User talk:Nableezy/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Ariel (city)

Never was I gladder to see someone else taking their turn in arguing with our new friend. When (s)he started claiming that I was missing the point when I had just demolished exactly the point someone on his side had made I was beginning to get irritated. Just make sure you bail out before you get too irritated.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ps you don't seem very retired to me.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Couldnt help myself, but I do plan on being done for a while. But that thread was too much. Also, I think you might enjoy reading this reasoning by another user. Perhaps you should read it back to him. nableezy - 00:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing like being consistent. Presumably that argument will resurface when he gives up claiming not to be able to get the gist of what I said. After all now that I've demonstrated that the figures are actually against him, WP:GHITS must be true.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, are people still fighting over this one? Anyway, I seem to recall that some crazy guy suggested a while back, as part of a previous ArbCom case, that some kind of central and formal solution/agreement was needed on all these related points. However, of course this suggestion was roundly ignored by the powers-that-be, who instead simply decided to topic ban all the involved editors, including those that had proposed and supported this idea, and then congratulate themselves on a job well done. Sniping aside, might it be worth trying to revive this proposal, perhaps as an extension to the West Bank/J&S guidelines? I'm probably excluded from doing anything on it, and Nableezy you may well not want to. But anyone else? --Nickhh (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've now mentioned it on the discussion page.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you check this out?

Hi Nableezy,

I don't you how you've managed to be so successful in determining whose a sock of whom, but given that you have, I'd like to ask you to look into the case of a new user: User:Los Admiralos. I have reason to believe he's part of the sock network we are all familiar with, or perhaps a related one. (Check out too who edited just before at Nazareth and Viva Palestina as well). Anyway, I'm having all kinds of deja vu. Your help would be appreciated. Tiamut^talk 17:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had a feeling it was him. There's still more of him around, but I can't quite pin down who (some of those I suspect might actually be meatpuppets instead of socks). I won't recommend any more investigations until the feelings gets stronger and more clearly defined. I really appreciate your help. Hope you are doing well. Tiamut^talk 21:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You didnt have to say anything to begin with, I was just waiting for some more evidence before opening a request, had a feeling after the first couple of edits. And you dont have to thank me now, أنا تحت أمرك . nableezy - 21:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I should have known you were on top of it, being the great detective in these matters that you have proven to be. Keef ma kan, shukran ikteer sadiqi. Deer balak a hallak. And happy editing. Tiamut^talk 22:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Israel (and the status of Jerusalem as capital) has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission. -- tariqabjotu 05:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

SoP

Judging by the message you left me, you don't seem to be retired at all. Why won't you correct the absurds in the article you mentioned instead of warning me? Sending warnings is the easiest thing to do. Working to correct wrong-doings in the editing process is much harder but much more needed. DrorK (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually saying "no no no no" to the sources is the easiest thing to do. Why don't you find sources that back up your various rantings instead of wasting my time? nableezy - 21:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Nableezy, I love your last comment. It could be addressed to you as well, you know :)--Mbz1 (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1

Thank you for your note. You are right. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And now I could thank you here :)

Hi, Nableezy. What you've done here was very kind and generous of you. I am glad I was blocked because it helped me to get to know you better! Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa and the Haram al-Sharif

Dear Nableezy, thank you for your thought, on this but this is a common misconciption and according to all early Muslim writings and accounts, from geographers to Historian, Al-Aqsa refers to all the area, the Ottoman later called al-Haram al-Sharif. You can check this by looking at the writings of geographers, and historians, who named what you call Al-Aqsa Mosque (with the silvery lead Dome) al-Jami' al-Aqsa or al-Qibli or Masjid al-Jumah or al-Mughata, amongst many other names. So the correct name for the whole area is al-Aqsa Mosque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijerusalem (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Hey Sherlock

Check out the article histories of Pisgat Ze'ev, Gilo, Ramot, and Neve Yaakov. Do you notice anything strange? Or is it just me? Tiamut^talk 13:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure that user is not part of the crew. From what I remember it was fairly obvious what IP that user had been editing under prior to registering the account and it was not in the same location as NoCal. nableezy - 13:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You da boss. So far, you're batting without a miss, whereas I screwed up pretty royally just recently. So I defer to your infinite wisdom.

By the way, I hope you don't mind the changes I made at Al-Azhar Mosque. I tried to make the section on Muhammad Ali a little clearer since it read kind of funny to me. Let me know if I screwed up.

Il iliqa sadiqi. Tiamut^talk 14:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ariel

(started at User talk:Reenem)
is in the West Bank, not in Israel. Please do not continue moving that page. nableezy - 04:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

But the West Bank is part of Israel (labelled Judea and Samaria), so it is technically part of Israel (Unless the Two-State Solution comes into effect.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reenem (talk • contribs) 04:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The West Bank is Palestinian territory held under military occupation by Israel. It is not "in Israel". "Judea and Samaria", more properly the "Judea and Samaria Area" is the Israeli administrative name for the territory goverened by the military, it does not include East Jerusalem which likewise is part of the occupied Palestinian territories. I do not plan on arguing the point, there is not an actual dispute about these facts in the sources, but please do not continue making that move. nableezy - 04:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Various things

Hey Nab. Just noticed that new box at the top of your page. Knowing you as I do, I am aware of the subtext of that message, that the Israelis, being victims of aggression, have the right to use violence to resist it. And while I respect your right to hold that view, I'm not sure it really helps things to trumpet it. Your call.

On a slightly different note, as you seem very fond of ferreting out socks, I'd like to respectfully request that when you see an IP who is editing in an obviously sock-like manner, you not defend it. Even in the absence of a CU, sometimes it's obvious, no? Wouldn't that be consistent? I mean to put this on your page a while ago, but I didn't want to add to your agita. Thanks... IronDuke 15:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I do respect the right of Israel to violently resist military aggression and occupation (I regard that as a universal right not limited to resistance to aggression or occupation by Israel, and aggression is a war crime so I do not think any reasonable person can say that the view that violence can be used to resist against a war crime is at all objectionable). But me putting this up really was a response to Cptnono raising it at an AE thread about another user, though it had been on my user page when it existed. As far as socks go, sure thing. But reverts under WP:BAN are not just about sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry in itself is not cause to revert edits, sockpuppetry by a banned user is. So if this is about the reversions of the reverts by PR Forgotten (and even though that is a reference to a user it is still quite the offensive username), I have to disappoint you by saying that I think my actions were proper. If a user wishes to revert me because of the content of the edit I have no problem with that (well in a few cases I might). But reverting because the edits were made by an IP when the user was not banned at the time is not something that is acceptable. Fair or not? nableezy - 16:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if I'm understanding what you're saying (and I may not be), I'd have to say no, not fair. If an IP is making edits to avoid scrutiny, that's wrong. So, for example, if you see an IP's first edit is reverting me with the editing summary reverting IronDuke's usual nonsense I would not expect you to support that edit, even if you agreed with the reversion. Why? Because it's clearly someone who's been around, doesn't like me, but lacks the courage to confront me with their main account. As for Israel, I was of course tweaking you a bit. My own person opinion in re those type of userboxes is that they should all go, up to and including ones that say things like: "This user is giving peace a chance and wishes everyone else would, too." There is no chance at all, IMO, that such userboxes will help; they only serve as a distraction. IronDuke 18:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont think that is really fair. I can agree that the user should use their account to make the edit and I can agree that such evasion of scrutiny is not a good thing, but to ask me to oppose the content of an edit solely because of who made it is unreasonable. Any of the reversions of edits by a banned user that I make may be reverted by a user in good standing if they agree with the content of the edit. But, to take your example a step further, suppose that a "new" editor starts reverting all those edits by the IP that rightly called you out for your usual nonsense. This user is a fairly obvious sockpuppet who is either prohibited from such edits or simply lacks the courage to make those edits under his or her main account. Should you support those reversions? What if you agree with the content of the reversions but not the way that they were made? You can see that Yn reverted many of the reverts I made of PR Forgotten's reverts. I may take some issue with those reverts, but I dont expect him to not do so simply because an obvious sock first made them. Consider the box a virtual finger^{I make no comment as to which finger} directed at an unnamed editor^again that will come down soon enough. nableezy - 19:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Lemme phrase it in a way that makes my position clearer. Regardless of the merit of IP's edits opposing my usual nonsense, when I call out the IP on a talk page for his/her reversions, writing something like, "Hey IP, I see that you are an obvious sockpuppet. Sign in and edit with your main account, or stop editing," I would expect an amen from you. Would I get one? IronDuke 20:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. nableezy - 20:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. IronDuke 00:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, since this is about "various things", I would like to ask you a question. It is often said that denying Israel's "right to exist" is a form of antisemitism. I am aware of the legal foundation of the "right to exist", but what if somebody feels that no country has the "right" to exist. Would that still be considered, by you at least, an antisemitic view? nableezy - 16:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not antisemitic. Where that comes into play, on this issue as on so many others, is when Israel is held as being apart from other countries, either as being in some way illegitimate and therefore lacking rights which must be respected, or being held to a different, higher standard than other countries are held to. It's all about consistency. IronDuke 18:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, you should change your sig to noID, or even better noIDea. That would just be great. nableezy - 00:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Amusing as the above notion is, this seems as good a time as any to let you know arbcom have, via email, designated me as your official mentor/guardian. While I can tell you that you are banned from certain articles, I cannot divulge to you from which ones you are banned--you will simply have to discover that on your own via trial and error, though I am (temporarily) empowered to hand out blocks and bans to you should you transgress these unspoken boundaries. Just to show you I mean business and that I do in fact have this power, you are hereby banned from making any edits to or about Pants on the Ground. Thank you for your cooperation. IronDuke 00:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I typed out a joke in response that was absolutely hilarious, but I am sad to say that I am not sure if you or somebody else would take it the wrong way. So you just have to take my word that it was a great joke. nableezy - 01:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you can't tease like that; I could theoretically have been blocked for posting the above, if an admin with absolutely no sense of irony or discretion had stumbled across it. I took that risk solely for your amusement. So... email it to me? IronDuke 01:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The spontaneity has passed, and with it any chance of laughter. Best I can do is recommend a listening of a tribute. nableezy - 01:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... well, that's rather convenient, isn't it? You have a quote unquote hilarious rejoinder to my post, and yet, when challened to produce it, can offer nothing? Very well. You may add Chocolate Rain to your list of banned articles. IronDuke 01:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Dont you have some work to do? There ya go nableezy - 01:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC) And please tell me that went over all right.

Went over just fine, actually, except that you keep being just ever so incrementally funnier than I am, which I resent. That last post was hysterical, actually. I am going on a tour of the Midwest to workshop a devastating reply. I'll have it for you by fall. IronDuke 03:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for reverting the userpage vandalism! Now my page has been vandalized 10 times, amazing. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. nableezy - 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm funny

But for the record, I make snide comments for their own sake. I don't really care about the articles themselves. I honestly think that's your problem. You worry too much about things being imperfect: Wikipedia is bad, politics are bad, war is bad, dead children are bad, blah, blah, blah. That's just the way things are. We're all wretched creatures living in this miserable world that we've carved out on this God-forasken planet. You should just be happy for what you do have and not worry so much about how you want things to be. I'd like the articles to look nice but I can sleep at night knowing that many of them are complete garbage. I have trouble understanding guys like you who rack up thousands and thousands of edits and then "retire" because things aren't what you had hoped for. I knew enough not to have such hopes when I registered. It was kind of naive of you to set yourself up for that kind of disappointment. You really need to work on your cynicism. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Damn, JGG went off. However, there are some inaccuracies in your criticism of my cynicism. I didnt "retire" because things didnt go my way, I "retired", or at least plan on doing so, because I dont like the way things are done here, at least in the articles that for whatever reason I am invariably drawn to. Other areas here do not have that problem, for instance the Steiner article that we watched Nishidani write could be written in a pleasant collegial way, relying on the best sources, and without pointless arguments about "consensus" and "civility" and all that other nonsense. The Al-Azhar article that I was able to manipulate several editors into assisting me with was another. I cant really say what I dislike most about this place, but up on the list is how there is no accountability for the actual content of edits. There are these silly rules that are easily enforceable about how I cant say "fuck you JGG" but not how I cannot write complete bullshit in an encyclopedia article. But removing complete bullshit 4 times in 24 hours is grounds for a block. Unfortunately for my plans, I just found the complete text of a book that will be very useful for one of those articles I mentioned above, and for some stupefying reason I want to make that a useful article. But, to soothe your obviously hurt and overly sensitive ego, yes you are funny JGG. But you are right, it is a problem that I care about what these article say. Soon Ill figure out how not to. I just have to let my dislike of stupid people to override my desire that they not be so stupid. Then I wont give a shit what they read on wikipedia. nableezy - 02:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No I've always had a love-hate relationship with humanity. Some humans more than others. I just never brought it up before. Actually I do remember mentioning VHEMT when we were talking with Nishidani about the police who attacked his neighbour. But I do remember telling you right from the start that you should edit for your enjoyment because nothing else is really accomplished here on an individual level. Although I tried to speak plainly to you at first because I saw you have the Wikipedians in Egypt cat and I thought maybe English wasn't your first language. But I mean Wikipedia has its problems but I think it has less of them when I'm around. And even less of them when you are around too.

What I like most about Wikipedia is the way it forces me to reasses what I believe and to examine my thought process critically. So editing at Gaza War is useful for me. It is interesting when every issue comes up and I'll have a gut reaction, just like anyone else but I then ask myself is that fair? What is? What's missing or what would complete the thought and so on.

But speaking of Nish, that reminds me, you shouldn't look down on stupid people. Cause I'm pretty sure that Nish thinks we're a couple of half-wits. He was too polite to say it openly but didn't you get the sense that he was thinking it? --JGGardiner (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We are half-wits compared to him. Would be odd if we knew that and he didnt. nableezy - 04:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're funny. There should be more laughs to offset the offensive partisan bullshit although edits like this help a lot. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so. The Wilders thing is funny but I think it mostly works because Geert is just a funny name. --JGGardiner (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Talking of bad articles, anyone interested in rescuing Destruction of sites associated with early Islam ? It has the potential to be quite an interesting article I think but it seems to be more of a Wahhabi-bashing-fest at the moment. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Im down. Oh you meant to not make it a Wahhabi-bashing-fest. Never mind. nableezy - 03:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That picture of Medina kind of reminds me of the Las Vegas Strip. I guess that's what happens when cities arise out of the desert quickly. But maybe also cause Alandalus Palace sounds like it could be the new tower at the Sahara casino (or maybe the Luxor). --JGGardiner (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've stayed at the Luxor and it's not like Medina at all. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, JGGardiner! What does 'God-forasken planet' mean? Is God there for the 'asking', or do you have Danish blood, and allude to the fact that ask in that language refers to Fraxinus excelsior, the common ash? If so, God is for ash trees, and you are a secret tree-hugger. My mind drifts back to review J.G. Frazer’s chapter, ‘Relics of Tree worship in Modern Europe’, in his monumental multivolume treatise, The Golden Bough, a logically thought out version of Finnegans Wake. Mind you, it may be technically what pedants call a lapsus calami, in which case perhaps you meant to refer to the idea that God was for Aspen, sending a covert message over the internet to the evangelical movement to vote against Mick Ireland, the major of the town, in the forthcoming elections, since he's a rather secular catholic ('Mick')? But that doesn't fit my profile of you.

Speaking of profiles, could you guys stop profiling me as intelligent, and therefore a condescending deadshit who feigns empathy to ring in putative dullards and get them to labour for him, or brighten up his hours of solipsistic hypercerebral wanking? The world's screwed up despite, or because of, the fact that it is run, as Robert McNamara would have had it, by 'the best and the brightest', whose high IQ is as undoubtable as the fact that they are notoriously moronic when it comes to seeing the obvious. Oedipus was probably a genius in illo tempore, but couldn't, for all of his brilliance, make the connection between the scars on his feet ('Oidipous' meaning, as Shelley wrote, 'Swell-foot') and the rumour circulating that the king he replaced had abandoned his own son, with foot-clamps, in the wilderness decades before. Being 'highly intelligent', and extremely dumb, obtuse, fuckwitted are quite compatible. A significant number of poor editors here are more intelligent than any of us, but it counts for nothing since their animal spirits are indelibly infected by acerbic malice, bloody-minded schadenfreude, and boorish small-town politicking and wikilawyering. Those defects are the psychological revenge the sense of truth and humanity takes out on the aleatory gifts of mother-nature, arbitrarily dispensed and rarely cultivated to beneficial effect. To stop them is what you guys are here for. For the record, my mother was advised by my elementary school teacher to have me repeat grade one, and I figured at the lower end of the class in high school on IQ tests. I once, for decades, worked hard to compensate for a lack of natural abilities. I got to know many high-octane people, most of them quite dull. A friend tells me that the superb editor of Euripides' Phoenissae, whose edition I'm reading, is outstandingly dull (WP:BLP violation). So stick ya lefthanded compliments up your respective 'acres', as they used to say in the antipodean never never. I hope your balls, respectively, drop off, turn into bicycle wheels and bounce back, and backpeddle up your arses, in the immortal words of Barry Humphries's Bazza McKenzie. I miss editing with you both, that goes for Sean.Hoyland as well. So stick round, cooperate in the inimitable style we've seen you do since the Gaza War battle for rational redaction. I can't come back because the edict requires some brownnosing on my part to be tolerated in the area where I would have liked to edit. But at least give me the satisfaction of being consoled by the prospect of reading you both working equably and amicably where I can't? Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I finally twigged, while eating (more properly 'drinking')lunch, what JGG meant, by his hapax legomenon, 'God-forasken planet'. It's a slip of the digit for 'God: 'foreskin, plane it',' (after all it's a metaphor befitting the son of a carpenter) and something like what Iris Murdoch must have alluded to in her novel, 'The Message to the Planet'. That solved, I can get back to the sudoku and Cormac McCarthy's Border Trilogy, which I strongly recommend. Nishidani (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That reminds me of what the Canadian poet Irving Layton said: “The most serious theological question of our time is whether Jesus ever had an erection. And why should that not be discussed, if he was the perfect man, he must have had the perfect erection, right?” --JGGardiner (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No mas. Not all of us are infidels. nableezy - 02:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh was I jeopardizing your salvation? Sorry about that. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, . . ahem, . . Nabster . . at least . . in the Christian theological tradition, . .quite a bit has been written about the 'point' JGG 'raised'. . By St.Augustine himself, and onwards . .but, in deference to you, and to Avi,. . if he is looking on (I once dropped him a note hinting about this), I suppose I'd just better not elucubrate, . . .I suppose there's no harm in just remarking that in Catholic theology the capacity for erections began with man's expulsion from Eden. That's a paradox. . .since that event is otherwise known as the Fall. Nishidani (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That isnt the problem, the problem in the above is the "perfectness" of the man and what follows from that. nableezy - 14:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if there was any offense, let me offer a peace-gesture, best read while listening to Rimsky-Korsakov's accompaniment, opus 42 something. The translation is actually quite close to the Russian original, (which however is inimitably more beautiful, composed after Pushkin read the Qur'an), and was done, though it's not acknowledged on the linked page, by Maurice Baring (I first sighted it reading George Steiner (ed.) The Penguin Book of Modern Verrse Translation,, when it came out in 1966,pp.80-81).Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No offense at all, half a joke when I wrote that. nableezy - 15:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well enjoy the poem (there is one defect, the iambic rhythm is broken at line 14). For discretion's sake, I removed the discussion to my page, or rather JGG did. But if your point is perfection, a lack of hydraulic efficiency in masculine tackle is a sign of imperfection medically and theologically. Ergo. Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Nableezy,
WP:NPOV is a core policy and I'm feeling that you're not allowing other perspectives to be properly represented.[1] I wish that you make a better effort in this department.
Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

please, go read NPOV before you try to explain it to people who actually understand it. Stay off this page with this type of petty bullshit. nableezy - 11:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

lol. too funny. or sad. guess it depends on how much one can be like JGGardiner. Tiamut^talk 09:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

if you hadnt replied I could just remove the section, but I have this rule about erasing your words. nableezy - 11:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

nableezy, my chicken scratchings often fail to live up to the standard required for preservation for posterity's sake. not quite the wordsmith nishidani is, and sometimes, my fingers start clattering on the keyboard before my brain is warmed up. anyway, i was going to erase the message myself, knowing that this what you'd have preferred, so do what you will sadiqi. Tiamut^talk 12:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy,
I request that you delete your personal attack (per "worst outright dishonesty"[2]). I noted that der-spiegel/la monde descriptives fit well as an opener for the 'often raises criticism' issue since it clarifies notability and is a form of criticque. There's no surprise that we see things differntly but it doesn't mean that neither of us should ascribe the other mischievous intentions (see also WP:NPA).
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No. And you missed an important word in your quote. nableezy - 18:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

and one more thing. Choose where you want to post this nonsense, dont do it here and at the article talk. nableezy - 18:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem.

"Which source supports "interpreters with an agenda"? And I would describe "most radical" as "most radical". Der Spiegel in no way criticizes Levy and to pretend that he does is at best an oversight and at worst outright dishonesty. Seeing as you have done this multiple times, even after agreeing to separate it from the criticism, makes me believe that is is not an oversight."

...must stop messing about... Sean.hoyland - talk 03:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That was lovely. nableezy - 05:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork's imagination

Do not threaten me on my talk page! If you want to complain about me, feel free. I should remind you that you are also subject to the 3R rule, and you already admitted POV forking on the article's talk page. I am going to let you correct your wrong-doing yourself, but I you don't, I will do it. DrorK (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

An award!

The Royal Egyptian Barnstar of National Merit awarded to Nableezy for his his excellent work on Al Azhar mosque. Well done!! عمل ممتاز

Great work mate on the Al Azhar Mosque article. In fact it looks like a good prototype for other mosque articles to adhere to! ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 22:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that is very kind of you. ممتاز even :) nableezy - 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Note

Regarding this and this. Please don't attempt to enforce the rules in the WP:ARBPIA area, leave that to others. Jaakobou shouldn't leave warnings either, because the same applies to him. If you see a problem, point it out to someone uninvolved. Being an administrator or not isn't the main issue: being uninvolved is. henrik•talk 12:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

All right. nableezy - 14:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Henrik has a point in that involved editors should try and avoid giving each other warnings. Certainly, it is improper to try and threaten your fellow editors as we are trying to increase civility and a collegaite atmosphere. Still, a log I made a year ago, which no one contested at the time, is a note that should remain today as well. I can see where there would be concern that my more recent notice should have gone through an admin, but that issue should be discussed and it is not really relevant to the log of notification on discussion here. More on point Nableezy, I ask that you do not remove my comments from public forums.[3]

Warm regards to you both, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC) add diff 20:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant as you are not entitled to give those notices. That log is for notices given by an admin which is used to determine whether or not other enforcement actions may be taken against a user. You are not entitled to edit that section. nableezy - 20:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy,

I'm thinking you misunderstood the purpose of the principals. I explained the idea behind them just now and, even assuming that you are correct and I should not be handing out any notices about the existance of the new rules, it still doesn't justify removing of my comments from public forums. As has been noted by Henrik, that is a descision to be made by an ARBCOM administrator/clerk. No objection was made towards the notice I've placed a year ago and it was accepted as a legitimate notice. Please respect that and don't go around looking for comments to delete. If you believe a comment of mine was misplaced, you are invited to discuss your concerns with me.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your thinking is incorrect and I do not consider you qualified to explain much of anything to me. It was not a legitimate notice, that must be given by an administrator. The standard notice itself says This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. Stop playing this game, you are wrong. If you edit that page again, instead of reverting you myself, I will just ask an uninvolved admin to do so. And, unlike you, when I ask an admin for something I will do it in the open, not on IRC. nableezy - 20:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of the OR thing just a couple days ago. On that one, I opened a forum request for external perspective and an uninvolved editor agreed with my understanding of policy. The same occurred when I argued against long established editors SlimVirign and ChrisO's understanding of the reliability policy. I've been here a while so while you think I am unqualified, you might want to consider the off chance that I'm right.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Remind yourself of whatever you want, you were wrong there and you are wrong here. I dont particularly enjoy conversing with you, so if there is nothing of substance for you to write hrer, kindly leave me be. nableezy - 14:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

About State of Palestine

I just asked for the 3RR decision at that page to be reviewed since Drork made his 4th revert in 24 hours. He doesn't seem to have gotten the message and I'm hoping an admonishment or short block will help to make it clear, since nothing else seems to have worked so far. Tiamut^talk 14:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the process of filing a new report, though AE may be a better forum. nableezy - 14:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

See this discussion in which you are mentioned: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Articles related to Palestinian statehood DrorK (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't write threats on my talk page. I answered you questions on your talk page. I am going to report your edit-warring because you leave me no choice by your threats. DrorK (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

good luck, I made 2 reverts, so far you have made 3. Lets see if you can resist the urge to remove anything that does not show Israel in the brightest of lights, regardless of the sources. nableezy - 15:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to comment here

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Nableezy DrorK (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

your life, but at least you didnt revert another 6 times. Seems like you are learning. nableezy - 16:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Gideon Levy

You might want to read my rewrite of the Receptions section. It has been reverted in its entirety by our friend Jaakobu, so you have to go to the history page to get to it. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: User:Nableezy/Al-Marsad

I can't ascertain how the organization meets WP:ORG. Perhaps you should try requesting input from Wikipedia:Peer review. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Good enough not to be speedied though, thats enough for now. nableezy - 15:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Al-Marsad

I have translated your article, Al-Marsad, into Spanish and posted it on Spanish Wikipedia. For the most part its an exact translation, save for a few words that are different in Spanish. Also Spanish Wiki does not have all the categories and templates that En Wiki does, but thats pretty much due to it being a smaller project. Regards --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 17:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool, a Spanish article built off of one English, one French, and one Dutch source. nableezy - 18:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...we'll see if the "powers that be" on es wiki have an issue with that. Hopefully not, though. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 18:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)