User talk:Nableezy/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 → Archive 45

Incidents

Here argues that an anonymous blacklist is a reliable source, and follows up with "McCarthyite" does not mean inaccurate.. Zerotalk 02:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

At Talk:Azmi_Bishara, quotes from a Hebrew court ruling without telling us that the very next sentences told a different story. (Basically the ruling said that the charges were very serious but the evidence for them was insufficiently compelling; IW brought just the first part.) Zerotalk 03:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That doesnt seem to have been resolved with the arguable BLP violation still in the article. Am I reading this wrong? nableezy - 03:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Correct. It isn't a simple edit though due to the erratic structure of the text. Zerotalk 03:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Here claims that an external organization becomes an "involved party" merely by reporting on an event. (If this was true, every reliable source would be an involved party.) Zerotalk 03:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

At Talk:Golan_Heights the newly invented GDP criterion. Zerotalk 03:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean I found that as hilarious as the next guy, but I dont think thats going to get any reaction at AE. Im looking for examples of easy to explain edits that make it obvious there is a POV pushing problem, not ones that can be dismissed as a "content dispute". Ideally ones where he makes the opposing argument elsewhere. nableezy - 03:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand, but my memory is weak. Often I find my own edits on pages that I can't remember seeing before. Anyway, just ignore the things I mention which you don't see as useful. Zerotalk 04:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Here claims it is a BLP violation to call someone a Palestinian. Also falsely claims that calling someone in Israel a Palestinian outs lives at risk. Zerotalk 04:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You can doubtless contrast the invocation of PRIMARYNEWS at Talk:Anti-Defamation_League to other uses of contemporary newspaper reports. Maybe Talk:Deborah_Lipstadt and Talk:Kach_and_Kahane_Chai too. Zerotalk 12:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

User:Nableezy a request to resolve an edit dispute has been filed here with the WP:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We welcome your comments.Davidbena (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING

expand for hypocrisy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Not going to warn you more than once. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ha! How exactly did you show up to Israeli permit regime? How about Israeli occupation of the West Bank? nableezy - 03:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Yep, thats what I thought. nableezy - 13:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll take that as a non-denial of WP:HOUNDING, which is harassment. Consider that you're not the only editor interested in the I/P area, and that you've been consistently following me around[1][2] on pages where you previously had not been active or even commented on before. You are clearly following my contribution history and frivolously reverting me or joining in on discussions to disagree with me without any substantive arguments. Again, this is my only warning. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I see you come from the school of do as I say and not as I do. When you first edited Israeli permit regime, shortly after a disagreement at Benjamin Netanyahu, that page had been edited by exactly two people. It was a new article linked to by only one other article if memory serves me correctly. So, did you hound me there? I mean that is obviously true, but if you want to be funny go ahead and deny it. And lol to hounding you to Ilhan Omar's page. Consider you are not the only editor interested in American politics. nableezy - 14:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
A perceived slight from a page several weeks ago in which you believed I "followed you" (I can assure you that my involvement in that page had/has nothing to do with an interest in your editing history) does not justify continued harassment. In the past 24 hours, you've followed me on three different pages[3][4][5] to directly revert my edits or disagree with me in a discussion with little basis. On only two of those pages did you have any prior involvement. I have nothing more to add to this here. Stop personalizing disputes and find somewhere else to focus your energies other than on what I'm doing. If you're willing to do so, we can both go on our merry way. If not, that's going to be a problem. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Genius, Ive edited Ilhan Omar for quite some time. The Mueller Report is literally one of the most popular topics in the news right now. You can assure me of that? Ha! Your first edit to either the talk page or the article immediately followed a dispute at Benjamin Netanyahu and another at Ilhan Omar. You want to pretend otherwise go ahead, but dont expect everybody around you to be an idiot and just believe you. Now, repeat after me. I will do unto others as I would like them to do unto me. You got some balls repeatedly hounding me then coming here to give me your "only warning" (three times at that). If your expectation is that you can repeatedly hound others around to obscure topics, topics you clearly have very little understanding of, and then expect none of them to edit what is literally one of the top stories across the world well then Im sorry to tell you but you are going to be disappointed. Of course you have nothing else to add, having such blatant hypocrisy on display is a bit hard to answer. nableezy - 17:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Please spare me. Your sudden interest is not in those articles but seemingly exclusively in my edits to them. At no point have I pursued you to any page, and it's pretty clear that your misbelief that I had is what's leading you to "respond in-kind," in addition to continued content disagreements (in which your responses have been similar to the above, mostly composed of personal attacks and insults). The fact that you would immediately seek to revert my edits on multiple pages after I raised the hounding issue with you is strong evidence that your only interest is in picking fights and causing trouble. I don't need you to tell me what I understand; what I'm telling you is very clear: back off. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Good luck with that. You dont actually get to decide what and where I edit. I see bad edits I fix them. Sorry that your edits are those bad edits. Again, you can pretend whatever you wish to pretend. But what you cannot do is expect the people around you to be idiots willing to believe your fantasies. And spare you? Have you forgotten where you are? Am I badgering you on your talk page about the repeated obvious hounding that you have committed? Am I whining on your talk page about having my very bad edits challenged? No, Im not, we are on my talk page. You want to be spared you can leave. nableezy - 18:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Right, of all of the edits occurring on Wikipedia, you just happen to have a laser-beam focus on mine, which are all just dreadful. It all makes sense now! You can't possibly even be fooling yourself with that. Best of luck to you. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
You are upset that I reverted you at Ilhan Omar, where I have been editing for quite some time, and for addressing a complaint of sourcing in Mueller Report, which is literally splashed across the front page of every newspaper in the US for the last week, and for what opposing an edit you made at Ellison (guess whether or not an editor who has previously shown interest in Muslim-American politicians might have been watching that page prior to your coming with the same modus operandi as elsewhere, suppress negative coverage of those whose politics you like, emphasize it for those you dislike). That takes up what 5 edits of my last thousand? Yeah, again, good luck with that only warning. Feel free to give it again. nableezy - 21:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I could care less what your "interests" are if they involve following me around and policing my edits-that's blatant WP:HOUNDING, and if you do it again I'll file a report at WP:ANI. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
lol k. nableezy - 16:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
You honestly do not learn. Know that each instance of you hounding my edits is just another piece of evidence for an eventual WP:ANI report. Here your revert makes no sense - the talk page indicates a dispute over neutrality. This happens to be a page that you have never edited or contributed to the talk page for, but which you suddenly appear to revert my application of a tag within 15 minutes without any discussion. Let me be very clear with you: I do not want you following me around and stalking my edits any further. If we happen to editing a high-profile page together, that's one thing, but you are engaging in clear hounding yet again. Stop what you are doing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
lol, k. The talk page actually does not indicate such a dispute. You are required to justify tags you place. And, genius, I had that page watchlisted. You do not get to demand that people not revert your routinely shitty edits. Sorry. You want to continue with this obviously hypocritical whining that I am hounding you, when I am not, and when you very obviously have hounded me then go ahead. But know that any comment you leave here just makes me giggle. But sure, give me another final warning. Thats what, 4 now? nableezy - 17:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
The first heading on the talk page is Neutral Point of View, and in it, several users raised concerns about NPOV. Your reversion was meritless and, again, you have never contributed to the article or its talk page until I did earlier today. And yes, this is the fourth instance of you WP:HOUNDING my edits. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Did you read that discussion? Do you see how long ago it was? Who the fuck cares if I have never edited the article? Do you really think that given my interests that the article Israel and state-sponsored terrorism is not in my watchlist? Thats some kind of special you got going for you there. One more time, in smaller words for you. You must justify tags you place. Get it this time? Yay. As far as me hounding you, Ill repeat my initial response. Ha! nableezy - 18:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

UN Human Rights Council and ARBPIA

Hi - I used to think ARBPIA applies to that sort of thing, but I was being optimistic. That article is not reasonably construed as part of the conflict so far as I can see, only part of it. So the General sanction, ie ECP, doesn't apply and we can't revert IPs. There's been a lot of discussion about this because so many don't know it and some don't like it. BU Rob has been one of those making it clear that there's a distinction between broadly and reasonably, but I'm hoping there may be some movement on this. See his latest post on the issue. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

If that edit doesn't fall under ARBPIA than nothing does.--TMCk (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
All right thanks, Ill keep that in mind for future edits. Seems not exactly wise though. nableezy - 09:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@TracyMcClark: then go to ARCA and support the suggestion the area be revisited. Please. Doug Weller talk 11:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit notices

The trouble with the "template-editor" right is that they'll be afraid you might edit templates. However "page-mover" is also enough to add editnotices and based on a sample of one there is a good chance you will get it if you apply at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Page_mover. Zerotalk 13:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

You sure? I thought it was just template-editor and admins. nableezy - 18:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
nvm, I see that it is. Will request that permission now. nableezy - 18:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
It was changed sometime in the past month or two, so your memory is not wrong. Zerotalk 02:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Nableezy. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, nableezy - 19:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Status of the Golan Heights

Your latest edit to Status of the Golan Heights leaves the phrases "captured by Israel [from Syria] in the 1967 Six-Day War" and "territory to be Syrian held under Israeli military occupation" each used twice in the same, very short lead. Please self-revert. M . M 21:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it gives the current status and when saying the US has changed its views gives that the international community continues to consider it occupied. Anyway, if youd like to challenge an edit made on an article the place to do that is the article's talk page. Where youll see that this very discussion has already, briefly, took place. nableezy - 21:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Can you at least remove one of the "captured by Israel [from Syria] in the 1967 Six-Day War" lines? It's used twice in the same paragraph, very repetitive & annoying. Thank you. M . M 21:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Fine. nableezy - 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

IP multi article consensus

Following your edit [6] I just added this: wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Multi-article_consensus. Despite being a relatively experienced editor I have struggled to find these in the past, so I imagine it’s even more difficult to find for new editors. Are there any other similar areas of multi-article consensus you can think of that’s worth adding to the list? Onceinawhile (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion, but still...

Nableezy, I'm all for WP:BANREVERT, but do you really think this was a good edit? Which blocked/banned editor is this anyway? Jayjg (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

User:יניב_הורון. I didnt actually look at the content of the edit Jay, and if any editor in good standing reverts me then that would be that as far Im concerned. nableezy - 14:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Any evidence to that effect? Menachem Mendel Schneerson died in 1994 - we can't be stating he's still alive (a very small circle of his followers thinks so - but not the rest of the world). Icewhiz (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes. nableezy - 17:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, but I don't think it's a good idea to revert in obviously bad edits just because you think the IP editor is a banned editor. In many cases it appears the IP editor was him/herself reverting some other IP editor, who might well be banned too. Jayjg (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Might be, and anybody can revert those IP edits as well if they have any evidence they are blocked and/or banned. I will try to look a bit more carefully in the future, at the very least also self-reverting where appropriate. nableezy - 18:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


Cookie

I appreciate your contributions! Thanks for continuing to make Wikipedia a productive space. Socks are bad. Lightburst (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your work finding socks. MarioGom (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' : nableezy

to

'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' : nableezy

(You can patch this change into User:Nableezy/sig.css; there are no other problems there.)

—Anomalocaris (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: it's showing up as an error Error: Unexpected token '<' at line 1, col 1. But can you tell me if it is fine now? nableezy - 19:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Your signature is fine. I don't understand where your error message shows up. I can't edit User:Nableezy/sig.css, but obviously you can. Are you saying that when you edit the file and click "Show preview", it displays that error message as a warning? I don't know what the warning means, but it seems spurious to me. You might ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Yep, thats exactly what I meant. But ty for checking. nableezy - 19:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't have a User:Anomalocaris/sig.css page, but if I start to create it, and I copy the exact text you have in User:Nableezy/sig.css and click "Show preview", it looks fine and I don't get an error message. Also, if I enter the contents as 

<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Anomalocaris|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTTIME}}, {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTDAY}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)</small>

I also don't get an error message. I says

You are testing your user CSS right on this page. Remember that it has not yet been saved!

I wonder if it was a one-time glitch. What happens if you edit, make no changes, and Show preview now? —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

If I just press edit on the bottom of the edit window it has that same error message. Show preview or pre-preview. nableezy - 22:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea what that error message is about. It might be a good idea to find out why. I encourage you to try the village pump or some other forum, but it's up to you if you to decide if it's worth the trouble. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it is just not valid CSS code but it is fine for wiki markup. I only saved it as a css page to prevent others from being able to edit it, iirc. nableezy - 16:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Sholam weiss from FBI wanted poster.JPG

Notice

The file File:Sholam weiss from FBI wanted poster.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:STALK, WP:AGF

Please do not stalk my edits and curb your obnoxious tone. Examples: Here and here. And by the way, the "rank propaganda" you refer to in the latter is fact. A number of areas of the settlements are unquestionably disputed, and when you take sides as an editor, you're the one violating WP:NPOV. Take this as a courtesy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

<Pagestalker:>Lol, User:Wikieditor19920, when you edit in the IP area (that is: Israel/Palestine) you should expect at least a dozen editors will scrutinise your each and every edit. (I know mine are!) Get used to that, or stop editing in the area, Huldra (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Huldra: What a nasty reply -- and also, incorrect on policy. My participation in a high-interest area (which goes back a bit) is not a license for harassment and unpleasant comments. If you don't have anything constructive to add, perhaps you should stay out of disputes that don't concern you? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Wikieditor19920: I have edited this area for more than 14 years: I am just stating the facts: each and every edit in this area are scrutinised...by many editors. Your edits are not an exception. If you think that stating the facts is "nasty", well, that's not my problem, Huldra (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Huldra: There's a difference between legitimate scrutiny (go for it! I have nothing to hide.) and meritless, vindictive reverts paired with nasty, personal edit summaries, one that you apparently missed or are intentionally overlooking. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: @Huldra: It's interesting to examine the first example. Nab's strongest language was "generally not an improvement" and "misleading" (both comments on the edits and not on the person). 19920's response included "'Clever' bad faith wordplay by Nableezy", an obvious violation of the personal attack policy. When I visited a library to get hold of the source, I found that, despite 19920 twice claiming to be arguing on the basis of the source, the source actually supported Nab 100%. The moral of this story is that some editors only have themselves to blame if others scrutinise their edits carefully. Zerotalk 11:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks guys, but I would honestly like to respond to this horseshit myself. To begin with, you admonish me for "stalking" your edits. That to an article I have edited some 7 years before you even registered this account. I stalked you to a place I have been for nearly a decade? You understand what the word follows means? It does not mean being somewhere before you. Next, you claim I have an obnoxious tone and do not assume good faith. That while a. lying about what a source says, and b. explicitly accuse me of bad faith. That is you admonish me to assume good faith while explicitly assuming bad faith, and you do so while provably lying about the source. Next, the settlements. Disputed implies an equivalence in the positions. Compare your favored propagandizing phrasing to say the BBC which says The settlements are illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. Get that? are illegal and though Israel disputes this, not simply is disputed. Sorry, but your attempts to skew the phrasing to one supporting a fringe sized minority is both not in keeping with NPOV or going to stand unchallenged. You dont get to take a flat earth sized view and present it as an actual dispute. Now, as to the lying about the source. I too visited a library, and I too saw that despite Wikieditor19920 claiming that the clear meaning of the sentence based on the source was something other than what the article said he was in fact making things up. Wikieditor19920, did you even look at the source? If not why are you claiming that you have? If you have, then what sentence in it has a clear meaning that backs your position? I very much doubt you have looked at the source, but please enlighten us. And be aware that the next time you lie about a source you will be reported for repeated bad faith and tendentious editing. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 12:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

hmmm Wikieditor19920 seems to have gotten quiet here. Maybe it's the have you seen the source question? Difficult to pretend that it says something when you havent seen it and your interlocutor has I suppose? nableezy - 17:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me, responding to these vitriolic text-walls isn't my top priority. You can review my response in part on the fedayeen talk page -- replete with full-quotes from the source you accused me of lying about, and with the conveniently edited-out bits that directly support my point. And disputed does not mean "equivalent," it means just that: disputed. With something as subjective as a legal framework, you don't get to throw around the "flat-earth" analogy, and the settlement status is unquestionably hotly disputed. Further, none of that has anything to do with your totally off-the-wall behavior when it comes to I/P ("Lying," "Propagandizing" -- if you want good faith, you ought to show it.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Again, you admonish me for not assuming your good faith while explicitly claiming I am acting in bad faith, and why do you accuse me of that? For faithfully following the cited source. And if you would maybe read a book or two you might find your strongly held beliefs on the legality of Israeli settlements to in fact be flat Earth material. Anywho, consider your warning laughed off, and further find comfort in the fact that your tendentious edits have only been reverted and not reported. Toodles. nableezy - 03:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm raising an issue with your following me to multiple pages and openly combative behavior. Clearly you has no qualms or awareness about doing so, perhaps due to past experience and leniency, so I'm not going to waste more effort that'll just fall on deaf ears. Best of luck. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Genius, I have not followed you to a single page. If I was at Palestinian fedayeen 7 years before you then I did not follow you there. Or are you using the word follow in some way besides its definition? And openly combative behavior??? You are the one who said I was operating in bad faith, and doing so while you were the one manipulating the text so as not to follow the source. Seriously, miss me with that bullshit. Toodles. nableezy - 15:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, good, a sarcastic "genius." Look, I have nothing more to say here and I'm not interested in going blow-for-blow with you. I find your comments consistently combative and unconstructive, I believe you shown a strong bias in the I/P area (i.e. calling me a "liar" and propagandizer) and you are unresponsive to any attempts to bring this to your attention. In addition, you are in fact harassing me when you click on my contributions and follow me to multiple pages I edited recently to make frivolous reverts (without discussion), regardless of whether or not you attended to those pages before, so you are being dishonest when you claim you did not follow me. Clearly you feel perfectly comfortable with all of this, and I suspect because of sympathetic or irresponsible administrators who have allowed this to go on. Zero was perfectly happy to intervene on your side here with a false claim that I had somehow misrepresented a source (I did not) but is silent as a neutral arbiter (which is what admins should be). Again, I have nothing more to say here. Your responses have become predictable and I am bored with this. Best of editing to you. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, I have not once clicked your contributions and followed you to any page. You can continue to lie about that if you like, but this game is not going to work. You simply do not matter enough to me for me to even spend that much effort on you. I have edited both of those pages previously, one of them 7 fucking years before you had an account. You know what a watchlist is? It shows you changes on pages. I saw your garbage edits on my watchlist and did what any editor in good faith does when they see such garbage, they revert them. You did in fact attempt to manipulate the source, falsely claiming to be following it, and you did in fact push forward a fringe view as though it were neutral. I reverted that. You dont like that? Tough shit. I do not give the teensiest amount of care to what you suspect, think, or suppose. If you think that you will be able to intimidate me into not correcting shit edits because they are made by you through such laughable claims as harassing you for editing pages I have edited before you well best of luck to you. It isnt going to happen, but I wish you good fortune in doing so. It will maybe get a better response on an admin board when you are not provably making shit up about offline sources. nableezy - 23:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case commencing

In August 2019, the Arbitration Committee resolved to open the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case as a suspended case due to workload considerations. The Committee is now un-suspending and commencing the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Nableezy. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, nableezy - 01:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop extended

The workshop phase of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case will be extended to November 1, 2019. All interested editors are invited to submit comments and workshop proposals regarding and arising from the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. To unsubscribe from future case updates, please remove your name from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ariel, Israel

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as Ariel, Israel, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Huldra (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"Ariel, Israel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ariel, Israel. Since you had some involvement with the Ariel, Israel redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Huldra (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nableezy/Archive_41&oldid=1079467219"