User talk:Nableezy/Archive 8
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Nableezy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Michael Jordan userbox
How do you get the Michael Jordan userbox? CollisionCourse (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- The userbox is {{User:Paulinho28/MJ}} Nableezy (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. CollisionCourse (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
challenge to wikifan12345
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- closed, sorry wikifan but it looks like you failed
Since he is sure he "could find 20 users who want Nableezy gone" I ask him to do so. If you would like me to leave please sign your name below. Good luck wikifan Nableezy (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Me!!! -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I am kidding
Is there a time limit on this? Obviously I wouldn't want to make such an important decision without thinking it through. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- you have already made your decision, these 2 are binding signatures. Making it a lil easier on WF. Nableezy (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- You are counting that as a signature just because I posted here? Does that mean that your signature counts also? --JGGardiner (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes and no. If and when my signature is included that will be my last edit to this site. Nableezy (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Okay so the count is, me, FfQ, Untwirl and of course Wikifan him/herself. So it is getting up there. And don't forget that your boss also wants you off of WP. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes and no. If and when my signature is included that will be my last edit to this site. Nableezy (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- You are counting that as a signature just because I posted here? Does that mean that your signature counts also? --JGGardiner (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
can we start a section on users who want nableezy's cone(the australian version)? i'll sign that one! untwirl(talk) 16:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- you just signed this one, i wont take it personally though, my cone is full Nableezy (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- damn, i was high and fucked that up. can i refactor and start my new section, bob? (not wanting to miss out on that cone) untwirl(talk) 16:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Bless young and ignorant
Nothing new under the sun, isn't it? There was something before Durban 1 and 2, it was called United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379. It condemned Zionism and equaled it to apartheid, racism and colonialism. Not sure you are familiar. But if you do - forget it. Regards. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- yes I was. FYI, Im done with that page for a while, just too aggravating. Stay well, Nableezy (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I liked what you did today, especially removing that horrible Cryptonio sentence 'Since the team entered ...'. Aren't you afraid of Cryptonio's aggravations? I hope you don't, but if you do - I'll try to back you up. Your addition to the 'occupation' sentence hurts, but it is true, so no objection there. I placed 2 more pictures of Rayyan on a talk page, choose whatever you seem appropriate and insert it in the infobox (I'd like to keep the original in the article too, but something says me you might oppose this). Ah, those pictures need appropriate tag, your help would be appreciated. They are taken from PALD public forum, so there shouldn't be a problem. Regards. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Disruptive editing
collapse inanity |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Deleting content based on grammatical concerns is considered disruptive editing. I request that you self revert this edit, and fix the content to be written in a manner that resolves your grammar concerns.
|
[1]Of course the BBC is a RS. So is the JP. However, the names have to mentioned in order to manifest the contradiction. Read the paragraph according to your edit. The whole point doesn't jive. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ahh, I see. I just saw the 'according to the BBC.' fixed. Also, quick note here, your 'refuses to archive' problem was that the bot requires 2 signatures to archive, anything with just 1 will stay. Nableezy (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- what do you mean "two signatures"?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- You mean it requires some sort of reply?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, if there is only one signature (with a timestamp) in a section it will skip over that. Nableezy (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- So what am I supposed to when some troll crawls his way to my talkpage (i.e. User talk:Brewcrewer#well, why don't... with some comment that doesn't even merit removal?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- either archive it manually or write "to archive" with your sig. or do what i do, just make fun of them for saying something dumb. but really, why dont you ... :) Nableezy (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- So what am I supposed to when some troll crawls his way to my talkpage (i.e. User talk:Brewcrewer#well, why don't... with some comment that doesn't even merit removal?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, if there is only one signature (with a timestamp) in a section it will skip over that. Nableezy (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- You mean it requires some sort of reply?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- what do you mean "two signatures"?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Chaps, you might already have seen this, but it's always worth rereading WP:DNFTT. --Dweller (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Non Free Images
Looks good to me. The others will need to be deleted, but that one is the least provocative, smallest, and probably bets quality of the bunch, so I'm glad you found the sourcing for it. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: User:BobSmith007
Re: your message: Yeah, probably the same editor or a tag team. BobSmith007 is now blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Your comment
It's pretty cool of you to apologize in such a heated situation. But as for my behavior, c'mon, the guy is a total bullshitter. You know I yell at bullshitters from the other side too. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
June 2009
collapse |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Welcome
Thank you for the welcome :) Halfacanyon (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
talk page deletions
Hello, I was under the impression that users cannot delete their talk pages and that it is separate from deleting the user page as Wikipedia:CSD#U1 specifically says not user talk pages. Am I incorrect? Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Nableezy,
- You are indeed correct. Did I hit a talk page incorrectly? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing it out. It's been restored. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
my friend
you realize what I have done for that Golan page? before I registered it said "Golan is currently part of Israel" I am the one that got them to change it, If it wasn't for me that whole disputed/occupied discussion wouldn't have started. And btw, I thank you for your comments on the Golan page, you are good at debating and I appreciate your input. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Palestinian refugee
Just a comment: even a brief read through the talk page shows theres contention over the use of that term, I can see from your history and user page that you have a clear preference for what you would like the page to say; in any event I have no serious interest in the page but I foresee a future edit war over the neutrality of Nakba. Most pages I've read on Israel or Palestine (or issues related) are either good, horribly pov one way or the other, and the first time I read the refugee page I was thinking it was more the former than the later. Fuzbaby (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- If you looked at my history you should also see that I have no problem working with those who oppose what my apparent POV is and on articles I attempt to ensure that the articles comply with NPOV and RS (you apparently have no problem with my wording on another page, also note that page was already in my watchlist as I had edited it previously, not following you around though I considered it might seem that way). The arguments at the Nakba template talk page currently that the name shouldnt be used (if and when that is decided, likely by the RfC on the topic, the template will be at that name or a different one and would be reflected in the article) and the other on the inclusion of a specific event (the Israeli War of Independence), and that too will be resolved by discussion on that page. But that template helps present information on a set of related topics, so whatever name it ends up being under it should be in that article. I did not revert it because it uses the word I prefer (I really have not made up my mind, if you look at the RfC the one comment I supported so far was more an overview and a partial endorsement, but open to the idea of another term. My current thinking is that this is an Arabic word, and I would like to examine more of the literature before determining whether or not that this Arabic word has been used in English by the majority of the scholars for it to be used as an English word in articles), but rather because the information that it provides in its content is relevant to the refugee page. I obviously have my own views on these subjects, and that obviously shades how I see things, but this was not about my POV. The "Palestinian exodus" or the "depopulation of Palestinians" or the "Nakba", whatever you want to call it, resulted in the people currently called Palestinian refugees. That template is relevant and links to articles that have a direct relation to the article in question, so I dont think there is any question that the template should be on that page. Nableezy (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- First, let me say thanks for fixing my talk page; I'm not sure what happened but assumed some template got fiddled with. I'm going to read more into the background for these pages and the RfC, as right now I feel that I have an uninformed opinion based just on my "feel" from reading through the article. As an aside, I didn't mean any offense by commenting on your obvious position on the issue, rather, I think it is laudable that people with strongly held opinions can work together with others who may not share them to try to present information in a neutral and fair manner. Best, Fuzbaby (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello
I know you edit on similar topics and you've struck me as a pretty reasonable person - thought you might take a look at Talk:Deir_Yassin_massacre#.22Invasion.22. Cheers. --Dweller (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Reasonable? Lets just see if we can convince you otherwise, Nableezy (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- rofl --Dweller (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Editing intlaw section
hi. being busy more than usual, i can't find enough time. but trust me i will and we'll continue. taking a swift look at your talk page, you are not too bored meanwhile, aren't you? regarding some minor changes you'he done there, you are correct - palestinian section was constructed well, but it indeed clogged the contents. i've just separated one para. back, though, since we're talking about distinct violation. have you noticed we're trying to make the same for israeli part? my english is far from perfect; if you see/feel like some wording needs to be rewritten - you can point out the specific sentence and we will work it out. as long as the essence is preserved, you'll get my full cooperation. last but not least - if you think (or if you think that this is what hamas thinks) that hamas 'resists' israeli 'occupation' of the disputed territories in the west bank and jerusalem - man, you need an urgent update. Nizar Rayyan article is a good place to start. don't be hurt if some of my remarks are sometimes sarcastic - it is one of those 10 virtues of an average editor, isn't it? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Check this article out, specifically this line from Meshal: Hamas sees this fight as part of a bigger campaign leading to the capture of Jerusalem. “As we won the Gaza war, so we will win a war aimed at lifting the siege and opening the crossings, as a preliminary to the liberation of the country, the return [of the refugees], the liberation of Jerusalem, and extricating ourselves from the occupation,” said Hamas political bureau chief Khaled Mashal.
Hamas does in fact say that they fight to allow for the return of refugees and to end occupation of all Palestinian lands, including E. Jerusalem and the West Bank. Style related stuff, I am sure we can work it out, I'm just waiting for you to say it has what information you think is needed, then I plan on going through copyediting it. And dont worry about the sarcasm, I have a pretty thick skin, and, as you might have seen, sarcasm is a staple of my communication techniques. Nableezy (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)- I haven't gone over it too much but know you did some much needed reworking a few weeks ago on the international law section. Originally, Falk was mentioned in the poor opening sentence. I came across this opinion piece and thought (regardless of if you agree or not) that you might find it interesting.Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I read this article. Not what I could have expected from you. The very first sentence: 'The Gaza victory has paved the way to Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, the Negev, and the West Bank,” said senior Hamas official'. I think you are not that indocrinated to realize that when Hamas say Jerusalem - they mean the whole Jerusalem and not just the Eastern part, and when they say occupation - they mean the whole Palestine (or at least 22% left of it after the 1922 division) and not merely the parts that were illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948-1967.
I found Trumpet extremely interesting reading, especially this sentence from linked article: 'But the most important and inspiring lesson of the Gaza war is this: It means the climax of end-time events is very near—events that will culminate in Jerusalem with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ!'. This is a joke. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)- Yeah I know, most of the time, though they do often talk about East Jerusalem and just the occupied territories, for example when talking about a long-term hudna. Nableezy (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. I have a record of some very interesting Hamas statements, saying that 'we agreed to accept Palestinian state within '67 borders, but we never said we accept two states'. Pure tactics. But why talking about Hamas all the time? Just a couple of month ago Fatah senior stated that they don't ask Hamas to express recognition of Israel simply because... Fatah and all the other resistance fractions never did, all except PLO. And what about the moderate Abu Mazen and his comrades? They advocate the two-state solution, yet refuse to recognize the Jewish nature of Israel, demanding the West Bank to be Judenrein. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- There are some responses to be made to those (first to recognize the Jewish nature of Israel wouldn't include the West Bank as it is not in Israel, second it would also relegate the Arabs living in Israel to second-class citizenship both in name and in practice, whereas currently is it only in practice, and third while Mr. Netanyahu has accepted the words "Palestinian state" anybody who read or listened to what he called that would have to agree that he did not accept an actual state for the Palestinians.) But we really shouldnt be carrying on with this convo here; if you would like I could enable the email function and we can continue off-wiki. Nableezy (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. I have a record of some very interesting Hamas statements, saying that 'we agreed to accept Palestinian state within '67 borders, but we never said we accept two states'. Pure tactics. But why talking about Hamas all the time? Just a couple of month ago Fatah senior stated that they don't ask Hamas to express recognition of Israel simply because... Fatah and all the other resistance fractions never did, all except PLO. And what about the moderate Abu Mazen and his comrades? They advocate the two-state solution, yet refuse to recognize the Jewish nature of Israel, demanding the West Bank to be Judenrein. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah I know, most of the time, though they do often talk about East Jerusalem and just the occupied territories, for example when talking about a long-term hudna. Nableezy (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the Trumpet piece, anything that inflammatory (regardless of the opinion) is always a fun read!Cptnono (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think the article was completely retarded, the only useful part was the quotes. The actual analysis was garbage. Just used them because I would rather not link to memri. Nableezy (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking of first and second classes of citizens - there's a lovely revelation from Palestinian PM:Fayyad: Jews can be equal citizens in Palestinian state. If you want to explore it just beneath the surface, give me a call, here or via email. The answer will not be prompt, I guess, but I'll try my best. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Formal notification of the ARBPIA editing restrictions
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
- Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
- The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
- Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
- Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.
PhilKnight (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Kush
Well normally I wouldn't stereotype people based on appearances. But come on, that's a pothead if I ever saw one. And if you read on in the bio, it says this: "Kirk said that as kush may sell for up to $600 (USD) per ounce these increases in penalties are justified, saying that 'if you can make as much money selling pot as cocaine, you should face the same penalties.'" Now I may be wrong but I think he's saying that when you're spending that much money, you might as well be doing cocaine. So perhaps he's just trying to broaden your horizons. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you thinking of leaving? Remember, there's no reason to quit when you can just half-ass it like I do. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well just remember that if you quit, the terrorists win. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think the phrase is supposed to refer to actual terrorists. It's just a "Hannibal is at the gates" kind of bogeyman thing. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is that this edit wasn't trolling, this individual was trying to improve the article even though they are biased. This editor has the rightful opinion that no article should take out the criticisms of an individual and put them into a different page, which arguably isn't what Muhammad is doing anyway. I think you should revert, but, I'll leave it up to you. --Afghana [talk] 20:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- The trolling was the "Remember that Muhammad's fascist ideology islam killed more people than Hitlers ideology did." and the comparison he was using throughout the post. Qualifies as trolling to me, Nableezy (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think one sentence is enough to disqualify an entire comment! Anywho, someone else reverted it. --Afghana [talk] 23:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- That was the biggest problem, but the whole post was trolling. Comparing Muhammad to Hitler is the act of troll, and that post was nothing but that comparison. I dont care too much though, not enough to keep reverting it. Nableezy (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think one sentence is enough to disqualify an entire comment! Anywho, someone else reverted it. --Afghana [talk] 23:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Rabin "Academia"'s testimonies & "unneeded" (sic!) sources, about
I's mainly for you: 17.3 Second paragraph (Rabin "Academia"'s testimonies & "unneeded" (sic!) sources, about
Please reply.
- Igorp lj (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- First, not sure why you typed (sic) as "unneeded" is a word that is spelled correctly and correct in the context, but it is your life. Second, responded. Nableezy (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
HA HA!!!
"From your IP address it looks like you would be traveling from Israel to the Golan. You would not need to apply for a visa from Syria as Syria does not administer the region (it cannot because it is occupied by Israel)".....classic. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure what was funnier to me, the logic that because an Israeli can travel to the Golan it magically is Israeli territory or the answers to the questions I felt compelled to provide. This really is a pain in the ass, and without editors like Nishidani or Tiamut I get to read justifications for using this piece of pure bullshit (original) rather than enlightening posts filled with sources that actually educate instead of propagandize. Nableezy (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- There's always Harlan wilkerson. He's seems to know more than anyone around here about this stuff. Maybe it's not on his watchlist. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion request
Why? Please don't tell me you are leaving Wikipedia! --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- not quite yet, at least I dont think so. Still havent finished the al-Azhar article. No real reason, at least one I feel like typing out right now, but as the friendly neighborhood admin if you wouldn't mind obliging ... Nableezy (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Don't leave at all. I can't tell you how immeasurably important your contributions have been here, especially in the most controversial articles. We have lost too many quality users and we can't afford to have you on that list. I have been keeping watch on the al-Azhar Mosque article and I truly believe it has the potential to be a Good article. Also, don't forget about Abdel Nasser. We still have to work on his article ;). I'll delete your user page if you really want to though... --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it appears somebody else has done the job. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- No worries, and thank you for the kind words. It really is a pain in the ass dealing with those articles though and I do not know how long I am willing to continue to do so. And the al-Azhar article could probably be a featured article with enough work, I havent even completed 20% of the architectural history or even started on its history in Egyptian society. If I could get my hands on one source (vols 1 and 2 of Muslim Architecture in Egypt by K. A. C. Creswell) I could probably triple the current size. Nableezy (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration (actually I have never had to endure what you endure) and that's why when you run out of patience with those articles, just take off a few days to cool down or better yet work on articles that will attract less controversy. A perfect example is the one you are working on now. On that matter, I will try to find additional sources in the coming days. When you move it into mainspace then I'll help out with the editing. Salaamat, --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not "enduring", this is nothing, the subjects of these articles endure, I just whine. But thanks and salam, nableezy - 02:16 11.07.2009 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration (actually I have never had to endure what you endure) and that's why when you run out of patience with those articles, just take off a few days to cool down or better yet work on articles that will attract less controversy. A perfect example is the one you are working on now. On that matter, I will try to find additional sources in the coming days. When you move it into mainspace then I'll help out with the editing. Salaamat, --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- No worries, and thank you for the kind words. It really is a pain in the ass dealing with those articles though and I do not know how long I am willing to continue to do so. And the al-Azhar article could probably be a featured article with enough work, I havent even completed 20% of the architectural history or even started on its history in Egyptian society. If I could get my hands on one source (vols 1 and 2 of Muslim Architecture in Egypt by K. A. C. Creswell) I could probably triple the current size. Nableezy (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it appears somebody else has done the job. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Don't leave at all. I can't tell you how immeasurably important your contributions have been here, especially in the most controversial articles. We have lost too many quality users and we can't afford to have you on that list. I have been keeping watch on the al-Azhar Mosque article and I truly believe it has the potential to be a Good article. Also, don't forget about Abdel Nasser. We still have to work on his article ;). I'll delete your user page if you really want to though... --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Done Let me know if I can be of any help, or if you want it restored later. Plastikspork (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Nableezy (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'd like to chime in on this with a concurrence. I posted appeals to every wikiproject I could find on Sholam Weiss, and you were the only one to help fix that mess. I don't know about the other articles you worked on, but you sure made a difference there.JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Glad you stepped in on this article. I agree about the Sholam vs. Shalom issue, and was thinking of changing it myself. The article remains problematic in several areas, but is less of an appellate brief than it was previously.
I think I may reinstate the wanted posted further down in the article, if you think that's OK. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- If there were to be a section specifically on his fleeing and extradition and challenges (and I think there could be) then the picture of the poster would fit, otherwise dont really see the point. I cannot find anything about the "fugitive disentitelement" as it relates to appeals in the US against his criminal conviction only as to the dismissal of his appeal against extradition. But you did a very good job with that article taking it from where it was to an actual account of the events. nableezy - 22:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Well, I kind of hastily put back in the poster before seeing your comment. You know, given that his notability relates a great deal to his being a fugitive, I don't think it is too terrible. But if you want to remove, feel free.
- On that fugitive disentitlement stuff: I wonder if maybe there is too much in the article on that. He is notable for his crimes and for being a fugitive for a while , not for the legal mess he created by choosing to become a fugitive. I tend to think that maybe it should be toned down a bit. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe, but this did go all the way the UN Human Rights Committee with views being published by a number of organizations on human rights. I think that is pretty big deal that would merit a subsection under a section on his run and subsequent extradition. nableezy - 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- True, but it didn't get any news media coverage as best as I can tell. That makes me a little wary. I'd feel better if a reliable source had talked about it. I'll take another look through Google News.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe, but this did go all the way the UN Human Rights Committee with views being published by a number of organizations on human rights. I think that is pretty big deal that would merit a subsection under a section on his run and subsequent extradition. nableezy - 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)