User talk:Nableezy/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

A kitten for you!

your welcome

Bobherry talk -- Hi!! 21:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: CBS data

I don't think all their archive data is available on the Internet, but the important part (census data) is. What are you looking for in particular? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You can find the statistical yearbooks here (you will want to look at table 2.14 and later 2.15): 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Nab, A belated thank you for your support and all your contributions here. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Note re Israelis

Just to let you know: I started this note earlier today at WP:AN/3RR , re Israelis: [1]. -DePiep (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC) linkfix -DePiep (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

eurabia

i removed my comment like you requested.-- altetendekrabbe  20:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. nableezy - 20:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Nazareth

Please be aware that your recent edits at Nazareth do not reflect well on your sensitivity to the rules for the I/P area. There was recently an exchange of reverts at Irgun where a bunch of people (who often appear at AE) managed to edit once each so as not to break 1RR. While you often edit sensibly, it seems to me you may have lost your sense of balance, and you'll continue until admins finally have to do something. Recent discussions at noticeboards must have put you on notice that many people are questioning your edits. I have put full protection on the article for three days, hoping to forestall yet another time-consuming debate at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed, Im sorry that I reverted an additional time, but what has been happening at that article is bullshit. Hearfourmewesique, after making an obscene and absurd attack against me here in which he maliciously and falsely claims I supported using a source by someone advocating the destruction of all Jews, hounded me to two articles he had never edited to make mindless reverts, in one claiming that a statement cited to two reliable sources had no reliable source supporting it. A collection of editors has been attempting to force out of an article long standing reliably sourced text without anything resembling a consensus to do so. The sentence I restored has been literally unchanged for over a year. Yet users feel entitled to demand that their change remain while the issue is being discussed. Perhaps I should just ignore it, but I struggle to stand by as people twist the policies into supporting their goal of expunging any mention of the word Palestinian. nableezy - 19:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Nazareth article was quiet for a long time, and then a fuss was kicked up by someone's edit on December 10. While you might be considering that as a provocation, the editor concerned does not seem to be wild and crazy, nor is he a well-known partisan. Patience could be a virtue, even if it takes longer to get to a conclusion. You edited while an RfC was running so as to revert the very term being discussed in the RfC. I'm requesting that you take a voluntary one-month break from adding the word 'Palestinian' to any articles. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I dont think this is justified. Yes, the dust up began as you said, but I dont see how that means that while the RFC is ongoing the change being discussed should remain in the article. I restored long-standing text, and added additional reliable sources supporting it. I dont think the initial change by Kaufner was a provocation, just a bold edit that was reverted. It became a problem when it was re-reverted by an account whose first and only edit was to make a revert without any comment (how unsurprising that we see such an event), and then when that was reverted when another editor hounded my contributions from one article to the next to again mindlessly revert. I have made a total of 2 reverts, one against an obvious sockpuppet (I will give odds that it is Ledenierhomme) who made no comment about the issue and the other against a user editing purely out of spite and dishonestly claiming that the line required sources when there were already sources. I complied without the disingenuous request by adding two additional sources. And now I should be restricted from adding the word Palestinian because I reverted two disruptive edits? I did not simply revert, I restored the text that had been in the article for months (random diff from ~6 months ago with exactly this sentence in the lead). I dont see why the other users who reverted should be treated as though they were entitled to force their favored phrasing in to the article and I should be restricted for restoring the article to what had been its stable state. Why are the people who made this, this or this revert while the RFC entitled to do so? I am perfectly willing to accept the results of the RFC, but there is a game being played here by several users in which they attempt to establish a status quo and turn the burden for achieving consensus from them to the people who support the long-standing text. How is that acceptable? nableezy - 20:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You missed your chance to put yourself on safe ground, and now you may be considered to be a revert-warrior like all the others. There is no 'right to revert to a long-standing version', especially during an RfC on that exact matter. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Im not claiming such a right, I am asking why the users who likewise were reverting during the RFC are entitled to do so. If you insist I will abide by your proposed restriction, though I feel it completely unjustified. nableezy - 20:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. You and an IP editor are the only people who restored or removed 'Palestinian' from the lead during the RfC, except for AgadaUrbanit who undid the IP's change on grounds of the RfC. I am not planning to warn the IP but I would be willing to semiprotect the article if he tries to do it again before the RfC is concluded. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That isnt accurate, Hearfourmewesique (talk · contribs) likewise removed the term during the RFC in this edit. The obvious sockpuppet Odiwkatc (talk · contribs) likewise removed the term while the RFC was ongoing in this edit. nableezy - 20:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A valid point. I guess it is hard to sanction them because they were restoring the version that existed at the point that the RfC was opened. If they keep on reverting after the RfC reaches a verdict, blocks will become possible. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

But that wasnt the version that had been in the article at the time of the RFC. A discussion was opened at Talk:Nazareth over this issue at 07:19, 11 December 2011‎ after the initial edit at 11:27, 10 December 2011. That initial edit was reverted a few hours later. Kaufner re-reverted at 18:00, 11 December 2011‎ and that was reverted by Tiamut at 18:41. The discussion continued at the talk page, with nobody modifying the text. On 09:25, 12 December 2011 Kaufner converted the initial discussion into an RFC (here). The article still had the term Palestinian. Nobody edited that material until the revert by Odiwkatc (talk · contribs). I reverted that, and was in turn reverted by Hearfourmewesique. The version that had been in the article when the RFC started, before it started, and for a day after it started was the version that I reverted to. Not the other way around. nableezy - 21:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I always agree with your reading on these details, but I think Ed was also to be read for another message, which was tonal. Sorry for butting Nab, and risking your ire, since you can handle this on your own, and an old geezer's bluster is something I never put up with at your age. If I can translate Ed's tone as I hear it, it's just a nudge to remind yourself that, (a) rotten edits like the one you reverted shouldn't draw you into a trigger reaction however high the esteem for your sheriffing is held by some of us. Crap will be weeded out. I used to suffer from impatience, and stopped when I noticed that, hanging back an hour or even overnight, had me switching on the dudetube that is this computer, to see someone had in the meantime fixed the problem, or remonstrated efficiently on the talk page. (b) Some of us are inclined to police ourselves even at the borderline, so that if a slip, or hasty step is taken, one steps back (reculer pour mieux sauter) for a week. The others mightn't do this, but to survive here one just has to think of setting higher standards of self-restraint than one expects of others. But do your own weird pal. It was a shocker, for anyone inside the state of the art research on this issue, but Rome wasn't built in a day, or even in the 7 daze the world was created in. No need to reply to this, though, raghead. Just print out a copy and wipe your arse on it if it is a nuisance.Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, your point is noted. It looks like 09:25 on 12 December is when the RfC was opened. I do not have any clear intuition of what to do, since at least some of those reverting may not have been aware of the RfC. You clearly were aware of the RfC and the fact that a revert war was in progress. Expectations for your behavior are higher since you are also a previously banned editor. (Some of the people you warred with may be on their way to their own bans). My temptation would be to leave things as they are until the RfC finishes, and then watch the article like a hawk for any further misbehavior. I am thinking of handing out ARBPIA warnings to everyone who joined in the war after 09:25 on the 12th who is not already warned. Do you have any other suggestions? EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

All right Ed, I suppose that is fair enough. I will ensure I mind my p's and q's so to speak. But you have to understand the frustration when dealing with things like this. An obvious sock makes a revert without so much as saying boo. Another user tendentiously hounds my edits to two separate articles, making mindless reverts at both, and here falsely claiming that there were no reliable sources for the material. As you said, there are a decent number of people questioning my edits, and many of them do it for sport. I acknowledge that my past leads to a heightened requirements for behavior, and I will attempt to ensure that I abide by those requirements. Suggestions? I got plenty, starting with asking a CU to compare this with this. nableezy - 22:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to second the request for CU. I'm sorry you have to put up with all this crap Nableezy. Tiamut^talk 23:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed, on a more general note, part of the problem is how content is decided here, and that is an unsolvable problem. If the RFC ends with a consensus, one way or the other, then this issue is moot. The problem is what happens if it, like so many discussions in this topic area, ends in no consensus. That results in the status quo being maintained, and that is what I was referencing in my above comment there is a game being played here by several users in which they attempt to establish a status quo and turn the burden for achieving consensus from them to the people who support the long-standing text. A collection of users is attempting to forcefully change the status quo through edit-warring, not through discussion. I am fine with having the discussion play out and whatever it decides goes, end of story. What I am not fine with is users attempting to tilt the balance in their favor by force of numbers and through such dishonest tactics as socking. That is why I reverted. Had Arab-Israeli been the original text then the users could rightfully claim that absent a consensus to change it should remain, but it wasnt. The problem with no consensus=status quo will continue to mean that users try to edit-war to change the status quo. That is the root problem with every revert after Kaufner's initial bold edit was reverted. nableezy - 22:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Just as an added thought. Look, this is an encyclopedia, and most of us are happy to work by the same severe criteria that govern academic judgement in writing for the Britannica,etc. That, translated into practical terms, would mean, as some of us already apply, placing an austere reading of RS for flamed areas like the I/P zone. If we raise the bar, this constant recourse to poor web sources would be snipped in the bud. This really should be pressed for, as a solution. The amount of quality press coverage of I/P history, politics etc., is so huge it's hard to keep up with it, and editors who wish to edit here should have the bar raised, and accept that they will not be taken seriously unless they bring to this place quality sources. I even think that a restriction like placing a ban on anyone editing here who hasn't done 500 edits to other articles before entering the fray would help enormously. These are practical measures, and harm no one except the sock-I/P kibitzers who silently follow pages until the opportunity presents itself to back his or her team with an edit the others refrain from doing. All admins admit the place is close to unworkable at time, and specific measures requiring all to cleave to stricter standards of sourcing would cut most of the crap we have to handle.Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@Nishidani: This is a proposal worth considering. The administration of your idea might not be so easy. The general WP:1RR on all I/P articles is simple to enforce by comparison. One thought is to not allow anyone who is not approved for WP:AWB to edit the most inflamed articles in the I/P area. (AWB requires 500 edits to article space). But that idea would probably set off various alarms. The community is not likely to accept a reform unless (a) the situation is verified to be terrible, (b) the imposed solution seems fair. I'm still thinking about how to compile a list of the most controversial I/P articles in a manner that people would consider fair. EdJohnston (talk)

18:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks indeed Ed. The I/P area, to gather from disparate comments I've seen over the years, is considered to be one of those black holes or no man's land where only fools or angels venture. Admins have frequently thrown up their hands in despair. If my impression is correct, then some brain-storming is perhaps worth trying to encourage. I have numerous ideas, but I think, given your consideration, the best way to handle this would be to convene interested editors on a page to get them to discuss, vet and underwrite a set of restrictions they would like to see imposed on these pages, and by implication on themselves and everyone, so that the clutter of endless arbitration is thinned (a good result for time-stressed admins) and the numerous niggling tricks that encourage edit-warring, tagteaming, and cunctorial attitudes stymied.

Raising the quality of sources is I think important, but probably has few takers. One of the most annoying things is the way I/P blowins jump in to tilt the edit process in favour of one of the two sides in dispute. It is very commonplace, and no one should tolerate it, from either 'side'. Any number of creative ways of truncating these interruptions, coordinated offline or not, exist. IRR is as much an open invitation for IP accounts to be created or phoned up, I guess, to make such and such a revert and then disappear, as it is a cautionary restriction on registered, practiced users. I just want to get these IP onetimers, or occasional hands, or socks, out of the way. If a casual IP in a difficult area wants to edit, (s)he should suggest it on the talk page. I don't see why asking, for a trial period of a month or so, that I/P articles be placed on a restricted editor basis, would be hard to apply or police. It does go against the recruitment policy of wikipedia, which anyone, we happily boast, can edit. But there are over 3 million articles one can edit to chalk up a record that gives people a chance to measure commitment. 99% of the work is being done by registered wiki hands, but at a rough guess 30 or 40% of the disruption seem to include an I/P at work. Any formal limit 100, 500 would be set. Newbies and I/Ps with no consistent contributions to articles would be asked to make proposals on article talk pages until they have estblished a reputation for commitment. All newby or I/P edits on controversial issues should be obligatorily reverted, without it counting as a revert, by all experienced editors, irrespective of its merits, or which POV it might support, with the editor asked to repropose it on the talk page.

Rather than extemporize, and talk here too much, perhaps we should cast around broadly and ask people who end up in A/I and A/E disputes with some frequently to share their thoughts, not on each other, but on some creative measures or restrictions or rules they would all like to see put into place for a trial experiment of limited duration. Regards Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you come up with the names of a dozen I/P articles that you believe are specially troublesome, that could benefit from an extra level of restriction, beyond the 1RR? I could imagine people supporting a trial for a limited time (say two months) on a small set of articles, if a new restriction could be proposed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

One small way to raise the bar on source quality, which would be fairly algorithmic and make a significant difference, would be to restrict the use of newspaper articles for historical events. As a first attempt, I'd like to ban newspapers as sources for events more than 10 years before publication unless the author is a recognized expert or is citing a recognizing expert. This corresponds roughly with the actual reliability and would remove a lot of rubbish. It would also reduce the growing serious problem that many journalists actually get their information from Wikipedia without saying so. Zero^talk 02:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh strewth, sorry Ed. I missed your reply. The Nabster's hangout has so many people dropping in (usually asking for the premises to be closed!) that, evidently, when I looked every morning on my watchlist and spotted a change to the page, I went to the most recent section, instead as, as I am told many do, checking the ovrnight history.

I support Zero's proposal. The first request leaves me looking stupid. I actually don't know offhand what are the baker's dozen of I/P articles which could come on the top of a troublesome list. Secondly, I think we need objective criteria, like looking at the I/P pages which have a significant record of reverting ot vagrant marauding POV edits by I/Ps, or SPIs or newbies. I must confess I only have about 50 pages I personally have edited bookmarked in this area, and most of them are stale, rarely edited, and don't come up too frequently. Is there some page (perhaps the two on Israel and Palestine projects) where we could drop a note for people to give examples of pages they have found difficult to edit for the above reasons? I'd like offhand to see a combination of tough source and newby/IP editor-restrictions at Second Intifada, Jerusalem, Golan Heights, Nazareth, Palestinian people, Israeli settlements for example.

A further suggestion. I personally get flustered by pages where an intensity of focus arises on, usually in the lead, just one or two lines. If restrictions were imposed, we might ask of editors who work a page to actually read it through, and try to help to bring the whole article up to snuff, rather than getting fixated on the obvious POV tussle. If you edit one section like the lead, try to improve things elsewhere by (a) getting the citational format to cohere in one template (b) replacing poor quality sources which abound with academic sources (not hard in my experience (c) copyedit generally (d) expand weak sections. I know I ask too much, but I often read that to get anywhere in negotiations you ask for everything, in order to get at least one or two things you want:) Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Nab, you're more familiar with the whole bombarded frontline, so if you can spare time, could you crawl back out of those salients, crawl back to the trench's HQ and tell the general staff or commanders in chief where the action is most desperate, and urgent discipline among the troopers required? :) Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

H-ing

If you're doing what I think you're doing, know that I haven't been arriving at articles you edited recently because you edited them. There's another reason I'm arriving at them – in all likelihood the same reason you and oftentimes another user have been arriving there. In case it wasn't clear.—Biosketch (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Right. What I am doing is my obligation of cleaning up after you. You placed a category that has, as its sole member, an article on a place in East Jerusalem as being within Israel. That is an edit that I cannot brook. I admit I was of a mind to ignore the edit, but when I see you editing an article that I had commented on years ago and that remains in my watchlist to partially revert an edit I had just made my interest was piqued. That you casually slide in an accusation in your last sentence is charming. I thought you and I had reached a point that we would either try to work together as amicably as possible or, barring that, stay out of each others way. Sadly I was mistaken. If you would like to get to that point I would very much like to do so. nableezy - 15:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No, let's get the facts straight. The Category is "Parks in Jerusalem," not "Parks in East Jerusalem." Adding "Parks in Jerusalem" to the Cat "Parks in Israel" doesn't mean that whichever parks are in "Parks in Jerusalem" are in Israel necessarily. Hence "per WP:CAT" in my edit summary: the purpose of Cats is make it easier for readers of this encyclopedia to arrive at the information they're looking for. Any Israel travel guide will include Jerusalem among the cities it covers as part of its coverage of Israel, because people visiting Israel or wanting to read about sites in Israel will naturally benefit from reading what parks are in Jerusalem, which Israel controls. Following the same rationale, a reader of this encyclopedia who wants to read about parks in Israel should also have as one of his options that of being directed to parks in Jerusalem. I don't have a problem that you added "Parks in Jerusalem" to "Parks in the West Bank," although it is odd that you're criticizing me for adding "Parks in Jerusalem" to "Parks in Israel" when "Parks in Jerusalem" has only one park at the same time that you did exactly the same thing with "Parks in the West Bank."

I don't know if we've reached the point where we can work together amicably. I regret to say your interactions with other editors lately have served to make me only more pessimistic in that regard. Our interactions aren't something I dwell over. It would be nice to establish a professional rapport with you, but if it's not possible then at least I can say for my part that I made the effort.—Biosketch (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, lets get the facts straight. The one article in Cat:Parks in Jerusalem is a proposed park in East Jerusalem. Your edit had the effect of making that single article on a place not in Israel be within the category Parks in Israel. We arent writing a travel guide, and I still giggle every time somebody tries to justify their edit with the asinine explanation of look at what Lonely Planet or Fodor's does. I am not criticizing you for adding the parent cat because there is only one article, please dont twist my words. My criticism was due to that one article covering a place that is not in Israel.

As far as my interaction with other editors, well, I cant say that I actually care how you feel about that. I would think however that those interactions show that if an editor is willing to use the best sources and honestly represent their contents that we can get along swimmingly. And that if an editor makes ludicrous attacks while attempting to push in tired propaganda and outright fabrications as though they were fact then we will not get along at all. You havent reached the point of fabricating sources or knowingly inserting false statements in articles, so I still hold out hope that our interaction can be of the former type. nableezy - 16:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't that editor to whom you're referring that I had in mind but rather your interactions with other editors purely on a rhetorical level when there isn't even an issue of content involved. There seems to be an awful lot of bitterness generated any time you engage with an editor you disagree with, regardless of what it is you're disagreeing with them about. I think you acknowledged in some context recently that your personality is at least partly to blame (if I'm mistaken, I'll withdraw the thought), so I'm not criticizing you for it but rather rejecting that I'm to blame for when there's bitterness between the two of us.

Now, about the Cat, I didn't give the Cat that name. I'm still not sure what the issue is. You may think travel guides shouldn't be a consideration when it comes to making content decisions here, but there are cases where travel guides in fact should be taken into account. One such article is Tourism in Israel. It's not that the details of the content should be determined by what's written in travel guides, but surely you'll agree that what Wikipedia considers a tourist attraction in Israel should at least be partly informed by what the convention is among widely circulated travel guides.—Biosketch (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Without knowing what you are talking about, I cant give a response. Yes, there are discussions that have a lot of bitterness, though that being due to my personality is something I dispute, at least partially. You once remarked to me I may have something of an aristocratic pride that instinctively holds me back from responding to you on so uncouth a level as appears to be second nature in your interactions. When I read that, I thought, that is true, I dont have an aristocratic pride and my actions are indeed second nature to me. I admittedly have a short fuse, and there are certain things that, despite my efforts, send me through the roof. But that nature comes out when there is a reason for it, and the editors who my interactions with are tinged with bitterness are ones that I have a history going back years with. Ones that routinely distort sources, ones that are always so gleeful as they shit on a dispossessed and oppressed people. Ones that actively seek out confrontation, even when they so clearly have no idea what they are getting in to. Since we last had any problems, the two of us, I have made an honest effort to be a, I dont know, I guess nicer, especially with newcomers (excepting the obvious socks). See for example my initial interactions with MichaelNetzer at Talk:Alon Shvut and WT:WESTBANK. But when an editor repeatedly demonstrates a contempt for the policies and guidelines of this website, when that editor repeatedly attempts to have me banned on spurious charges, when that editor repeatedly involves himself on issues that have nothing to do with him, my reactions change. I dont know how you or anyone else expects me to avoid that. You are of course welcome to raise any specific issue that you wish to and I will examine whether my actions were proper and what they should be if confronted with a similar experience in the future. But, unless you tell me what you are referencing, I dont know how else to respond.

Back to the cat, no, I dont think that an encyclopedia should be determining what is tourism in Israel based on what travel guides say is in Israel. They arent especially reliable in determining what is in Israel. I can find sources that say the Church of the Nativity is in Israel (eg [2] and [3]). That does not mean that an encyclopedia article should be saying that the church or Bethlehem is in Israel. What Wikipedia should consider a tourist attraction in Israel should be limited to what is in Israel. I wouldnt oppose using a travel guide to say that a place is a tourist attraction, I would however oppose using such a source to say that said attraction is in Israel, even if that travel guide makes the error of claiming occupied territory as being in Israel. Honestly, this is a bit like the unbelievably absurd discussion about Katzrin being the largest town int the Golan. Despite official data that showed that Katzrin is much smaller than Majdal Shams, users repeatedly argued that we should say that Katzrin is the largest town because unqualified sources said so. I had to go back through 20 years of census data to show that Katzrin is smaller, and has always been smaller, yet users felt no shame in making an argument that they knew to be spurious in an attempt to include factually incorrect material in an encyclopedia article. For whatever topic we are covering, we should use the best sources we can find. We should not simply find poor quality sources and attempt to use them because they back our own view or because they validate our personal political feelings. I have a high enough opinion of you that I would be shocked if you disagreed with me on that question. nableezy - 17:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what you said about travel guides and tourist attractions in Israel; rather, I was trying to make a different point but used the wrong words to illustrate it. When determining what content is relevant to the article Tourism in Israel, travel guides should be a part of the process. The article is called "Tourism in Israel," not "Tourist attractions in Israel." If mainstream travel guides all agree that the Temple Mount is relevant to tourism in Israel, then the article Tourism in Israel should feature the Temple Mount among its sites. I'm guessing you implicitly agree that this is the case in relation to the "See also" link to Israeli archaeology at Rujm el-Hiri or else you'd have said so at that article's Talk page earlier today. Agreeing that the link is relevant to the article doesn't imply that there's agreement that Rujm el-Hiri is in Israel.

It's unfortunate that things have gone the way they have with User:MichaelNetzer. I actually think that neither you nor he is to blame but rather a third editor, whom I'd rather not name because if he were to join this discussion I would probably abandon it.—Biosketch (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont mind the see also link. As far as the third editor, if it is who I think it is, I think he has done well beyond what is necessary in trying to reason with Michael and that he has had his words repeatedly twisted in what seems to be a purposeful attempt to distort his words into some sort of ban-worthy offense. There are few, perhaps 0, people here that I hold in higher regard than that editor, and what I have seen directed at him is a collection of sophistry, bad faith gamesmanship, and outright lies about what he has written. Ill leave it at that, as I dont wish to attract any unnecessary dueling here. nableezy - 17:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I embrace your choice of words but am of the opinion you're directing them at the wrong target.—Biosketch (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

On the Category, I will add this, if you allow me (Not on the courses of discussion). Simply, since East-Jerusalem is not in Israel, a cat "Parks in Jerusalem" can not be in a supercat "Parks in Israel". Because, as we agree, "... in Jerusalem" is not a subset of "... in Israel". (Actually, the map itself is an easy Venn diagram). This is WP:CAT, all the logic.

A correct way could be like: create "cat:parks in East-Jerusalem" and "cat:Parks in West-Jerusalem". The cat:West-Jerusalem can & should go into some higher "cat:Israel". But the park in West-Jerusalem cannot end up in an Israel supercat. Of course, the same for the mirrored proposition: a park in WestEast-Jerusalem cannot end up in a Israel category. -DePiep (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Improved mirrored example -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

SPI

That was... unexpected, so I guess I owe you as much as a thank you. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

AE

[4]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahlannnn

ya Nableezy. Just dropping by to see how you are. Thanks for working through all this thickness to improve the I-P topic area and, along with your fellow editors, clean it up as much as possible. I've been yellow-bellied about re-entering the subject because the drama that seems to be always attached largely prevents me from contributing very much to those articles and I hate being bogged down. But you seem to have a rather remarkable patience/sumud. So please keep it up ya akhi and drop by if you need anything. Salam. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahlan akhi. Your kind words are truly appreciated. But I dont wish this on you, or Tiamut, so dont feel yellow-bellied about focusing on things where you can actually get something done. Salam, nableezy - 17:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

My ears are burning ... had topop in to say hi. Nableezy, you are amazing for taking on this Sisyphean task. I wish I had more time and energy, but I just don't right now. I hope that when I do, you'll still be here. Happy winter solistice ya azdiqa'. Salamat. Tiamut^talk 18:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

كل سنة وانت طيب يا اختي nableezy - 18:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted to Egyptian. Just for you: كل عام وانت بخير nableezy - 18:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wa inta bi kheir ya akhi ... wal um ed-dunya bi kheir, inshallah. She's on my mind a lot these days. Tiamut^talk 18:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Poking my nose into your interactions with other users

You said once there is nothing "aristocratic" about you. This is. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah, not really. Its just that Nishidani is a bit of a pompous windbag and his drudgery is too much to bear at AE. nableezy - 17:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

People would be surprised at the number of aristocrats around (certainly in Italy) who have fallen into difficult straits, or live quietly, speak colloquially, and yet retain all the virtues of their origins - acute and ironic insight into the theatrical character of what the world takes seriously, a certain quietly sardonic attitude to the pretensions of those who try to rise above themselves or their 'class', a totally comfortable approach to the real hard-doers of life, etc. I recall a chap in his 70s who propped a bicycle outside of an art gallery where I and a friend were discussing with the owner a 17th century painting of unknown attribution. He entered, not shabbily dressed but just jeans and a shirt and a pair of runners, took off his bicycle clips, spoke Roman dialect, joined in the conversation, and made a convincing case for a Neapolitan provenance of the painting, even suggesting the 'bottega' and school from which it probably emerged. Off he went, with a hearty 'cheers, chaps'. My friend said to the owner: 'Who is he? Strange. So knowledgeable and yet down at heel, riding round Rome in a bike.' 'Oh,' the owner told us, 'Joe's a scion of the Savoia royal family.' Not the only case I've come across. A lot of craftsmen and 'peasants' have the same demeanour here: it is 'aristocratic', and to be admired, and means 'privileged by superior gifts but never making anyone in your purview feel uncomfortable for the fact nature has endowed you with a grace others must struggle to laboriously acquire', often with the effect however of merely displaying a gauche pretentiousness. Nothing apropos Nab necessarily, but very much apropos the word, which has this ignored, but positive meaning, in certain minds.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait, youre here? I, uhh, umm, take that other comment above back. nableezy - 17:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, are you sharing this account with other people? Sometimes I feel like there are two of you: one is among the best editors in IP area, the other is just not someone to cross. Anyway, Happy New Year to both of you. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, both for the compliment and the new years wishes. I, honestly, would like to be more of the former and less of the latter, but Ive been around here for a while and some of the things, and some of the people, have made me more bitter than I wish I were. But now is not the time for such thoughts, Happy New Year. nableezy - 22:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't take it badly if someone crosses me, A friend of my parents did that to me soon after my birth, without asking for my permission - but that must be why I'm used to it, though it must be a tough weird to wear for the Nabster, who has a penchant for ending up on the cross, despite being an infidel, just as I'm a kaffir. I wish he'd learn to hang out elsewhere, and not leave me stranded to deal with the cruxes! Cheers, pal, and a happy and productive New Year, on wiki and in life.Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You too Nish, nableezy - 22:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments on AE case

I would advise that you not respond in kind to a largely uncivil and off-topic comment Netzer has left on your AE case. There has been enough battleground-type behavior with these two AE cases concerning you and Jiujitsuguy. I have already cautioned Netzer against continuing to engage in such behavior.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

lol -asad (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but some lies need to be responded to. nableezy - 22:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

My interest is to prevent escalating the dispute on AE in a way that is not in the interests of any user. You are obviously not willing to heed that advice, though I suggest you reconsider.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of sanction

You are restricted to the following per an AE thread as noted at ARBPIA, 2012 enforcement log:

• Topic banned, broadly constructed, for all subjects surrounding and including the P/I conflict area for a duration of 6 months.
• The previous non-voluntarily agreement is now considered a sanction result of Arbitration Enforcement, extended until March 1st 2012. Clarified to: any form of the word Palestine.

-- DQ (t) (e) 08:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Comparing comments like this with this and results like the one above with ones like this shows just how retarded this place can be. Repeated lying about sources, that it is to be excused. Adding the word Palestinian, ban the bastard! Ah well, thems the breaks. nableezy - 14:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I read Roberto Calasso's K last week, and think a solidarity strike is in order when the mechanisms of Kafkian bureaucracy get the better of commonsense. While you're enjoying the leisure in being 'warped up', less metathesis than a delicious Freudian slip, you might consider reading Felipe Fernández-Armesto's masterly alternative history, Millenium. It's short, only 755 pages, but will impress you with what historical writing cleansed of systemic bias reads like, i.e., how articles in corrupted areas like the I/P zone would read were they not one of the preferred playgrounds for nationalists hellbent on consolidating in there the kind of 'discursive hegemony' we have in the mass media, the malady, as diagnosed by Antonio Gramsci, that afflicts it. Let the dyke break. Your middle finger has better uses :). Cheers Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Naw, these things dont work. If there is a solidarity strike, those compulsive liars who repeatedly lie about the sources and the record will just be able to get away with it. That isnt good for anybody, except of course those dishonest "editors". nableezy - 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's my call, so shuddup. Don't be harsh on what Wilhelm Reich called 'little men'. They're only dwarfish ambassadors who 'lie abroad' for the good of their country (Legatus est vir bonus peregre missus ad mentiendum rei publicae causa), which means, as a corollary, for the ill of its neighbour. Take Fyodor Tyutchev's Silentium to heart. I'm sure a translation can be googled.

Молчи, скрывайся и таи

И чувства и мечты свои. Best Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons would benefit from your presence. It seems to be a bit of a mess over there e.g. commons:Category:Ariel, Israel, the various categories and image descriptions that deal with Israel and the oPt. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not worth the effort. nableezy - 06:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that things worked out this way, but take advantage of your break to finish Al-Azhar Mosque and write about some other subjects that interest you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Its all good. I am going to take a break for a bit tho. nableezy - 06:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing in particular, you may be interested in this. By the way, does your ban include SPI? RolandR (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I dont know, probably, but it certainly couldnt ban my reporting anything by email. nableezy - 06:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you have felt forced to disable your email; I would have liked to write to you. RolandR (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Besides editors, there's clearly at least one admin who's pushing for you to be handed very long bans, failing an indefinite one. Maybe it would be useful to have a discussion about how to prevent that happening.     ←   ZScarpia   21:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)