User talk:Nableezy/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 → Archive 30

Editing advice

Nableezy, obviously you are aware of the WP:ARBPIA decision, which included amongst other things, the following advice:


In regard to the question of whether each settlement article should explain the legal status, and other questions, such as whether the term 'settler' should be used, there doesn't seem to be a consensus. I'd suggest that you try to build a consensus, perhaps by holding a centralized discussion. However, I would certainly advise against edit warring over this. PhilKnight (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Phil. I havent edit-warred over whether or not to call these places "settlements" or whether or not to call the residents "settlers". An IP, not me, has. I havent gotten involved in that issue except on one talk page where two editors are making claims of defamation and "dehumanization" by calling settlers "settlers". I objected to that, but havent made any edits about the issue. I dont think I was edit-warring on the Psagot page, though if you say what I was doing was edit-warring I may change my approach further. An editor removed a line as being unsourced, I restored it with a source and reworded it a bit. I dont personally think that counts as a "revert" as I am not simply undoing the others action, I am addressing the issue he raised. Another editor removed it again, I reverted. That editor removed it again. The only other editor engaged on the talk page said the material could be returned if kept under 8 words. I kept it to 6. Could you tell me which edit I made that would cause this sequence to be called "edit-warring"? nableezy - 07:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
My intention was to advise you to centralize the discussion regarding the legality of the settlements, and not to stick a particular label on you. I guess I could have chosen my words more carefully. Incidentally, there's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues#Legality and edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy, I added this today to the opening paragraph about Psagot: "Although the Israeli government disagrees,[3] most legal authority considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including Psagot, illegal.[4]" Not that I'm asking you to get involved in the matter, but do you think the preceding is an acceptable compromise sentence? Would you change the wording?Haberstr (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes I would change the wording. I would mimic the BBC's standard line, "X, like all settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, is illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this." Your sentence implies there is a real dispute about this issue, there isnt. It is not "most legal authorities" that say it is illegal, it is a near unanimous view among those authorities. The International Court of Justice, in a unanimous opinion, said that all Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, violate international law, specifically the 4th Geneva Convention. The ICRC likewise has said that Israeli settlements violate international law. As far as I know, the United States has never rescinded or modified its position that all Israeli settlements violate international law. That is likewise the position of the EU and countless other multinational organizations. It is also the view of numerous human rights organizations, from B'tselem to AI and HRW. Sources are unambiguous about this point, and the text you quoted here does not reflect that unambiguity. It presents this issue as dispute where the two views are essentially equal. nableezy - 21:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. You've persuaded me.Haberstr (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that you're going to continue to be repeatedly dragged to the various noticeboards. A problem with that is that, no matter how 'correct' your positions are, over time it builds a stronger and stronger impression that you're a source of disruption. When administrators see disruption, they start handing out topic bans. When they do that, they judge behaviour not content. Those who get hit are the ones who appear to be at the metacentre of the disruption, no matter which side they are on. Since it's behaviour that will be judged, to avoid being banned you have to ensure that you're much cleaner than your opposition. Pardon me if I'm lecturing or stating the obvious; it's just that I want to try to ensure you don't get kicked out of the IP part of Wikipedia.     ←   ZScarpia   12:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Golan Heights

You're missing something on this [1] --WGFinley (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? That content reversion has not been discussed? I need to open a new section every time a disgruntled IP or "new" user makes the same change? nableezy - 15:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
And why dont you do something about the banned user repeatedly making the same edits as a an IP? That might help things on that page. nableezy - 15:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't control someone evading blocks, just take care of him when it's clear it's him. I asked a range block be looked into and it's not possible. And yes, you need to explain your reverts on the talk page like everyone else. --WGFinley (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand I have to "explain my reverts", my point is that revert has already been explained, numerous times in fact. What I am asking is do I have to explain it each time? If so I'll do that. nableezy - 02:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Because that article is under 1RR restriction and all reverts have to be explained. As a matter of fact if you had put it on the talk page instead of just reverting I probably would have seen that earlier than the revert war that took place.--WGFinley (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Again

Stop making accusations about other editor's intent on article talk pages. You know that it is not acceptable behavior. I already explained how I came to this article anyways and don't need to reiterate.Cptnono (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason you are unable or unwilling to stay off this page? I say I am getting fed up with seeing your username in articles that you have never shown an interest in and appear to have no knowledge about and your response is to make me see your username here? Stay away, should not be that difficult for you to get that through your head. Finally, do not misrepresent what I wrote. Nowhere in that post did I make an "accusation about other editor's intent". Either way, go away. nableezy - 21:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This is not productive at all. Any editor has the right to click on user contributions of any other editor. That you are getting fed up about this is just another sign that you cannot handle opposing views and collaboration. Pity... --Shuki (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's just say this is just one of the many times you have no idea what it is you are talking about. nableezy - 00:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
:-( --Shuki (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I will certainly make a mention on your talk page if you are out of line. I am not allowed to do it on the article. You cannot just say whatever you ant and expect that a response can't be given. And you are sick of seeing my name? I am sick of seeing you be disruptive. Stop making making inappropriate comments and I won't be on your talk page. You think that I am following you around but you fail to realize that we have many of the same articles and user talk pages watched which means we are bound to run into eachother. The best thing for you to do is not break talk page guidelines and you won't have to deal with it. It isn;t that complicated.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Have I not made it clear that I do not care what you think? That no matter what you say I will not pay any attention to whatever you think about me, my behavior, my editing, or really anything at all? If you want to continue wasting your time making this silly little comments fine, they will just be reverted sight unseen from here on out. nableezy - 00:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Book

Have you access to this book? [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not any online access. nableezy - 14:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you know someone who has access to books at informaworld? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Zero0000 would be the only person I could think of, though I am not sure if he has access to this or not. nableezy - 15:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
SD, you should have an email from me regarding the book.     ←   ZScarpia   20:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing restriction

Due to the ongoing dispute, I'm restricting you to 1RR/day until December 31 for all articles which relate to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights. PhilKnight (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but could you please tell me how many reverts I made at Ariel and what those reverts were? nableezy - 22:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I looked at your edits, and you weren't just reverting completely in a stale manner. PhilKnight (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
So if this restriction had been in place when I made those edits, would I have violated a 1RR? nableezy - 23:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Tricky, more than one partial revert. Maybe? PhilKnight (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, so there was more than one, partial or not? nableezy - 00:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
And you should probable include any settlements in the Golan in that restriction. nableezy - 22:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy, you are funny. It was the first time I saw a user asking to make his own sanctions wider :) If you are to continue like that, the next time you will ask to sanction you alone. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

AFD

I believe, by the way, that you made an honest mistake, probably an error of carelessness, in the AFD [[3]]. If you look at the cached article on the June shooting attack again, you will see that there is a New York Times article discussing the June incident (look towards the bottom of the Time article.)AMuseo (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

addressed. nableezy - 16:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I had hoped that you would apologize for calling me "malicious," asserting the my statement was "malicious and unture" and for asserting bad faith on my part, accusing me of "playing this game to get a second chance." As I see it. You made an error, and , when called on it, instead of checking your facts, you made a second assertion of error and accused me of bad faith. You now admit to having made an error in your assertions that sources for the page on the June attack were all form the day of the attack, what about your similar assertion of the page on the August attack? Was that also an "error?" Or were you stating your assumptions as matters of fact on a discussion page? As I see it, we have a difference of opinion: you believe that these two articles fail WP:NOT NEWS; I believe that they qualify as notable under WP:EVENT. But I am troubled by your uncollegial style.AMuseo (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Really? I am troubled by the fact that you continually post the same message on numerous pages. I am also troubled by the fact that you think that a one line mention in one out of 11 sources makes my point null. But mostly I am troubled by the fact that you think I care about what troubles you. nableezy - 16:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Your "point" was an absolute assertion, repeated twice in an AFD covering two articles, that neither of the articles had any sources that post-dated the date of a particular event. It was false on both articles. The fact is that you made an assertion of fact, and, when called on it repeated the false assertion. You also called me "malicious" and accused me of bad faith.[4]AMuseo (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I missed a single news article that makes one mention of the event. My point remains that the article is based on news articles from the day of the event. But really, why are you annoying me now? nableezy - 17:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Al-Azhar Mosque‎

Congratulations! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but it aint much. I really should get around to working on the things Jay asked about on the talk page. nableezy - 21:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy, employing the negative-pejorative word 'thanks' on this page, as per numerous RfCs and your own comments therein, is forbidden. You've put yourself into Catch-22. If you reply positively to Malik as above, you deserve a sanction for violating your own principles. If, instead, you reply negatively, Malik should sanction you for a violation of something or other about wiki etiquette. That said, Congr . uh ..get stuffed.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)\
Ill slap myself, dont worry. nableezy - 14:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well! Regarding those things I asked about on the talk page, I had held off from further review partly because I didn't want to overwhelm you with work, and partly because I didn't want to mess up the GA review process. Now that that's over, and the article has achieved GA status, would you like me to continue with my own review, or instead wait until you can address the first issues? I've been very hesitant to try to change much content on my own, partly because I'm not that familiar with the topic, and partly because I don't have the sources you've been using. If you want me to work on the content too, though, I'm willing to try. Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If you wouldnt mind, just keep going with the review. If you dont feel comfortable changing the content you dont need to, but if you do feel free. I tend to work in bursts on that article, but Ill try to get back to those outstanding issues this weekend. nableezy - 14:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
O.K. This coming week is actually a very busy one for me, so I won't be editing much at all, but I should have much more time the following week. Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Translation Request

Salam Nableezy, Glad to see you active after all these years. I must say I've been laying pretty low for a while now. Hopefully one day I will get back... As for the translation request, here's my shot at it:

وناشف، من مدينة الطيبة في المثلث الفلسطيني، ويحمل الجنسية الإسرائيلية، وهو غير معروف بدرجة كبيرة في الساحة الفنية الفلسطينية، وتخرج قبل عامين من معهد "بيت تسفي" للفنون المسرحية

Nashef, from the city of Tayibe in the Palestinian Triangle, who holds the Israeli citizenship, and is not very well known in the Palestinian art scene, graduated two years ago from the "Beit Zvi" Institute of Performing Arts. --Fjmustak (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Al-Azhar - Bab Al-Muzayyinin

Hi Nableezy, A while ago you sent me an image of "Bab Al-Muzayyinin" at Al Azhar, with an inscription above. Well I found out what the inscription says:

إن للعلم أزهرا يتساما *** كسماء ما طاولتها سماء
حين وافاه ذو البناء ولولا *** منة الله ما أقيم البناء
رب إن الهدى هداك وآيا *** تك نور تهدي بها من تشاء
مذ تناهي أرّخت باب علوم *** وفخار به يجاب الدعاء

Translating it is another issue :) The source says the calligrapher's name was Al-Baghdadi

Here's the source for the deciphered text: http://www.slideshare.net/agonema/ss-2299128 (page 36, in the middle) --Fjmustak (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Help

some zionists keep on deleting my contributions at Rawabi and Taybeh pages, and add write ups from their point of view, and moreover they keep on blocking me. please help me--213.6.27.118 (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS for more understanding of what type of sources are required for content here. If you do not provide such sources, anybody, Zionist or not, can and likely will remove your edits. Bye, nableezy - 16:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Nableezy. I'm curious. Why do you think people who start their sentences with, "some zionists [sic]" are drawn to your talk page and seek out your advice?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the same reason people who write that the Islamofascists control Wikipedia come to this talk page. They think I know something they dont. nableezy - 03:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hounding

Should I now try report you for hounding me? Hypocrisy sucks. LibiBamizrach (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free. But seeing as how nothing happened to you for the repeated following of my contribs I though I might see how you liked it. In fact, this is fun. I think Ill go through the rest of your contribs to see where else you have been introducing bullshit and propaganda and calling it writing encyclopedia articles. nableezy - 03:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible BLP issue

Hello,

You seem to be the current expert on issues related to this, and I'm not really familiar with the procedures, so I thought I would ask your advice.

At User:AMuseo#4._Wikipedia:Systemic_bias there are some contentious statements (or contentious epithets, perhaps, since some of the contentious statements seem to have reliable sources supporting them, in article space at least) about a living person called Erdinç Tekir.

I think this may need dealing with under WP:BLPTALK. Does one really just go ahead and remove it?

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. nableezy - 12:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Eraser

How are you? Do yourself a favour and read this: Wikipedia:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement --Shuki (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No shit, Sherlock. If I had reverted an edit in article space under WP:BAN you could revert me and take responsibility for the content. What you are doing though is reinstating comments made by a banned user who socked around their ban. Nothing in WP:BAN allows you to do this. In fact, in the irony or ironies, the editor in question actually asked this exact question here and was given the answer that comments made by socks of banned users are, as common practice, struck out. Do you have a reason why the comments made by a user socking around their ban should be permitted to stay? Or do you just like annoying me? nableezy - 01:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I promise you I will take this to AE if you remove the strikeouts one more time. nableezy - 01:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Since you seem to have a problem reading guidelines, you do understand that in Wikipedia:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement it explicitly says: Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content. You also must understand that taking me to AE means that you are merely going to get banned as well for your repeated edit warring and ignoring the line I just posted. --Shuki (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
And if you bothered to try to understand a simple point instead of rushing to protect a member of your "team", a member who has socked repeatedly to harass other editors, you would see why you are wrong here. You are not restoring 'content'. If this were in article space you would be correct, you could absolutely take responsibility for edits made by the banned user. This is not in article space. And the comments have not even been removed. You are doing this for no reason save for trying to piss me off. I understand what taking you to AE means, and we can see what happens if you wish to go that route. nableezy - 16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Sad Sack janitorial geezers like myself occasionally slip up. But I feel obliged to fix the earlier looseness of phrasing here, Nableezy, a question of amphibological disturbance in No shit Sherlock.
(a) That can be read as 'Sherlock doesn't tolerate nonsense, cuts to the marrow' and, thus understood, would be vocative with regard to Shuki, denoting him as a man who gets to the nub of Nab's nonsense. This doesn't fit.
(b) 'No shit Sherlock' could challenge Conan Doyle's description of Holmes' 7% solution of cocaine, since 'shit' is traditional druggy jargon refers to hash, heroin or the like. In this case you would be hailing your interlocutor as a hyper-perceptive dogged 'dick' whose acuity in going over the spoors of your criminal behaviour owes nothing to stimulants. Mm. I don't think this is what you mean either.
(c) It could, in certain aged psychoanalytical circles, be taken as referring to an adversary's rather paranoid reading of the traces you leave on the scenes of wiki crimes as rather 'constipated'. But Freud is old hat, and this reading would be 'stretching it' (with no onanistic innuendo intended)
(d) If however one takes into consideration the fact that there is abundant evidence, esp. in your intricate summary history's style of language, that you disregard punctuation, a simple Housmanian emendation, namely, placing a comma after 'no shit', would generate a perfectly acceptable meaning, that of the modern vernacular where 'No shit' is interjective and signals one's 'amazement, incredulity, or derision'. The sense would therefore mean: 'That's unbelievable. You're pulling my leg, Sherlock'.
p.s. This fits best, and I have taken the WP:BOLD policy to heart, and adjusted your text. But, with diffidence, while fearing I may err. The pertinacity of philological exactitudes in my former profession obliges me to observe a slight dyscrasia in (d). For there is an additional nuance in 'no shit', namely 'a sarcastic response used when someone states the obvious'.
Since you doubt the veracity of what your interlocutor wrote, his comment can hardly be 'obvious'.
The local tobacconist closes in 20 minutes, and it is a 19 minute walk there. So my lucubrations, to your relief no doubt, must end here, or else, for want of 'fags' I'll be tempted later this evening to break into a pharmacy and secure a 7% solution myself. Your sincerely, Dr What'son, ret. Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
^^ *Wild applause* Also, someone needs to cook up a "Buffy the Sockpuppet Slayer" barnstar. Sol (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
No Nableezy, that is simply your interpretation. Unfortunately for you, putting it in 'first person' does not make it the truth. Frankly, you seem to show you know policy but not actually carry it out. If you did AGF, you would not accuse me of wanting to piss you off, a really silly accusation on a Sunday afternoon. Stellarkid's comments on that page are legitimate and since they are not insulting anyone or controversial, I take responsibility for them. I guess you have the right to strike them, I have the right to restore them. If you cannot accept that, then you can continue to climb the tree you've promised/threatened to climb. --Shuki (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
All right, we'll see what happens. You could instead not to be a dick and leave the comments of a user who socked around their ban first to harass another user and then socked around their ban to again harass another user, and then again socked around their ban to harass me. But if you insist on being that dick then we can see what happens at AE. nableezy - 23:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Bah, leave the tongue twisting attempts to others. At least, they do not look as dumb with the attempt and poetic license factor put in. --Shuki (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I dont particularly want to decipher what you are saying, but I was not "tongue twisting"; what I wrote was fairly clear. nableezy - 23:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Tongue-twisting? (images of Chubby Checker blur with Einstein's) and poetic licence? Where's my Ben Jonson, no, not the steroid sprinter, the . . uh . .Shakespeare's cobber?
leave the rattling pit-pat noise
To the less poetic boys.(Ian Donaldson, (ed.) Ben Jonson: Poems, Oxford University Press, 1975 p.250)
What he wrote was 'clearly fair', and it's a fair day for the fowl, so let's not foul the fare.Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I remember a time when I used to attempt humour to fill in the blank time when I had nothing to say, but I realized it actually made me look stupid so I stopped that habit. --Shuki (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
If alluding to Shakespeare makes one look stupid, and proof one has nothing to say, then my suspicions about 'postmodernity' are confirmed. What filling in 'blank time' means escapes me. All it brought to mind was a memory several decades ago of coming across, in a book sale, the small bound World Classics edition of Thoreau's Walden, or Life in the Woods for a few cents, and marvelling, on the train home as I perused the first chapter, at the lines:

‘Think, also, of the ladies of the land weaving toilet cushions against the last day, not to betray too green an interest in their fates! As if you could kill time without injuring eternity.’ (1906) p.5

It's hyperbole of course, as most truths stated plainly are, but wasting people's time with pettifogging seems to be fairly commonplace round here, and as part of my janitorial work in an enforced leisure, I often blank edits that appear to militate against eternity, and anyone's piece of it. I suggest you look over the last 500 edits here. You will see that 14 people, several obsessively, plunk complaints about the user, while several, who come from the same cultural area, work intelligently with him. The appearance (nb) of a group attack mentality carping against a single editor may, over a page, give stray admins the impression there is something problematical (no smoke without fire) with his behaviour. But if, as can be readily remarked, several wikipedians of extensive experience, with clear individual profiles, manage to work with him more or less on the same issues, while disagreeing with his POV (the opposite of their own), then the specious and vagrant impression will be readjusted. You might use some of that blank time to think this over. But for the moment I suggest editing time is best spent actually working towards articles and not persons. Carpe diem profitably then, rather than Carpe Diem, as Henry Cabot Lodge apparently told some generals in South Vietnam decades ago. Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Too much

[5] You really should know better than that. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand. nableezy - 15:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I assume that you have read the article, and should have known that one of the victims was 9 months pregnant, the other was 8 years old girl. To remove the word "civilians" knowing all that was too much IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I did know that. I dont see how that changes the fact that the most accurate thing to call these people is "Israeli settlers". nableezy - 16:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I hope a further comment on my part wouldn't be regarded as disruptive. This exchange fascinates me. Seriously, Mbz1, it is worthy of a seminar by J. L. Austin. But I won't say why unless I get a go-ahead from both parties. It is a matter of linguistics, nothing more.Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Nishi, I enjoyed our last exchange at your talk page, and was amazed by your erudition. I would have really be interested in learning why my exchange with Nab is worthy of a seminar by J. L. Austin, but I believe that by posting at this thread you're in violation of your topic ban. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
By posting on this page you agree that anything written on this page will not be brought anywhere else, such as AE or ANI. If you find those terms to be unacceptable I have to ask that you not post on this page again. If you accept those terms feel free to continue posting here. nableezy - 17:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
That claim does not hold water anywhere in WP and you cannot give sanctuary (innovative idea though...) Editors under topic bans should watch what they say everywhere. --Shuki (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course it cannot be enforced, but we are all grown ups here. If you give your word I expect you to keep it. And I request that people who edit this page give their word that anything that happens here stays here. If people do not want to do that they can move the fuck on. I will say that if a user takes something from this page and uses it in a complaint elsewhere I will revert any future edit they make here sight unseen. nableezy - 23:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I get it now. You think that you've declared an micro-nation here independent of WP rules. What a fantasy to declare that and the weenie threat of repercussions as well that frankly does not scare anyone anymore. I promise you, wise Nableezy, that in the past, your talk page has been used against you, and it will be in the future as well. Nish is not immune either. --Shuki (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Shuki, if you are finished with histrionics, I would like to explain this once more. If you are unwilling to accept what I think are rather tame requests then kindly move the fuck on. You can use whatever you like to use, but if you do I will ask that you not comment here. If you comment here anyway Ill do the only thing I can do, remove whatever you write here. There are no "weenie threats of repercussions", just a simple request that if you wish not to follow you are free to do so. I am then free to ask you to not comment here. Simple really. Why you are wasting my time with this discussion is not something I want to understand. My guess would be that you are bored and get some weird sense of satisfaction in these banal conversations with somebody you perhaps dont like. I dont get that satisfaction from this though, this sidebar is pointless and the time I spent typing this response is lost. nableezy - 02:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for showing that you can take part in a discussion but you should avoid misleading other editors by claiming these various things about this page being extra-territorial of WP. If you think that you would waste time posting something, then just don't post a reply. Replying shows that you want to continue talking. Just some friendly advice. --Shuki (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Replying just shows I am a bit too much under the influence and did not notice what a complete waste of time replying is. Oops, there I go again. But since we are being "friendly", allow me to return the favor. Dont do this again. Ever. You think I am "biting" a newcomer you can file a complaint. What you cannot do is remove my comments from any page besides your own. At least until I am banned. nableezy - 03:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Shuki, your time would be better spent helping Nableezy identify editors who lie and break the rules e.g. "It hardly assumes good faith". I'm just saying. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy, A) don't bother ever to tell me what to do, besides the main issue of that, you don't expect me to ever do what you tell me. B) I only removed your comments because I see that your pal Nish does the same here all the time and you have never biten his head off. C) You have probably noticed that I am quie tolerant of many things and do not run the judges each time someone does something wrong like you do and I seem to have not found the noticeboard for BITE, because that is the tone of that comment I removed, Your first sentence is fine, then you go into your infamous battleground mode handing out threats, D) Show me where Nish and Shuki are doing something against policy. mkay? --Shuki (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
If you do that again I will ask that you be blocked. I have given Nishidani permission to remove comments from this page, if you can show where this user has done the same for you then feel free to remove whatever you wish. WP:TPO expressly forbids what you have now done twice. Stop. Now. nableezy - 13:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1. Given the hyperabundance of sockpuppets and meatpuppets around, I think, aside from one or two rash slips, I've peronally stuck to the spirit and letter of the law. I don't think the ban means that I was ostracized from having any contact of any nature with anyone who edits in the topic ban area. If it does, as you suggest, imply precisely this, I hope the point can be clarified. It would mean that even a neutral analysis of descriptors, logical consistency, and points of linguistic nuance in general English usage, would be denied me. People should remind themselves that the laws here serve to facilitate intelligent construction of NPOV articles, not scalptaking by putting trip-wires in the way of people one dislikes or, if dislike is not the issue, whose presence is thought of as disruptive. I'm quite prepared to define 'civilian' in your usage but only if you accept my bona fides that this is an abstract issue, not related to the banned context.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Nishi, when you make minor changes to comments on a user talk page try to remember to mark the edit as minor. That way there wont be a new messages notice for the recipient for each minor change you make. But of course any comments you make would be disruptive. nableezy - 16:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I knew you'd bide your time, hovering in the wings, checking sedulously my edit patterns, to find some stupid negligance on my part, and, charging in like a wounded bull, exact a savage revenge for my quip some days ago about how you tend to ignore the niceties of punctuation in edit summaries. Touché, a nice flèche after my ballestra, as those savvy in foiling say.
Maybe I was wrong, as I got the indicator anyway. Maybe it needs to be marked as minor and bot for it not to cause the notification. Ah well, even the best of us, and by that I mean me, make mistakes. nableezy - 17:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
You see, I ticked the edit box, as recommended and that distracted me from signing off. I couldn't come back and sign off, because that would mean I'd probably have forgotten to simultaneously tick the minor box (in one of my dialects that wording sounds distinctly Lolitesque, alas). Old age is really tough. One can't handle too many tasks at the same time.(I admit I did spell 'negligence' for fun). On second thought, I think the linguistic angles obvious, so won't crowd the page with further fatuous kibitzing. Cheers Nab. Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Shuki, do you really think a linguistic analysis of why 'civilian' is supererogatory (child) or an inferential construction (pregnant woman, for instance)in wiki articles to define the victims of terrorism in whatever area of the world or incidents we are dealing with, cannot be duly made by anyone, whatever their status, in this encyclopedia? Do you really think a general clarification of a principle of the meaning of words is beyond the restricted remit of an editor like myself, simply because one of probably a thousand potential instances happens to be cited from that area? I would remind you that the point was raised by Mbz1 who, for all of the excellence of her English, is not a native speaker of that tongue. If one cannot help out by elucidating simple misprisions about what words mean in one's native tongue, to assist second-language users, then this place is getting bedevilled by cavils that have no purpose other than to obstruct people because one dislikes them, irrespective of the contextual utility or merit of their remarks. Nishidani (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Nishidani, exactly what do you want from me on this civilian/settler subject I have not taken part in? Please pay attention to the chronological order of this multithread section. FWIW, non-native speakers can often see language issues clearer than those of us who think we know English so well, even those who quote Shakespeare. If you really want to talk about the civilian/settler issue, which I'm now aware you cannot do here, please send me an email, or use another account. I apologize for the sharpness of my words, it happens often here because that bold notice that appears at the top of the page all the time. --Shuki (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Amazing how, with a thread, Ariadne loses her way. I had no intention of talking about the 'civilian-settler' subject. It would be a patent infraction of my ban were I to do so. So I never quite understood what the panic was about. Mbz1 said Nableezy really should know better than to elide the word 'civilian' from an article. And her subsequent clarification, for the reproval was mysterious, argued that (a) a pregnant woman (b) a child were victims, hence to elide 'civilian' is improper.
I thought of J. L. Austin because his How to do things with words, is very good on showing how, if closely scrutinized, otherwise grammatically correct statements can prove to be nonsensical, or slipshod. The whole English school, indeed, from I. A. Richards, through Empson to Oxfordian linguistic philosophy, inculcates us with the behest to be wary of what language does, unbeknown to us, who otherwise use it with native fluency.
The assumption Mbz1 made was that in describing the death of a 9th month pregnant woman, and a child, an emphasis is required that they were 'civilian'.
There are several things that this assumption ignores, and I thought it worth noting them to Mbz1 who is not a native speaker.
The first is that (I haven't looked at the articles's sources or the page itself) it is sheer nonsense to write, in English, that a child was a civilian. It's a pleonastic atttribute which, as such, can only function rhetorically. (The only exception would be to make a specification of this kind in one of those rare thirdworld countries where children at that age are compelled to bear arms). I challenge anyone to say to a disinterested party, 'they killed this kid, and he was 8 years old, and he was a civilian', and not get a look expressive of bepuzzlement or malicious smirking. It is redundant, and, (this is the worst of it) grotesquely comical, because it tells you nothing except about the state of mind of the person who made that perculiar qualification.
To say that a woman, nine months into term in her pregnancy, was a civilian, is slightly different. That, in this case, Mbz1 said 'civilians' is obligatory because 'one of victims was pregnant' interested me, linguistically, for two reasons. It implies that pregnant women are, ipso facto civilians, which is an illogical inference (what we call WP:OR), even though it may be, contextually, true. And secondly, it is wrong, as I presume the sources are misleading, since a woman 9 month pregnant, is two people according to several modern forms of the concept of rights, not one. Is an unborn child, however, a civilian? No. Linguistically, whatever any one cultural code might say about the unborn, they are not considered 'civilians' until parturition. Etc etc.
There was a more general principle at stake. Editing can turn out to be a 24/7 nightmare if everyone takes every occasion to stir the brew. Good editing means, as often as not, simply abstaining from querying things that, in a moment's reflection, contain several probable answers, all acceptable as answers, even if one might disagree with them. In every instance, when you make an editorial choice, there is, implicitly, an acknowledgement of a rule. If you demand in such contexts that 'civilian' be used, you are saying that, on all pages where someone is killed in an ethnic, or territorial war or incident, one must specify their status as combatant or non-combatant (civilian). It is a formj of incitement to opposing editors to immediately jump all over pages where his or her POV could get rhetorical leverage from the innovation, to plaster the word 'civilian' wherever someone was killed. Wiki is factual, and one does best not to egg the pud, or egg on people to egg their pud.
The problem cannot be resolved by sources, because some might say 'civilians', others might not. In this case, the issue was generic, but there is no precedent that might guide one. To post insistently on someone's page that they screw things up, as often as not, only leads detached observers to wonder why so much fuss is made, and why detached reflection on general principles is studiously eschewed.
In short, the intelligent approach to conflict is to elicit the principle either side's edits illustrate, and discuss it: it is certainly not good practice to lay seige to a page with remarks that are injudicious because poorly thought through, particularly this page, where vernacular rough-house has a licence, but frivolous nitpicking is denied a voice.Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that if we got the famous banned 8 back onto I-P, including you, things might be a bit better. I was totally unaware of that whole ARB case when you guys all got canned. Anyway, (trying to understand the issue) to include 'civilian' here is probably because the Arab/Palestinian rhetoric IRL regularly claims that all settlers are active combattants, criminals, violate human rights, etc... and that 'naturally' all Israelis are combattants since they do the army. It might seem redundant to claim that a pregnant women and child are civilians, the rhetoric POV is to assume that they are not. We usually do not see this Palestinian rhetoric in English, and that is why speakers of foreign language have a lead on people who only know English where this settler=war criminal rhetoric is very rarely translated literally. --Shuki (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the members of the "banned 8" who were sockpuppets or sockmasters, of course.     ←   ZScarpia   19:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict dammit, with Scarper Flow)
The infamous 7 actually, since 'two' were sockpuppets of each other. That sock has some claim to distinction since his systematic headhunting drove several experienced and a couple of potentially good wikipedians out of the encyclopedia. It was, effectively, a I/5 judgement, since the other 'two' was just a schizoid gaming act by a non-committed attack strategist, and certainly I would prefer to stay banned than to see that particular stalking walking disaster return under a general amnesty. I freely admit I have some high regard for Nableezy, despite the fact that the lout hates Shakespeare, because he has considerable talent in weeding out socks of the kind that caused the Arbcom mess. Things are hard enough on you guys without having the game tainted by uncommitted messers (in the German sense, now that I think of it).
Your point about local rhetorics is well-taken but was actually resolved by the Arbcom case. It was determined that in an area of conflict, the default descriptive terms were those of reliable sources in English, not those privileged of either in the two languages , or discursive cultures of the area. That verdict was won with much blood shed futilely and I do not augur a similar process on those of you who come to edit that area. Lessons should be learnt. Wikipedia is in English, and ‘speakers of a foreign language’ here are certainly invaluable sources for the history and culture of their respective countries, but they certainly have no edge in suggesting the appropriate terminology in English, which has a long and consolidated tradition of handling with an outsider’s attempt at neutrality, local conflict in how events or landscapes are to be described, since its constituency of speakers embraces all cultures, and must take into consideration all perspectives without favouring one. What you say of the other side’s rhetoric in its native idiomatic nuance, has been said of your side’s rhetoric. The dispute that got us all banned pivoted precisely on this issue: was Hebrew usage to be favoured over English usage. Arabic wasn’t even considered. The verdict was, consensually, after we were all banned, that standard English usage was to prevail, except in certain restrictive contexts. It was most refreshing to a retired old timer like myself to see this precedent applied recently with success in the case of Ist, 2nd and 3rd Temple naming dispute, in a debate that was civil, consensual and rational.
There’s a very large literature on this, a good deal of which I am familiar with, but which I can’t talk about. In general therefore I would suggest, in any case, that (a) WP:NPOV obliges us to pare to a minimum our language, and take particular care not to add in attributive epithets, substantives that can be both loaded, and cut both ways; and that (b) in a conflict that has wider ramifications (extension of one term on a page throughout many pages) one seek wider community imput. It’s a matter of mental economy to simplify a problem so that it doesn’t have to be argued endlessly page by page, but can be resolved by a general rule. (c) people aren’t obliged to like each other, in life as in virtual collaborative projects, but they are obliged to accept, in cases like this, that two realities exist, and neither must prevail discursively, and that the only determinant of how things are to be represented, according to the rulebook, is WP:RS and the default usage of the language the encyclopedia is written in.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Nishi, I hope that you managed to copy and paste rather than had to type everything in again.     ←   ZScarpia   22:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Scarpy, no comment on you intended. As you can see by my lousy wordiness and loose sentence structure, I always write direct in the box, never think as 'minor' edit, edit summary, or that in posting a conflict might cause me to copy the inked, conflicted stuff laboriously back into the page. Bad practices. p.s. I woke up at 4 am cursing myself for not adding the obvious point, that 'civilian' in English is not a descriptor we use with single children or babies, or children because civis historically tends to carry over the idea of entry into full rights (to vote etc) which only comes in late adolescence etc. CheersNishidani (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
We don't really have to worry about the status of children here. Mbz1 was mistaken with the comment that one of the victims was an 8 year-old girl. The girl seems to have been the child of one of the victims but not present during the attack. It is an understandable mistake because the line in the article is a bit misleading. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, JGG. Out of scruple I didn't even read the source or the article, and in any case what interests me in these things are the general concepts of language, not particular applications. In editing, we should always bear in mind 'if I suggest this edit here am I willing to see the same edit in similar contexts all over wiki?' If people did that, we'd have far less conflict, perhaps less edits, but far better pages. Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
What is the "civility is not exist on this page" notice before editing in it? It's a joke right? Because talk pages, though less strictly scrutinized are not an excuse to change the idiotic but necessary rules of discussion -meaning, if we are forced against our will to respect each other and be artificial and fake for the sake of good order, or at least for the sake of the hope for good order in other venues then there is no reason to give one the pleasure to release steam on his or her TP. Anyway and anyhow, didn't know that to kill baby is much more moral if the baby is "not a civilian ", didn't even know the UN allow this and this is not a crime against humanity or war crime by itself. By all mean, any decent person would call it nothing else but lousy terror attack. So, I truly don't know about wikipedia, but I hope that real world is sane and loosing its patience for terrorists, what ever their excuses are. --Gilisa (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
No it is not a joke. Much of your comment appears to be predicated on a misunderstanding of what has been written. Nishi does not say that a baby is "not a civilian". Read more carefully before making comments. nableezy - 21:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Gilisa, the real world sane? Bah! After 8 years in which it was official policy to dismiss with contempt anyone out there, beyond the Beltway, who still grounded their thinking in the given facts, rather than rhetorical spin? Hans Köchler, The use of force in international relations: challenges to collective security, International Progress Organization, 2006 pp.108-109 One of the functions of wikipedia is to step outside rhetoric, and just supply an otherwise increasingly ideologically-bedazzled world with straight, factual, unemotive and eminently verifiable articles. The less 'politicized' an editor, in this regard, the greater service he or she renders to the world that still retains expectations of a return to sanity. Sorry, for straying. This is not a blog. I just hope that we can swear more around this page with a certain amiable hostility, and niggle nastily rather less. Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Since settlers could serve in the security forces, perhaps it would have been more precise to call the victims "civilian Israeli settlers"?     ←   ZScarpia   09:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Are they still "settlers" while they are soldiers? Would somebody really say "an Israel settler soldier"? nableezy - 12:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
If you say that someone is a settler, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person is a civilian. And of course, in Israel you have the situation that a large number of people are security service reservists. Taking Baruch Goldstein as an example, you would probably want to mention that he was a settler and a reserve member of the IDF.     ←   ZScarpia   18:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree you would want to do that for somebody like Goldstein, but I think that underscores the point. You would need to also include that he was a member of the armed services, it is not assumed that one is not a civilian when they are called a "settler". nableezy - 18:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nableezy/Archive_24&oldid=1079467339"