for reasons other than disruption. Brewcrewer is entitled to their opinion, but having consensus project support for the addition of a particular sentence is better than trying to add it without. I've gone ahead and made the proposal myself. ← George ^talk 22:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• What is disruptive is refusing to answer simple questions about a position that has been repeated without anything to back it up. Asking somebody to explain themselves, even repeatedly if the person is not, cannot be "disruptive".
• I do consider one of those versions stupid. It is almost meaningless.
• ok?
• Of course its a waste of time, everything here is a waste of time. Any conversation where uninformed people are able to force their ignorance to take precedence over actual sources is a waste of time. I bet you that a certain Sherlockian user still hasnt read more than 2 of the citations I provided on that page.

nableezy - 23:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

ARBPIA notifications

These notifications need to be done by an uninvolved administrator, not just any user.

Can you provide diffs to justify it for that user, and if it's warranted I or another admin can re-notify appropriately with all the correct paperwork as it were?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not true and nothing in WP:ARBPIA supports that the notifications are to be given by uninvolved admins. The decision only says that a user must be notified prior to being sanctioned. In fact, Jaakobou (talk · contribs) has made more than a few notifications. But here is an edit in which the user inserts material which blatantly misrepresents the sources cited and has edit warred to include it. nableezy - 21:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read the template for the warning: Template:Palestine-Israel enforcement

Last line reads:

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

I will review the edit given and the edit history. Thanks for providing that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Sandstein, the notice need not be given by an administrator, or even an uninvolved editor. See User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/October#HupHollandHup. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The template was not created by the decision and is not binding; the decision says that a user must be notified, not that they must be notified by an uninvolved admin. I am of the opinion that it should be an uninvolved admin, but this user annoyed me enough that Id rather get the notice out of the way without asking somebody else to do it. nableezy - 23:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

1RR

Good morning. You made somewhat of a decent rewrite at Israeli settler violence but would you like to revert your recent edit or should we go to 1RR? --Shuki (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I only made one revert. The first one was an edit. You are of course free to revert or report if you feel I have made more than one, but that would be odd considering you said it was at least "somewhat of a decent rewrite". nableezy - 16:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thinking of Christmas

This might just be the thing.:)Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Naw, aint that bad. Half the shit going on isnt really serious to me. We'll just call it an "experiment". Sort of "I wonder what will happen when I do the same thing they do?" nableezy - 19:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and get your pagan holiday celebrating ass outta here. nableezy - 19:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me out?

I am kind of new to this, and lost as where to go from now? The proponents of keeping it or changing it to "of Israel" are clearly not accepting that the they bear the burden of proof from UNESCO. So what happens next? -Template:World_Heritage_Sites_in_Israel- --asad (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What happens next? I dont know, maybe you learning that there isnt a point to making a reasoned argument on this website? That the emotions of nationalists trump the sources nearly every time? nableezy - 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So all contributions to the discourse are entirely futile? I was just browsing Wikipedia one day, and say Jerusalem there and was like "That's not right". I am not an idealistic person, I have lived in Palestine long enough to erase that illusion. But the point now, is that the lack of evidence to support Jerusalem on the list is entirely overwhelming. I would think, with such a structure as Wikipedia, maybe things like moderation can be used?? Is it worthless? I am already being accused of being a sleeper account on my page. I'll take that as a compliment. --asad (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont want to discourage you but I also dont want to lie to you. You may be able to get some things accomplished, but for the most part yes, all contributions to the discourse are entirely futile. Once upon a time I was able to get the Jerusalem article, when saying that it is largest city in Israel, to include the phrase "if including occupied East Jerusalem". The word "occupied" has been removed by some IPs and now named accounts will summarily revert its reinsertion. Once upon a time the Gaza War article included an alternate name (Gaza Massacre) that was sourced to 3 reliable sources that explicitly said "known in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre". That phrase has since been eliminated, thanks in large part to several sockpuppets of a banned user and another person that I would like to accurately describe but I am quite sure he would run to admins asking that I be banned if I were to do so. It is almost impossible to get simple things done, like describing Israeli settlements as "Israeli settlements" and not "Israeli villages". The obstinance of a dedicated few, and the ignorance of quite a few more, will make it impossible for such things to be done. We cant even get an article on an Israeli settlement to include in the lead that the settlement is illegal under international law despite several sources saying that that specific settlement is illegal under international law. Simple things like this cant be done when people can disregard the sources and demand their views, without sources, be included as The Truth™. So as much as I would like to tell you that this is a worthwhile endeavor I cannot in good faith ask that you waste any more of your time here. Hell, Im trying to figure a way to quit wasting my own time here. Problem is this place has the addictive quality of crack. nableezy - 00:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is a certain satisfaction to not getting a response when you ask for a source. And you know it is fun to ruffle the feathers of the people with clear agendas. But right now, I would like to give you a big Thank you. I have trolled your posts for a bit of time now, and I must say, there are numerous times where your responses to the stupidity that been has thrown at you has literally made me laugh out loud. I am starting to get the taste of how incredibly fun it is to prove people wrong with facts, and your posts have allowed me to spend dozens of minutes reading your responses to the subject matter. If it worth anything, despite the obvious pessimism you have, you have made a fan out of me. -asad (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The satisfaction of knowing that a response hasnt been given, and wont be given, is only that, satisfaction. The template isnt going to change as a result of it, "consensus", which for too many admins means how many me toos show up for one side, demands that the template not reflect sources. But I cant lie, it can be fun. I laughed when writing many of those responses. Thanks, and cheers. nableezy - 02:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)