User talk:Nableezy/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Guests at Talk:Golan Heights

Hi Nab, You're good at spotting socks. Do you think that the new User:Improvisealot123 is the same person who has been running the bad English socks but this time using normal English?--Peter cohen (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely the same, notice the construction of his posts, how he puts the sentences after each other in the same way, how he types with small letters at the beginning of new sentences/words:[1][2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont know, maybe but the English is much better. nableezy - 13:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Egyptian Arabic: طعمية ta'miyya

The reason was given here. Do you share deliciousness theory? What do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your reasoning is blatantly false as a source of the highest "reliability", a book published by Oxford University Press, says exactly what was in the text, and you have made a number of basic errors on that page. But knowing your ability to be both persistent and bullheaded, even when things are carefully explained to you, I dont intend to fix the errors. But Ill explain it once. The Arabic word filfil (pepper) is derived from the Sanskrit you wrote on the page. The word falafel is not derived from Sanskrit, at least not directly. You misread the dictionary page, it gave the etymology of the English word falafel as coming from the Arabix word falafel. It then gave the source of falafel as being the plural of the Arabic word filfil, which it then gave the source of filfil as being derived from the Sanskrit. Finally, stop with the silly messages about wikilove and other such nonsense. nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Klingon empire variation of Falafel: the warrior race considers a human way of eating the dish as soft. So they smoke the brown/golden balls instead ;) Chere up, mate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Didnt I just tell you to stop that? Im not your friend, your buddy, your mate, or anything else. I know nothing about you, you know nothing about me. Stick to the content of the articles, Im not interested in anything else. nableezy - 22:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, nableezy. It just refers to the spirit of collegiality and mutual understanding among wiki users.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time. nableezy - 22:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Oxford companion to food traced falafel to Copts, Egyptian food and drink By Hilary Wilson traced the food to Pharaonic Egypt. Congrats. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing, Nab. If you do get back perhaps we could collaborate on articles I've long thought wiki lacked, concerning the anthropology of dialect or vernacular idioms. Over the decades I've collected a huge number of linguistic variants for key psychological outlooks. Example, a concept like psy-war. You get 'needling,' 'put the boot in,' and any number of idioms in England and America. In Australia, it's apparently called 'stirring' as in 'shit-stirrer', which means an 'activist, especially in a political context' or 'troublemaker', who pulls the mickey, and works on people's sensitivities.(Macquarrie Dictionary of Austrlian Colloquialisms1984 p.277). The idea was to illustrate usage by listing examples in newspapers, novels etc., for example, Frank Hardy 's novel, The Outcasts of Foolgarah,(1971) has: 'The lurk men and stirrers weren't the only ones burning the midnight oil.'(p.109).

I'm sure Chicagoans have a range of idioms for this too. Something to consider for the long-term. No need to reply now. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban notification

Pursuant to Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions, you are topic-banned until 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC) from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries. Violation of the topic ban shall result in a block of appropriate duration and the topic-ban being reset to run for five weeks from the end of the block. Appeal of this sanction may be made to me, to WP:AE, or to ArbCom. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would question the wording of this. The issue is about places in the areas captured by Israel in the 6 Day War. If one wanted to play safe, then extending to any areas ever controlled by Israel would make sense. Nableezy writing about non-Sinai Egyptian places, a subject on which he knows more than most Wikipedians oughtn't to be a problem.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

'Neighbouring countries' effectively means Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. I'm interested in this personally since the reading of Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions in this light suggests that previously banned editors cannot write about any town, city or other locality in those four contiguous countries, for example it would follow that I cannot write about Phoenician remains in Lebanon, Haim Farhi's commercial activities in Syria, Queen Noor, or the pyramids. After my I/P ban Nableezy, who like me never edited in the area of towns, cities, settlements and other locations and places in Israel, (if so, then the ban extends to pages the editor rarely if ever edited, rather unique) asked me to help him on Al-Azhar Mosque, and we did so quite successfully. Apparently if Stifle's reading of that arbitration verdict is correct, in doing this I was in default of that sanction even there. Curious. Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Peter on this. Locations in Israel (i.e. on the Israeli side of the Green Line) should be excluded for both Nableezy and Shuki. Disputes don't occur in articles about locations in Israel so there's no reason to include them. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sean, I was wondering when someone would pick that up, Stifle has annexed the disputed areas to Israel or maybe given them away to Jordan, Egypt and Syria? :-) Nishidani, in fact someone dear let me know about your topic ban violation, but I suggested 'we' let it slide. I don't believe in the battlefield mentality. --Shuki (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

someone dear? As to a 'battlefield mentality', I have never understood what one earth editors and admins mean by that. It strikes me as just a rhetorical fiction mainly, thrown into the atmosphere to dog or fog debate. If, as in my case, 8 reverts over 50 days is proof of a battlefield mentality, then goodness knows how few editors would ever squeak through sanctions, were they applied coherently. I have no intention to persist, nor desist. I simply made a point which I think it would be unfair to judge to be cocking a snook at my topic ban, and which I gather you share. The point concerns clarity about the Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions, as applied here, and which, in watching from the sidelines, I gather might have an impact on myself as someone sanctioned under them. That is a legitimate request, or query, not a violation of a topic ban. I like clarity, which is not a healthy thing to desire round here:) Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It means that an editor brings sourced material that certain other editors dont like and insists that the highest quality sources be included in supposed "encyclopedia" articles. You know, what you were banned for. nableezy - 17:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So anyone want to come up with a form of words to take for clarification? The main dispute has been about areas outside the green line. I think if someone started writing about depopulated Arab villages in Israel or Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon during their ban, that would be regarded as taking the piss. But Tel Aviv or Cairo ought to be fine. Personally I would think this ban were adequately implroved if Shuki alone were allowed to write about non-controversial palces in Israel and Nableezy alone about non-controversial places in Egypt.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I presume that Stifle said "neighbouring countries" to keep them out of the Northern Cyprus dispute that everyone is always suggesting others get involved in. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter, I've been trying to motivate Nableezy to write about Egyptian issues but to no avail. I would really like to see evidence of this Egyptian knowledge that you claim he has. --Shuki (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Who the fuck claimed I have "Egyptian knowledge"? And why do you care if I write about Egypt? What does that have to do with you? nableezy - 17:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I said that because I was under the impression that Nableezy is Egyptian, though perhaps he is Egyptian American. I notice that a few edits to places like Abdel Halim Hafez appear on his edit list so he certainly has some interest in Egyptian matters but yes it's dangerous to get too wound up in dispute-related matters. Of course, he's as free as he wants to be to comment on this.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Im a African, never been an African-American. nableezy - 17:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The underlying premises, Peter, are twofold (a) that an editor needs to keep working on the encyclopedia when topic-banned, as if a sanction meant he had a punishment to work off, and that (b) someone should contribute to articles reflecting his cultural or ethnic background. With regard to (a) this is a volunteer project, and no one is obliged to do what others suggest they might do. One doesn't have to prove anything here. As to (b)generally, it would be wise for editors in general to abstain from working on areas connected to their own specific cultural background. One can rarely, if ever, write in NPOV vein about oneself, and this, mutatis mutande, to make a pathetic Italo-Latin pun, has its corollary in writing about one's immediate social world. It takes considerable training, at several levels, to acquire the necessary detachment, i.e., to depoliticize one's instincts. Best Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is only natural for someone to write about their own culture, and just because we have feelings and POV, does not mean we cannot be NPOV in articlespace. It is a challenge and I think many good editors sooner or later manage to do this. Certainly I want Jewish editors editing Jewish articles and Muslim editors editing Muslim articles, but of course, we are all volunteers here, and no one can force anyone to edit something s/he does not want to. Frankly, it helps build a complete image of the editor and makes it harder to sockpuppet. There is an issue here of anonymity that allows many people to be more aggressive than responsible, but that is one of the drawbacks. If an editor uses one account consistantly, and cares to build credibility, build value for that editor's name, this increases the quality of the project. --Shuki (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's natural, but parlous, and the great corrective is to draw on the best scholarship from and on one's own culture, because cutting-edge scholarship at its best is where any culture shows its virtues as a civilisation capable of addressing the pros and the cons of its historical world, devoid or fear or politics. This is generally however not the case. One could overcome the defect by insisting that articles in conflicted areas draw on academic or high quality press imprints only, no other sources. This of course will never occur, but it seems apparent that wiki thrives on endless recruitment of newbies to replace any one who gets fed up, i.e., on the premise that the sheer quantitative replacement and turnover of editors will always exceed in utility the numbers, who may often have a record of qualitative imput, who are banned or give up for any number of reasons.

Oh, in areas beset by conflict, I think it would do wikipedia a world of wonders to oblige all contributors to qualify as editors by giving their own real names. The scourge of sockpuppetry is easy to overrule. Make 2000 edits or more to general articles the bar, before any editor can have the masochistic privilege of building articles that are conflicted, etc. Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm alright, Jack, on both names and edit count. Not sure about some people who have announced there desire to be forever anonymous as they push their Stratfordian Israel-hating propaganda. ;-) The mechanism of reviewed edits could be used to control some of the puppets, though my attempts to get the JIDF article protected in this way have failed. Anyway, I could imagine one of the incarnations of "David Appletree" making 1999 reverts of his first edit in order to be able to protect his image. I do think that with a topic area such as the IP conflict, it would be good to maintain an archive of multiply banned/indef blocked editors CU and behavioural details. Of course after two years there's a fair chance that they will have upgraded thei computer, moved home, changed ISP etc As it is you and JayJG, for example, are keeping to your topic bans while Stellarkid etc keep coming back and lure other editors inter edit wars where they get restricted.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding anonymity and avoiding conflict of interest by not writing about oneself, it's an approach I fully support. I edit under my own name and I've scrupulously avoided making any edits to the asshattery article. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

topic ban

Hello Stifle. I dont believe that ARBPIA allows you to impose topic bans for topics outside of the ARBPIA "area of conflict". The ban you imposed bans me and Shuki from a number of articles that are outside of any possible interpretation of the area of conflict covered by ARBPIA, such as the article on Shibin el-Kom or articles on random cities in a number of countries. Could I trouble you to take a closer look at how broad this ban is and whether or not it is allowed under ARBPIA? Thanks. nableezy - 00:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The last entry of the discretionary sanctions remedy allows administrators to take "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project", which I believe is sufficient. If there are one or more articles that you feel particularly inclined to edit but are prevented from by the topic ban, please specify them and I will consider exempting them on a case-by-case basis. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You really think it is "reasonably necessary" to ban Shuki from edits to Tel Aviv or me from edits to Petra or Cairo? If so I have to question your understanding of the words "reasonable" and "necessary". But I dont care enough to go through any more hassle in dealing with this, so this fine by me. nableezy - 14:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Keef hallak?

Hi Nableezy ... haven't been around in some time as real life brought me a real gift that is rather all-consuming. Just wanted to say marahab and see how you were doing. I've been reading up on what's been going on in my absence ... same old same old it seems. I hope to have some time again soon to work on some unfinished articles in user and projec space. Perhaps you would like to pitch in there too? Deer ballak a hallak. Tiamut^talk 14:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

elf mabruk, and I would be glad to. nableezy - 17:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit

I was pleased to see that you just blanked AgadaUrbanit's most recent comment on your page without replying. Because he or she should have got the message about being unwelcome here long ago, it looked more and more as though the aim was to provoke you. I suspect that, if it were to be brought up on any of the noticeboards, being provoked wouldn't be seen as a justification for telling the provoker where to go in less and less uncertain terms. Probably the provoker would be sanctioned too, but perhaps they might feel the price was worth it.     ←   ZScarpia   23:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought saying "be gone" twice in one message would have been enough, but guess not. In fact, I saw the bar at the top of the screen and thought "fuck, again????". Cheers, nableezy - 23:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ignoring repeated requests to stay off your talk page as well as deleting your comments for invalid reasons (unacceptably ambiguous non-personal personal attacks?) elsewhere certainly made it look as though you were being deliberately wound up. Might be an idea to point out to AgadaUrbanit that, if he or she wants to attract your attention, the {{talkback}} template can be used.     ←   ZScarpia   10:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Arabism article

Hello Nableezy. I personally do not have a horse in this race, or even an adequate knowledge of the reliability of the newly added sources, but the overall tone of the edit strikes me as being, as I said in the ES, a totally POV rant. From past edits I've seen, this seems like it would be an area of interest to you, but I don't know if you follow that article; and of course I just saw the topic ban above, which probably prevents you from making immediate corrections, but perhaps you know more people than I do with enough expertise in the topic to restore some NPOV tone to the section. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw it. It is terribly sourced. The one good thing about that material is that it got me to read this Israeli MFA brief which contains the line the Ministry of Education committed itself to completing its five-year plan for Bedouin in the South within three years (instead of five, as originally planned). nableezy - 01:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Golan Heights

Thanks for fixing my mistake. I don't know what Brewcrew's reinstatement of all the other crap was about.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There may be another reason for removing that post, but I dont really care about whatever that user says about me. If however you take exception to "many western editors here (maybe some are even defeatist Jews)" then you may have a case for removal. But my guess is youre a big boy, if a bit defeatist, and can handle it ;) nableezy - 02:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Hi nableezy. I would agree with you, but there are others who disagree, including some academics. So we're trying to work out language that best describes the working relationship between the two men. Thanks for your help, though. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Apropos, and recalling your perplexity your perplexity that he would adopt a monicker that meant 'king' (Malik), perhaps he was thinking of Anas ibn Mālik, a noted sahabi of Mohammud's? In the Hebrew Tanakh, further, mlkm, can be vocalized as Milcom, (or 'Melkhom' in early Greek translations) which is close to Malcolm, and comes from the triliteral root mlk meaning not only to 'rule' (hence the 'king' you are uneasy with, though it could have been a nice counterpoise to Martin Luther King!) but also 'counsel'. Whatever, a man dumped with the white name 'Little' grew to a princely stature, and I don't think it would be unfair to allow him to assert a compensative sense of royal self-identification, in a world that not only called him Little, but had obliterated his African identity so thoroughly he could only reclaim it by enigmatic allusion to a cypher, X. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for fixing my RfC formatting problem! I was having a tough time figuring it out :-) Noleander (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I only know because when I start an RFC the bot stops at the timestamp, which in my signature will cause the rest of the page to be screwed up (see here for an example). Cheers, nableezy - 21:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Hebrew

Hi Nableezy! I have reverted the editor, since the previous version was correct. Thanks for the heads up. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, you are hereby topic-banned from Gaza War, and all related articles, discussions, and other content, for six weeks, as described in this AN3 report. You may appeal the topic ban as provided in WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. Timotheus Canens (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban vio

Hello Stifle. Shuki made this edit to an article on a "place in Israel". That is a clear cut violation of the Shuki's topic ban. Would you rather I report this to AE or will you enforce the topic ban? nableezy - 22:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well this is sort of weenie I think all will agree. RVV is not a violation of the topic ban. Nableezy, add a knotch to the list of your frivoulous accusations. I think Nableezy should be warned for this hounding of me and waste of your time. --Shuki (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to reinforce how Nableezy likes bring on judgement to himself, now that I'm looking - making edits to a location in violation of his topic ban here. Stifle, should I file an AE? --Shuki (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Stifle/Archive_0810a#topic_ban_exemption nableezy - 23:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No violations in either case.

The intention behind a topic ban is so that users are encouraged to direct their productive efforts to articles which are further away from the locus of disputes. It is not so that other affected editors should be combing people's edits in order to say "GOTCHA!! I'M TELLING TEACHER ON YOU!!!!11" Therefore:

• Pursuant to the discretionary sanctions remedy of WP:ARBPIA,
• Believing that other measures are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project,
• Shuki (talk · contribs) and Nableezy (talk · contribs) are banned from reporting each other for alleged violations of the topic ban imposed by me on them on 27th July last, for the duration of the topic ban. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any report anywhere on Wikipedia, and includes attempts to solicit other users to report the other's violation. Violating this ban will result in a block of appropriate length. This sanction may be appealed to me, to WP:AE, or to ArbCom.

Seriously guys, knock it off. Wikipedia is not primary school. The next step will be an interaction ban. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That is somewhat stupid. You really should peruse this thread to see if Shuki thinks vandalism reverts are part of a topic ban. nableezy - 13:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What is your point exactly? I didn't open that AE, though it was a very respectful editor. I did say this and still stand behind it:
This is totally baffling me. I'm not sadistic looking for punishment here, I think that Nableezy has a lot to contribute if he really wanted to. Perhaps he should be mentored instead of topic banned, but that does not seem to matter here. --Shuki (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You also wrote "This is a no brainer" remarking that it was so obviously a topic ban vio that it doesnt even merit consideration as not being one. Who is "a very respectful editor"? What does that even mean? nableezy - 19:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

MeatpuppetsRUs

Wikibias (h-tt-p://wikibias.com : "Monitoring Wikipedia Bias Since 2010") - Wikipedia: A How-to guide (h-tt-p://wikibias.com/2010/08/wikipedia-a-how-to-guide/). Know anyone who accused someone of anti-Semitism and was threatened with being banned, but was able to rally a few supporters to keep the account active?     ←   ZScarpia   10:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC) (Oh! ... I see you've been quoted in article A Conspiracy Theory That Just Won't Die [h-tt-p://wikibias.com/2010/08/a-conspiracy-theory-that-just-wont-die/])

I've just edited my previous comment to remove the links. When you click on a hyperlink to get to the Wikibias site, it looks as though the owner of the site gets a record of your IP address and the URL of the page you clicked the link on (that is, the Referrer, which, for links on this page would be h-tt-p://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nableezy). That's an information combination which you probably don't want to give away. The same is true of the JIDF site.     ←   ZScarpia   17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, once more, one sighs 'alas' at what one is up against, retires to the armchair, reaches for Nietzsche's all too timely meditation on 'the uses and disadvantages of history for life' (Unzeitgemässe Betrachtungen: Vom Nutzen und Nachtheil der Historie für das Leben) to browse over, and ponder on, his description of the herd mentality. Places governed by a number's racket reinforced by Raffety's rules give no solace for editors who edit as individuals.Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't Bite Anons

Regarding this:

Finally, for some reason I find it hard to believe that you do not have an account here. Please log in with that account.

I'm certain you are well aware of the Foundation's Privacy Policy that is, no one is required to register to use the project may remain anonymous. Therefore, unless you have some concrete evidence of sock-puppetry going on, a process I'm certain you're familiar with, please refrain from telling people they need to register an account. --WGFinley (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WGFinley, where exactly has Nableezy told anyone they need to register an account? Nableezy told 79.181.9.231 that he found it hard to believe that he or she doesn't have an account, then requested him or her to log in using it. That is obviously not the same thing, though. In an area of the project as embattled as the IP one, it's far from unreasonable to suspect that anyone who's clearly an experienced editor and is editing under an IP address has nefarious reasons, such as evading a block or ban, for doing so. If 79.181.9.231 had a legitimate reason for editing under an IP address, it would have been good if he or she had given just a short explanation of the reasons why, just to put everyone's mind at rest. Note that IP addresses are actually less anonymous than user names which don't contain clues to editors' real identities. Scuse me for butting in.     ←   ZScarpia   21:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify, people can edit anonymously, you shouldn't tell people not to unless you have clear evidence they're editing anonymously to circumvent blocks or are a sock. --WGFinley (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in what I wrote violated any part of the WMF privacy policy. As ZScarpia pointed out, I did not say that anybody needs to register an account. However, you should be aware of a few things. The talk page of the Golan Heights page has been the target of more than one editor either banned or topic-banned from that article. You could look here or here for some of the users that have been socking at that article.
Now to your last point, that I should not tell people to log in with their main account without proof of sockpuppetry. The problem with that is I have seen CU's decline checks because linking an account with an IP address is supposedly a violation of the privacy policy (a reading of the policy that I disagree with), which effectively means that any user can get around a ban by editing only as an IP. This is obviously not an ideal situation, but it is one that is often taken advantage of. If it were up to me every single article in the topic area would be semi-protected. There are far too many IPs and "new users" that are just banned accounts. I realize Wikipedia and many people who edit this site have this stupid infatuation with the idea of being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but too many problems are caused by IPs and "new accounts" that are so clearly "evading scrutiny" (as the WP:SOCK policy says) that it is not worth the hassle. Finally, let me ask you a question. Do you really think this IP does not have an account that has edited in the topic area and is not editing as an IP solely to "evade scrutiny"? nableezy - 23:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It may perhaps be a minor point, but there is a difference between telling somebody to do something ("Log in with that account"), as you seem to be suggesting that Nableezy did, and asking or requesting that somebody do something ("Please log in with that account"), as Nableezy actually did.     ←   ZScarpia   00:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, if you have information showing the anon is circumventing a bock or otherwise abusing anon editing then, by all means, forward the information confidentially. Otherwise looks like you're just picking on anons. --WGFinley (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean evidence besides an anon whose very first edits are to a controversial article, who knows how to use edit summaries immediately, who understands wiki syntax such as using numbered lists in their first edit to a talk page? No, I dont have evidence besides that. nableezy - 06:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Unambiguous proof

Okay, I'm not very fond of Supreme Deliciousness contacting me on my page with "Ask nableezy to send you the evidence", but, regardless, I would have asked anyway when I read through the continuation of the AE thread. Yes, I would be interested in seeing the evidence you have. You can e-mail me via Special:EmailUser/Tariqabjotu. -- tariqabjotu 00:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry you were annoyed, but I dont control SD's actions. Anyway, sent. nableezy - 01:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't blaming you. I just didn't want you to think I was asking for the evidence only because SD wanted me to. Anyway, I blocked Jiujitsuguy indefinitely, per the evidence. Not sure how/when you found this all out, but thanks for sharing it. -- tariqabjotu 01:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think my previous comment was an understatement. I blocked him after reading the first two links, but I decided to continue. And, I must say... wow. Again, thanks; this is really appalling, and your evidence was well thought out and substantiated. -- tariqabjotu 01:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. nableezy - 06:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

On ANI

Just so you know, there is a thread on WP:ANI that mentions you: WP:ANI#Jiujitsuguy and Eric1985 blocked indefinitely for off-wiki canvassing regarding Israel/Palestine. -- tariqabjotu 18:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Six Day War

Why did you revert my edit on the Six Day War article? [3], unlike what you misleadingly claim that every time we mention the West Bank,, Jordanian-occupied is not mentioned everytime. This adds context since usually West Bank means something to do with Israel. --Luckymelon (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I didnt revert the entire edit. You added "Jordanian occupied" to "West Bank" when discussing the attack on as-Samu. I left the first "Jordanian occupied" in there (though while Jordan did effectively "occupy" that territory it would be difficult to argue that Jordan was actually a "belligerent force" occupying the West Bank at the time, not nearly as clear cut as Israel's occupation of the WB and EJ). You wrote in your edit summary If Israeli-occupied is mentioned so should Jordanian occupied to be NPOV. My question to you is when the words East Jerusalem are mentioned in the article should it be preceded by "Israeli-occupied"? Multiple times in the article? When discussing the same thing as when it already says "Israeli-occupied"? nableezy - 04:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Flotilla raid

I already told you I try not to take part in discussions on that article, though I contribute there from time to time. Maybe this discussion might interest you. And no, this is not a psy-war message. Stay well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No I am not interested. Bye. nableezy - 15:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Is it customary to notify an editor that he is the subject of a sockpuppet investigation? If so, you should notify Drork's socks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The SPI page says Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection. nableezy - 19:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you moved my vote

Hi there. I noticed that you moved my vote here, and I'm not sure why. I'm not so well versed in how to do everything perfectly on WP, but I would have appreciated it if you could have explained whatever I might have done wrong, and given me a chance to correct, before you acted to move my vote. Again, I'm not sure why you did that. Is that a common practice? Thanks for any help. --DavidAppletree (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved your "vote" because you interrupted another user's comments. Chesdovi wrote that if the move was opposed that he or she would propose removing "the following content" from the article. That content was in a collapsible box immediately following Chesdovi's comment. Your comment was placed between Chesdovi's comment and the content that was being discussed. Had your "vote" remained in that location it would make Chesdovi's comment difficult to understand. nableezy - 22:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

List of alleged collaborators

Why did you contest the prod? If you remove it, you should explain why. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

will do at the talk page. nableezy - 23:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

and done. nableezy - 23:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence

You said you know who it is [4], please ad your evidence here: [5] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I do know who it is, but at the moment I am not inclined to say. The IP isnt a "sockpuppet" as there is no overlap in edits. My concern is that the IP is purposely "evading scrutiny" by editing as an IP unconnected to any history the named user has. But I kinda sorta like the named user, of those on the "other side" this one was not a complete twat. nableezy - 01:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy. You have implicitly referred to a large segment of the community as "Twats," which is a less than flattering term. Please either retract the insult or strike it from your page.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually explicitly said that one user is not a twat. I made and make no comment on whether anybody else is a twat. But what about "be gone" do you not understand? nableezy - 15:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

How are you still allowed to edit here with that mentality? Don't worry about it JJG. Eventually the admins will stop giving him passes. Let him talk as much as he wants.Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Were you not asked, multiple times, to leave this page alone? nableezy - 15:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

While you are free to have Nableezy (and my) talk pages on your watchlist, do you have to chime in everytime you think a clarification or scolding is in order (both on our pages and at AE, ANI, or anywhere else you think someone might act on your wishes)? Reminds me of my busybody neighbour who everyone tries to avoid lest they get an earful of unsolicited advice with a finger wagged in their face.

@Nableezy, Ramadan Karim my friend. Tiamut^talk 09:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Shukran, nableezy - 15:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol... while I am in no way admitting any connection to that IP, I appreciate the halfhearted compliment Nableezy. Of all of your "friends" here on Wikipedia, you too are one of the very, very few non-'twats'. Salamat (yes, that is the slaughtered Arabic that we Israelis stole and now use in a sense that wouldn't otherwise make sense), Breein1007 (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It was not halfhearted. I wholeheartedly feel that you are not a twat. Take care, nableezy - 20:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nableezy for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I really did not think you were that stupid. Thanks for enlightening me. nableezy - 04:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Good for you!

[6]. Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Its only fair. I cant grant permission for people to insult anybody besides myself. nableezy - 23:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Six-day war

An admin has already given a warning so you need to stop with the pointed comments.Cptnono (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What "warning"? You mean where WGFinley wrote Some folks need to simmer down, when the personal attack accusations start flying things get unproductive. If they start that direction again article bans will be needed.? I have not made any accusations of personal attacks, or any personal attacks. What "pointed comments"? You mean where I ask if you know how long the war lasted? Or when I ask you to actually say what you think is missing from the first paragraph or how something is "undue weight"? Those were serious questions. I actually think you didnt know how long the war lasted. Would you like to take a guess? Be honest, how much have you read about the war? What books have you read about the war? How much do you think you know about the war, its causes, and its consequences. If you cannot, or choose not to, answer the questions honestly, then honor my previous request and stay off this page. nableezy - 15:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE

Hi Nableezy! I have filed a WP:AE complaint about your actions on pages related to Israeli settlements. I would really like to work with you to improve these articles, but unfortunately this doesn't seem to be working. I hope we can collaborate at least on other topics that we happen to edit together. Please leave your comments at the WP:AE page. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yn, in the future when informing somebody of an attempt to ban them you should really consider using a different greeting. "Hi username!" has a jovial ring to it. But if you would please do me the favor of answering a question. You told me that if I felt the issue was important to "feel free to mention it in 8 words or less". I did exactly that. What is the problem? nableezy - 21:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, I am not reverting the edit. I merely don't think you should be making more edits about settlements if you have openly stated that you wish to make no further contributions to the article Psagot (and judging by your edits, every other article about settlements). As I said, I hope we can collaborate on other topics that we happen to edit together. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

So because I wont make edits on topics that I am not interested in, such as wineries or theatre shows in settlements, and do make edits on topics that I am interested in, such as the fact that the settlements are illegal under international law, makes it so I should not be allowed to make any edits to settlements? By that logic the fact that you have not added information found in sources you have used about the illegality of the settlements demonstrates you should be banned from editing articles on the settlements. You have effectively shown your hand here, that you just dont want the fact that these colonies are illegal under international law to be included in the articles, and as it appears I am the only one adding that information banning me from settlement articles would accomplish your goal. Too bad you had to team up with an obvious sock to do so. That might damage your credibility just a bit. nableezy - 21:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I am sorry if I offended you by saying "Hi Nabeezy!" This is my standard greeting on Wikipedia, including when I make less-friendly comments like warnings (unless it's a template), etc. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but it would be better if it were just "Hello username" instead of "Hi username!" for such notices. I dont care though. nableezy - 21:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)