User talk:Nableezy/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Why are flies attracted to shit?

It is the words "Israeli occupation" that has probably awoken the buzzing green menace. I was afraid that the slightest rustle in this article would restart the war, and, alas, I was proven right. Well, here we go again. Gird your loins. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to remove that I wont object. But I, as usual, think I am right about that. nableezy - 18:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I agree with you that it is better. We'll just try to weather the storm. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If it werent for the fact that all of this is just a merry-go-round with us having to go past the same point over and over I wouldnt mind as much. But its as if he thinks nobody will notice that the same crap that had been tried in the past is being tried again. Sorry for the ruckus at your talk page, I just had to laugh at that. Next time Ill do it quietly on my own talk page though. But, if you dont mind my asking, what does the first part of that phrase mean? Brew has piqued my curiosity. nableezy - 19:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Who..

..is this ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

damn yo, how jedi do you think I am? Someone who should be blocked with or without an SPI as a clear sockpuppet? Who has went around reverting at 4 articles, comprising nearly all of their edits? Someone we shouldnt have to waste the time figuring out who it is before they are blocked? nableezy - 03:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to guess a certain user fond of putting countries/nationalities in their sock-puppets' names and accusing ZScarpia of violating BLP. But I'm still new to this turf war and the options are limitless. If not, my apologies, dear Sally. Sol (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

hmmm..if only WP worked like that. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Would be nice wouldn't it? You just declare someone to be worthy of a block, and then block him. Would sure make it easy to deal with the likes of you. Shanghai Sally (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be nice. I suppose we will just have to wait a bit until you are blocked. In the meantime, go away. nableezy - 04:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked? what for? for daring to disagree with you and fellow POV-pushers? Shanghai Sally (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think "go away" is clear. Please dont try my patience. nableezy - 04:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Righteous indignation. Always funny. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Editing advice

Nableezy, I think you should focus your efforts on the centralized discussion, which currently involves a number of other editors with established track records of helping to resolve disputes. Until you establish a working compromise, I don't see the point in trying to thrash it out on an article by article basis. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate the advice, and I dont want you to read this the wrong way, but there isnt a point to that discussion. There isnt any compromise to be had here, one set of users is insisting that articles not include relevant, reliably sourced, and noteworthy material. If the policies of this website mean anything, anything at all, those users should be banned. Jaakobou, Shuki, and others have repeatedly removed any material that documents the illegality of specific settlements, including material sourced to books and journals published by Syracuse University Press, California University Press, Oxford University Press ... . No compromise is to be had with such people, with them it is only a far-right expansionist POV that is allowed on pages they patrol. That discussion is pointless, users will say things like that project page cannot force their consensus on articles. For an example as to why that discussion is pointless, see the amount of headaches that are still had with Judea/Samaria. Users still say that a place is "in Samaria" or "in Shomron" despite WP:WESTBANK (and yes I know you have taken action on this before, but it isnt as if these edits have stopped. see for example this were the removal of the phrase "the hills of Samaria" is called vandalism). All of these "discussions" serve only one purpose. To waste people's time. Unless there is some binding method of content dispute resolution in which "votes" dont trump sources there isnt a point in having these "centralized discussion". nableezy - 18:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

How was the process which created the WP:WESTBANK naming convention different than the current process? PhilKnight (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It was more structured, and the way it started was more focused on the content and the sources. You can see how it began here. That was moved to its own page (the archive is now here). The process started during the arbitration case, so editors that have since had the good fortune of being topic-banned by arbcom show up in the initial discussions. But the main difference is that it involved users who were well informed on both the subject and the policies of Wikipedia. There werent any pissing matches about who made more reverts or if this user or that user is a Bad Man™. It started with a proposal which was discussed and modified several times. Then a poll was conducted to see which clauses had support. It had somebody who for some odd reason had the respect of both "sides" (Coppertwig) who was able to focus the discussion on the issue. It had users reading the sources and making informed comments. It had people involved that I have never seen editing in the topic area (that is it had "community" input, not just the usual partisans). And most importantly, it had backing by arbcom that this would become some sort of naming convention and there would be some weight attached to it. There was a general acceptance that this would lead to a solution, regardless of what the actual solution was. We dont have that here. We dont have a user that is respected by most involved taking control of the process, we dont have users willing to educate themselves on the topic before voicing their opinion, we dont have any semblance of an agreement that what comes out of that discussion will be binding in any way. nableezy - 19:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply

Yeah, I've seen the lists. I understand how it can be cathartic to write those things but it kind of reminds me of the guys who blame hurricanes on gay sex.

But the Leafs went 4-0 to start the season so the Canadian media had more important things to talk about and we've all moved on.

Anyway, I hope you have a Happy Election Day. Though I don't think Santa is going to bring you what you wished for. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Election? What is this "election" that you speak of? I think I have a greater chance of sled-jacking Santa than seeing an election with a real choice. nableezy - 20:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

AE

You have been reported to AE. [1] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You have demonstrated your lack of intellectual honesty. nableezy - 20:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

VOTE TO REMOVE WOOKIE IN HEAT

WookieInHeat has become a nuisance to wikipedia. How can we have her removed as she continues to change edits made by IP wikipedia editors with her own descretion and opinion. Her "cheers" at the end of each borderline sarcasm with no end in her power makes her abusive. How do we remove or vote to have her removed as an IP Editor? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.132.160.159 (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that wookieinheat is a definitely sock of CanadianMonkey though I think SPI has proved otherwise. That sock master has a reputation for using animals in their nicks. I wonder who you are masked IP address. --Shuki (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL WookieInHeat (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

discussing you

FYI NickCT (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Racism in the Palestinian territories

i'm sure you'd like to take a look at the changes i've made to this article. also i removed one of the refs which i believe you added, see the article talk page for details. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for sharing? nableezy - 05:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

well i wrote it from a bunch of content you deleted, figured you'd like to review it for neutralities sake; sincerely not trying to be obnoxious here. WookieInHeat (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean you reinserted material that a number of others had objected to on the talk page because that content was a form of original research? Thats nice. I still dont care. Bye. nableezy - 17:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

so now you don't care about defending the good name of palestinians? thats odd, i could've sworn... moving on, i see a section on the talk page where one aspect (the "arab nazi party") of one source (rosen) was discussed. charachterizing everything i wrote and the half dozen or so sources i inserted as WP:OR because another editor used one of the same sources for OR is probably an overstatement though. and seeing as you haven't removed anything, it appears you're just blowing disgruntled hot air. anyway, was just trying to make you aware of changes to an article that you had been involved with, no need to try and bite me for it. WookieInHeat (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

And I could have sworn I just told you I dont care what you do. Does it take some magical combination of words to get you to stop annoying me? nableezy - 19:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

yes, but am i supposed to care that you don't care? WookieInHeat (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You are now annoying me for the sole purpose of annoying me. Stop annoying me. nableezy - 19:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Your complaint

If you have withdrawn your complaint, why have I just been notified of sanctions?????--Geewhiz (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont know, maybe one of the 89 others can explain. Ill go ask. nableezy - 21:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you arent in the mood for jokes. But Ill ask Tim. My guess is that they either did not notice that I withdrew the complaint or did not care. nableezy - 21:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Although shitting on me isnt exactly making me want to demand that the withdrawal be respected. nableezy - 21:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Shitting on you?? On the contrary, I thought it was a very nice act. Why do you twist everything I say?--Geewhiz (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That was a reference to Nableezy has just gotten off scot free, ONCE AGAIN. nableezy - 22:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That was shitting? That was telling the truth. You must be related to Houdini. I don't know how you do it.--Geewhiz (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting off "scot free" implies I am guilty of something. In the complaint raised against me I did not make 2 reverts, I made 1. So I am not guilty of anything. Yes, implying that I am guilty and should be punished is "shitting on me". But lets forget I said that and move on. nableezy - 22:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help (define help). --Geewhiz (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

AE

You two have left me with little choice - [2].
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that made my day. nableezy - 03:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And another[3]Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, come again. nableezy - 13:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 3 hrs for your response to Wookieinheat

You knew it was going too far, you said so when you said it... That's always a "stop what you're doing, go get an uninvolved administrator instead" moment. You chose to go forwards under the circumstances.

You were clearly baited - and Wookieinheat is blocked for 48 hrs for that stunt - but you also crossed the line. Being baited does not give you a free pass in how you respond.

You are blocked from editing for 3 hrs. Next time, please come get an admin at that point instead of getting yourself in trouble. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

seems about right. nableezy - 22:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Brewcrewer quote on your user page

Hi Nableezy, I've removed the Brewcrewer quote from your user page as it's uncollegial. PhilKnight (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Phil. I was unaware I was required to be collegial. But could you please tell me what is uncollegial about including that quote? Is it the inclusion of the (sic) following a misspelling? If so I can correct brew's spelling in the quotation. But I would like to include that quote as it is representative of the bullshit that editors regularly deal with in the topic area. Could you imagine that in a dispute about where a place is an editor would say what the sources say about where that place is is an "irrelevant straw man"? I found it unimaginable and verging on being hilarious, so I would like to include it. So, could you please tell me what is uncollegial about including the quote and further why collegiality is a requirement for what appears on a userpage? The inclusion is not a personal attack, it is not uncivil, it does not violate anything in WP:USERPAGE. It is simply showing, accurately, the views of an editor. Why would that not be allowed? nableezy - 16:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion on ANI about my action. PhilKnight (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I really wish you hadnt done that. All that will happen is that uninvolved users will be drowned out by familiar faces making predictable positions. nableezy - 18:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Here I am

So? IronDuke 21:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You tell me, what exactly should I do? I cant even put a fucking tag on an article without certain editors repeatedly removing it? I spend a substantial amount of time and effort trying to detail specific problems with an article, and some <redacted> is free to just say "no youre wrong and you are not allowed to even say there is a dispute"? What should my reaction to this be? How would ID's ideal world with no AE complaints and no acrimony between users deal with such a situation? Seriously, I cant even put a tag on an article? A tag that wasnt even removed by the author of the article while we are discussing it? nableezy - 21:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm not saying it's not frustrating. But running to the cops every time there's even the teeniest dispute does not help. Obviously, that's a message for you and the people who are bringing you and maybe others to AE. And I'm not saying there can't be acrimony. There can, although ideally it's kept to a minimum. For example, when G-Dett was on her game, she could devastate an adversary without stepping over the CIV line (though she did of course step well over it from time to time as well). I'm not saying there have to be exchanges of wikihugs on every article. There can be passion and even raised voices. But it has to be about the best facts (or groups of competing facts) winning out. Not "Ooh, you aren't allowed to edit on Tuesdays, caught you! Banhammer!" I'm not trying to suggest this is an easy process, but everyone -- everyone -- is going to lose if you guys kept trying to resolve content disputes with creaky, inefficient, maddeningly arbitrary wiki legal procedures. IronDuke 22:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well said!     ←   ZScarpia   11:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

All right, fine, lets say I accept everything you wrote. What should I do in this specific situation? nableezy - 22:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You alone? Nothing. It's no good you putting down your weapons if others won't, you'll run the risk of being driven off. But maybe if you agreed to stop going to AE, and convinced those who respect you to stop as well, I could convince some who may (or may not, who knows?) respect me to stop as well. IronDuke 22:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Forget AE. With the tags on that specific article, what should I do? nableezy - 22:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

First off, and no disrespect meant, I don't give a foetid pair of dingo's kidneys whether that article is tagged or not. You guys can beat on each other all you want on the talk page of that article. But FFS, it's up for deletion already, isn't it? Can't you just let that play out? And what if you lost this one? What of the tag just couldn't stick? Well, TFB, right? We all win some, we all lose some. It still sticks in my craw that the excresence of an article re Israel and the Apartheid analogy exists. Unfortunately, a very skilled, sophisticated user gamed that into existence, and now it can never be deleted. I lose. Oh well. IronDuke 22:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Id like to discuss that article with you, but another time (actually, I think we did this once upon a time). I dont see how the AfD affects the OR tag, that entire article is OR. If I were to attempt to correct the OR issues they would be reverted. If I attempt to alert readers to the OR issues that is reverted. Assuming that I do care about that article, what should I do? A certain editor comes, and without giving any substantive response to the issues I raised reverts the tag twice in 5 minutes. What exactly should I do at that point? You are giving me a lot of abstract advice, but Id like to focus on this specific issue. Lets say I dont go to AE, what should I do at that point? nableezy - 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the article is deleted, there's no need to tag it, right? I took a quick look at the talk page, and you are currently !outvoted. So what do you do? Talk more. Start an RfC. Are these awesome, wonderful options? No. Because Wikipedia is an incredibly frustrating place. But putting a tag on an article is not a consolation prize for being unable to achieve consensus for having it the way you want it. I don't say that with a superior tone -- I have been in your shoes. IronDuke 00:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk more? I dont know if I can. Stupid shit pisses me off, not much I can do about that now. Too old to change. New subsection for another topic. nableezy - 02:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so if you don't want to talk, stop talking. Just leave it. Simple, no? IronDuke 00:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I-A

What about the Israel and the apartheid analogy article bothers you so much? I have my own problems with the article, but not with its existence. Why is it that you feel that such a topic should not exist as an article on Wikipedia? nableezy - 02:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The versions I have seen have been nakedly anti-Israel -- and so much OR you could build your own little partisan university around it. You want to slap an OR tag on it, you'd get appluase from me. And no serious encyclopedia would ever, ever have such a subject. IronDuke 00:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the article has been used to include every quote of somebody making that analogy or denying it. I dont think that is what the article should be, but there should certainly be coverage of that viewpoint. But the article on the actual analogy should be based on sources discussing the analogy, not ones using it. You do that you cut out half of the article. But sources that actually cover the analogy are out there, on both sides of the issue. The sources using the analogy should be used in the articles on the topics they say show that Israel practices apartheid. nableezy - 01:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Do I hear you volunteering to cut out half the article? Particularly the parts where it becomes a South African history lesson? (Full disclosure: haven't read the article in a long, long time. I may misremember.) 22:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)IronDuke

Do I hear you agreeing that if the article were based on sources actually covering the analogy as a topic that it should remain as an article? But no, I aint walking into that clusterfuck. I could make some comments on the talk page about what I think about how the article should be written, but I aint trying to edit war with both "sides" here. nableezy - 22:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't, actually. Israel and the Nazi analogy could have many, many sources. But I'm not interested in seeing something like that in an encyclopedia; no reasonable person would, even if it were merely to debunk the notion. IronDuke 04:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

But could it have many quality sources actually discussing such an analogy, not just ones, quality or otherwise, making it? I think that is the difference here, this article could be written entirely from sources discussing the use of this analogy and not including a single source that just makes it. nableezy - 16:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I generally stay away from that article, but if you make that edit, I will support you. IronDuke 02:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

2things

1. Do you have Ziondar or something to sniff out articles and make sure they fit the "correct" view?

2. Per 6D, is it not acceptable as is, if qualification is added (not that people cant click the link and see what it is, but thats a separate issue)? --Metallurgist (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

1. What? Do you really expect an answer to a question like that?
2. No, 6D is specifically about the use in the articles Judea and Samaria. nableezy - 13:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Prior accounts

Excuse me? OmarKhayyam (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a simple question, not much for you to be confused about. But let's try this. Have you used the accounts Ledenierhomme (talk · contribs), AzadZardost (talk · contribs), and InternetIsSeriousBusiness (talk · contribs)? nableezy - 16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And how incredibly interesting is it that you randomly show up at an obscure article shortly after I edit it. Its like you havent realized a simple point, if you dont want me to report you for socking stop annoying me. Lets see how long until you piss me off to the point that I feel obliged to start a new report at SPI. nableezy - 16:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sweetheart, I edited that article AFTER you commented on my Talk page. Looking over your history, let me give you some advice: you're losing it. Time to devote your life to something that doesn't drive you completely crazy methinks. Kisses. OmarKhayyam (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I know you edited the article after I commented on your talk page. My point however was that it was interesting that the first thing you do after that is going through my contributions to edit an article that I had just edited. I found that very interesting. Would you care to answer my question? Have you used the accounts Ledenierhomme (talk · contribs), AzadZardost (talk · contribs), and InternetIsSeriousBusiness (talk · contribs)? Or do I need to spend the time filing an SPI to get an answer? nableezy - 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, you have many fans who are scrutinizing each dotted i and crossed t you make and simply many, many people are watching your user contributions. Look at Sol, for such a new editor, it's incredible for him to be at so many new places, but he is not being accused of being a sock every Monday and Thursday. --Shuki (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, look at Sol, and look at what a friend of yours, one who has complained of my asking this question of others, wrote to him on his talk page. Shuki, do you know how many times I have asked this question of other editors? Would you care to hazard a guess as to how many times I was wrong? nableezy - 22:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Super Computer in my Lair of Evil told me my name had been mentioned. There's a quote from noted street poet, ghetto philosopher and sometimes dog show commentator Ice-T that I think speaks to this situation: "This goes out to all you haters out there/Actin like a brother done did somethin wrong/Cause he got his game tight/Dont hate the player, hate the game." Truly, these are pearls of wisdom. Sol (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll hazard a guess: many. No I have not used the accounts Ledenierhomme (talk · contribs) or AzadZardost (talk · contribs). I guess you just must bring out the obsessive compulsiveness in people. You can take some comfort in the fact that at least somewhere, someone - even if it is on the internet - is thinking about you. It's all you baby. Love you! OmarKhayyam (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

All right, SPI it is. Guess we will see if I am wrong. Ill be sure to notify you when the investigation page is created. Bye. nableezy - 22:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And with this edit you have now pissed me off enough for me to write up the SPI. Ill get to that now. nableezy - 00:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And whaddya know. nableezy - 00:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Information

I permit myself to bring your attention about the edits of user:Marokwitz (16 november) who is removing the name 1948 Palestine war from all the articles of wikipedia. What can be done ? Noisetier (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

At some time there are up to 6 modifications per minute. He used a bot to perform this. Is this permitted on wikipedia ? Noisetier (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder why you are slandering me across many user pages without contacting me first. I am not removing the name. This war consisted of two stages, the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine which lasted until May 14 1948, and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War after May 15, 1948. I'm just using the name of more specific campaign where applicable, instead of the broader name, in accordance to the sources. This is a simple matter of providing specific and accurate information. And if you have any problems with my edits, why not contact me? Marokwitz (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The revert of 500 internal links to the article 1948 Palestine war that you made last night is a pov-pushing. The way you justify you and the way you proceeded are not appropriate. I would add that in Hamas and the Taliban analogy, you collaborated a lot to the development of an Orignal Research. By essence, this is an exemple of pov-pushing.

You focus too much on the "letter of the right" to cover you. Wikipedia is also based on the 4th pillar (be civil) and such rules as WP:AGF that you just referred to. The is the "letter of the rule" and the "spirit of the rule".

In importing on wikipedia the israeli-palestinian conflict, you harm the image of Israel and the one of your community. I would advice you to read and think about Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent. That would help you to improve the quality of your collaboration at the project in using simultaneously all our 5 pillars but more above all, that would increase your empathy for all sides of the I-P conflict.

Is there no article that you could *study* and *develop* on focusing both on reliable sources the content of which you don't like and on reliable sources you have sympathy for ?

Think about this. Noisetier (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(see Marokwitz talk page for the follow up)

User page

You were asked not to have other editor's comments on your user page without context in a way to shame them at ANI. If you do not remove the two lines I will take it to AE.Cptnono (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have simply unarchived the last discussion at ANI. Cptnono (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And it looks like it is acceptable. I would have appreciated it if you would have used the full context but you again prove that you are by far the most disruptive editor in the topic area. My only hope is that I can reach that level of disruption without a lengthy topic ban as well. Have fun.Cptnono (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Really, I am the "most disruptive editor in the topic area"? It isnt the editor who says he is "anti" an entire group of people, and then piles on to say that Islam has "historically been problematic"? Have I ever made any comments about your ethnicity or faith? Dont bother answering, just, in the words you recently used, fuck off. nableezy - 00:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Note

Hi Nableezy. I see that Jaakobou has seen fit to restore a talk page comment which you had previously removed; at the same time, and without any apparent sense of irony, he accuses you of "disruptive behaviour". Meanwhile, as you may have seen, he has repeatedly (and falsely) accused me, both on Talk:Gideon Levy and on my own talk page, of making personal attacks, making several offensive remarks of his own in the process. Do you think that his behaviour has so far overstepped the line of what is acceptable that a formal complaint is warranted? And if so, where would be the appropriate forum.

With (genuine) respect.--RolandR (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Roland. I think he has indeed stepped over the line, but honestly I think this charade is too funny to report. I have yet to see you make a single personal attack on that page, yet he repeatedly insults you and says you have attacked him? But thats just me, I find humor in stupid shit. If you have a problem with repeatedly being called a dick and a disruption, hard to imagine you wouldnt, Id say the best place to go would be AE. Combine Jaak's repeated insertion of phrasing in a BLP for which there was both no source and consensus on the talk page for not including with his repeated failure to abide by the conduct policies of this website and there should be a lengthy topic ban for this user. nableezy - 15:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Shikabala

Well, the article also has to be written in such a way that it makes the actual notability apparent; the version I saw was horribly written, so I couldn't suss out the intended claim of notability at all. However, looking at the page again I see that there was an older version of the article which was valid, and then got overwritten with a piece of crap in the past couple of days — so I've restored the older version, but left the recent edits in the trash can. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Just so you know, here's the actual text of what the article looked like when I first deleted it:

old article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
shikabala MAHMOUD ABD AL RAZEK SHIKABALA HE IS EGYPTIAN PLAYER AND HE WAS BORN IN 5/3/2010 IN AL HSAYA VILLE./ASWAN/EGYPT HE STARTED PLAYING IN ZAMALEK SPORTING CLUB WHEN HE WAS 14 YEARS AND HE PLAYED 2 YEARS IN ZAMALEK WITH THE FIRST TEAM AND HE WENT TO BAWK SLONEKY CLUB IN GREECE AND HE WAS THE DEER OF BAWK SLONEKY'S FANS AND THE GREEK NEWS PAPERS DECRIPED HIM HE IS "THE GREEK REVALDO" BECAUSE HE HAS Special SKILS AND FREESTYLE IN HIS LEFT FOOT HE WAS IN THE WAY OF Dutch Premier League IN B S V IENDHOVEN BUT HE FIND The problem of recruitment IN EGYPT،after that he went again to the white castel "zamalek" in 2006 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ cm:180 weight:73 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ shikabala with the egyptian team he started with the egyptian team in 2005 since now ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Achievements with eg. team African cup 2010 __________________________ with Military team World cup 2007 _______________________ WITH ZAMALEK SC. egptian legue 2003/2004 EGYPYIAN CUP 2002/2008 AFRICAN SUPER CUP 2002 EGYPTIAN SUPER CUP 2002 Saudi-Egyptian Super Cup 2003 ________________________

Blech, huh? Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Al-Azhar Mosque

Hi Nableezy,

I've finally submitted for FAC an article I've been working on for 5 months. Now that I have that monkey off my back, I'm able to devote much more time to the Al-Azhar Mosque article. I've started doing a close copyedit of the text, and added some useful links, and I'll continue to do that for the next few days. Of course, if there's anything you object to, please feel free to revert it. Is there anything else on which you'd like me to focus? Do some research, look for some sources, summarize or paraphrase a source you already have? I'd like to take your lead on this, because I don't want to overwhelm your efforts, and you obviously know the material much better, but I'm eager to help in any way you'd like. Let's get this thing done! Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

All right, Ill dedicate myself to working on this. A break from another area is probably called for. I got the material I need to expand the architecture section so Ill work on that for now. Ill try to get the outstanding questions on the talk page answered. Thanks. nableezy - 19:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

But if you have any thoughts on how to organize the architecture section Im all ears. nableezy - 19:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been working my way down from top to bottom (it's easier for me to assimilate the material that way), so I haven't gotten to that section yet. In general, I would suggest working chronologically, but I'll look at the section, mull it over, and give you my thoughts. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Having read through the architecture section (though not copyedited it yet), I think the existing organization was fine, except for the "Current status" part, which I moved to the bottom. I think a chronological description of the evolution of the structure will be easiest for the reader to understand. By the way, I like your recent additions in the other areas, they're really helping clarify/complete the material there. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Im working through Creswell, he starts with a history and then goes into detail on the architecture. So Ill probably be stepping on your toes with edits to the history section, though I should be done with that in the next few days. Then Ill focus on the architecture section. There are still some outstanding questions on the talk page, Ill try to get to those after I work Creswell into the text. nableezy - 07:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, and based on the discussion in this AE thread, you are hereby admonished for personal attacks and ad hominem comments and are prohibited from commenting on or interacting with Jaakobou (talk · contribs), Gilabrand (talk · contribs) and Cptnono (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia. Please see WP:IBAN for the complete scope of the interaction ban. If you believe that any of those editors named above has violated their ban from interacting with you, you may not react to that alleged violation except by the procedure specified in the AE thread above. T. Canens (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry Nableezy, I was attempting to revert the changes made without discussion. Surely you it is wrong to move a page without discussion? Or am I wrong?--Seric2 (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Your right and I'm still sorry. I have no idea what I was thinking, thank you for pointing it out to me Seric2 (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ledenierhomme ?

[4] + [5] Sean.hoyland - talk 19:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cant say I care yet. nableezy - 00:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Starting to care, lets see if that itch goes away. nableezy - 19:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Now I am really interested, Ill see what I can find. nableezy - 00:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

ovah. nableezy - 19:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI

[6] Gatoclass (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I actually dont think I am allowed to comment on that. What I would like to request though is that it be clarified if third parties can post enforcement of these bans, or if it is restricted to the involved parties. Can two people mutually agree to ignore an interaction ban? Id favor that approach over an appeal. nableezy - 06:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

But to provide my thoughts on an "interaction ban" in general, I suppose it could be useful in certain cases, such as a users repeatedly hounding each other to make disputes, but that isnt what happened here. I said things I probably shouldnt have, so have others. But instead of making up these "interaction bans" in the hopes of making us behave better, you all could just use the already existing tools to make us behave better, ie blocks. If you want to create a more civil topic area, block people for incivility. Even if being uncivil is not a blockable offense, ARBPIA says you can make pretty much anything a blockable offense. So if you want us to behave with greater collegiality, feigned or otherwise, enforce a civility patrol or whatever you people call these things. If I were an "uninvolved admin" and I were looking at this and had the same intentions that the uninvolved admins here have I would do the following. Say that except for actually filing an enforcement request, the named editors are prohibited from commenting about the other editors. That isnt to say that they cannot interact with one another, they just cannot discuss each other. Discussions have to be about content and resolving disputes about the content. Legitimate disputes about content could still be raised in talk pages, and edits to articles can be made without looking to see who initially placed the material in the article. You dont solve anything by stopping us from talking to each other, you do the opposite. I am unable to respond to a comment made by an editor in a discussion about content that I am involved in. I have to instead pretend to be responding to some other person who either agrees or disagrees with the point, or in some cases isnt even discussing it. That strikes me as an absurd "solution" to any problem. nableezy - 07:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop you from commenting on an appeal that concerns you. I can't see anyone sanctioning you for that. Gatoclass (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont know, I asked Tim if I should file a separate appeal or just add to that one the response was that I should file a separate one. nableezy - 14:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it's up to you, I've said my piece on the Cptnono appeal now anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing stops you from commenting there. If you want to appeal your part of the ban rather than just commenting on that appeal, then you should file a separate appeal. T. Canens (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Tim, you are a smart person. This doesnt seem to you to be an incredibly silly way to accomplish the supposed goal of these interaction bans? What do you think will be solved by saying we cannot interact with each other? A topic area with greater civility, and thus more hospitable to new users? Better content dispute resolution? What if both he who cannot be named and I agreed to interact with each other in a courteous, respectful manner. And if we didnt we would be blocked for escalating lengths of time. Do you not think that would satisfy the goals of this interaction ban, as well as allowing for legitimate content discussions to be carried out? But one last thing. I was given an interaction ban with a user who called me a "disgrace to Wikipedia". Besides that person not liking me, why was I given any type of ban for that? What have I done to deserve such a ban? Why wasnt that user just blocked for a personal attack, an attack that was neither provoked nor returned. nableezy - 16:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and on your talk page you answered an either/or question with "yes". nableezy - 16:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly okay to answer "am I ... or does it ...?" with "you are", if that is what you are referring to. T. Canens (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

One sided interaction bans often turn out to be disastrous, and in this particular case I don't want to take chances. It is hard for us to police every single discussion you and Cptnono may have, and as to civility (courtesy, whatever) paroles, I'll just quote Coren - "We have a long history of civility paroles to have been able to determine without a doubt that they just do not work." (See here). You may notice that I proposed replacing this set of bans with a different sanction in my most recent comment at Cptnono's appeal. T. Canens (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

ok. I think that restriction would be fine. But also consider adding a restriction on some of the parties involved from commenting on AE threads that do not concern them. nableezy - 01:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)