User talk:Nableezy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:45, 21 July 2010 view sourceNableezy (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,174 editsm →Israel and UN ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:03, 21 July 2010 view source Nishidani (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,541 edits →Israel and UN Next edit →
Line 150:		Line 150:
	I saw your complain about the user removing POV UN quotes from the article, and it reminded me a funny cartoon that I would like to share with you: ] --] (]) 14:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)		I saw your complain about the user removing POV UN quotes from the article, and it reminded me a funny cartoon that I would like to share with you: ] --] (]) 14:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
	:Small difference. That little guy has the most advanced army in the region (funded in part by my tax dollars), the only nuclear arsenal in the region, and the blind, and often irrational, support of a superpower. And what "POV UN quote" are you talking about? Do you mean Pantherskin's removal of a quote by ]? Not exactly a "POV UN quote". But how about we restrict the comments on this page to things that actually have something to do with Misplaced Pages? Sound good? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)</font></small>		:Small difference. That little guy has the most advanced army in the region (funded in part by my tax dollars), the only nuclear arsenal in the region, and the blind, and often irrational, support of a superpower. And what "POV UN quote" are you talking about? Do you mean Pantherskin's removal of a quote by ]? Not exactly a "POV UN quote". But how about we restrict the comments on this page to things that actually have something to do with Misplaced Pages? Sound good? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
			::] (]) 15:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:03, 21 July 2010

I was smoking the other night and I began to violently cough. I coughed so hard that I pulled a muscle in my back. So what did I do next? Smoked some more to try to ease the pain.

Template:Archive box collapsible

?

How about you? Did you have a prior account at WP? You seem to have had quite a bit of luck flushing out sockpuppets. I am sympathetic to them. It has been sad to see many of them go, since it means that the adversarial voice is silenced. Turns out that Israel does not have that many supporters on WP after all. Flushing out sockpuppets is of course an easy way to avoid the intellectual challenge that the sockpuppet represents. Much easier to find sockpuppets, get people blocked and banned than to make honest edits. It makes cranking out anti-Israel propaganda so much easier. I am not alone in my thinking. A number of sources agree. <links redacted> Stellarkid (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No I have not. nableezy - 17:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the earlier and the more effectively sockpuppets can be rooted out the better. You have things the wrong way round. Editors use sockpuppets to avoid having to make honest edits (they can game the system by sidestepping the 3RR rule and by skewing the consensual position), to avoid the intellectual challenge involved in properly arguing their case (and accept defeat when their position is weaker) and to crank out POV edits (you could call it propaganda). Sockmasters only have themselves to blame for being banned. I suspect that they are like those athletes who justify taking performance-enhancing drugs because "everybody is doing it and you can't win unless you break the rules too." Also, presumably they feel their position is so right, that that justifies them in breaking the rules. (Apologies for inviting myself to join the conversation) ← ZScarpia 01:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that Stellarkid has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user, it is understandable she would be sympathetic to other sockpuppets. No matter anymore. nableezy - 21:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in retrospect, that sympathy was a bit of an alarm signal. I hope that you're not feeling bad about shopping sockpuppets. The best way to dissuade people from breaking the rules is to increase the likelihood of detection. And there are procedures whereby the ones already blocked can legitimately get themselves unblocked. Somebody needs to collar the ones who circumvent them. ← ZScarpia 19:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, of course not. In fact I think I have found another incarnation of the artist formerly known as NoCal100. Just have to put a few more dots together for an SPI. nableezy - 04:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No prisoners! ← ZScarpia 17:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

There are other current issues that I am considering for an RfC or AE but this is the pressing one.Cptnono (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is bullshit and you know it. You know that Jiu has yet to provide a single policy based reason for his constant reverts, and you show yourself to be the POV-pusher that we know that you are by yet again ignoring his actions. Bye. nableezy - 02:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

re stellarkid

let me point out three things before I make the comment I want to make:

I have no particular interest in the Israeli/Palestinian issue
I have no interest in Stellarkid except that he happened to join a mediation I'm running
I have no opinion on whether or not stellarkid is a sock, or had a previous account, or anything of that nature.

All that being noted, you're being a fucking ass on his talk page, and if you keep it up I'll report you to ANI myself, and you most likely will get blocked for it. understood? --Ludwigs2 14:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am being an ass to people who are being asses. A user says bullshit about me you expect me to not respond? That said, I have no intention of commenting there again. nableezy - 14:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say you should comment there one more time to apologize.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

To who? nableezy - 14:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

To Stellarkid of course.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

For what? I wasnt even being an ass with SK, more with Jiujitsuguy (following him saying I was engaging in "despicable behavior"). I do think SK is a sock of a banned user and I am compiling an SPI report about that (there is a lot of material so it is taking a bit of time), if I am wrong then I am wrong. But I am not going to apologize for asking if he or she is a sock. nableezy - 15:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have asked them only one time, if they were a sock, then it would have been OK, but you kept threatening them with SPI report for quite some time, and in quite few posts. IMO it is not a good practice to threat an editor. I personally prefer to get blocked rather than to be threatened to get blocked, or to be informed that an SPI was filed against me rather than to be threatened that it is about to be filed. I hope you understand what I mean. I generally believe that an apology is a good thing sometimes. In any case I said what I believe I should have said, and I am not going to bother you with this issue any longer unless you have some specific questions for me.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont think "threat" is the correct term. I asked SK if he or she had a prior account. After a reply of "No, why do you ask" I explained why I asked. After that a few users have been providing us with their usual quality comments and I have replied. Perhaps I should not have engaged with NMMNG or Jiu or Cptnono, but when people say bullshit about me I often find it hard to not respond. Besides the two posts listed above and the most recent where I clarified that another reply was aimed at Jiu and not SK, I have not said anything to SK. So, given that those three posts are the sum total of everything that I said to the user, I see no reason to apologize. nableezy - 15:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

look, I can be an ass myself, and I never put up with bull, but there are appropriate ways to do it and inappropriate ways. if you want to tell him what you think, that's fine. once you've told him, though, drop it until the next time. If you have a serious problem with him, take it to ANI. however, badgering him on his talk page just makes you look like an aggressive, intemperate idiot, and sooner or later you will get blocked for it.

That's really all I have to say on the matter - take it however you will, and I won't bother to say "I told you so" if you take it the wrong way. bueno? --Ludwigs2 16:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasnt badgering stellrakid though, I made a total of 3 comments directed at that user. The rest of my comments were directed at the other users who choose to join in. But sure, bueno. nableezy - 16:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Chill

Take a chill pill Nableezy. In the past 48 hrs, you've threatened to "out" an editor, used another user's page as if it were toilet paper, have been rude and uncivil and engaged in relentless edit warring. Looks as though you have lost your grip on reality and are unable to distinguish between the virtual and real worlds.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not threatened to out an editor. Nor have I been engaged in "relentless edit warring". I suggest you be more careful with your words. And when somebody accuses me of "despicable behavior" I tend to respond. Bye. nableezy - 14:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Open SPI case

Regarding Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dajudem, please review this edit and remember to act civilly with regards to your contributions to the case. This notice is being sent to all active participants in this case and does not imply any wrongdoing on your part. Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, another one rumbled then. I lose track, not that it's anything to do with me these days. N-HH talk/edits 16:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you had to deal with many of the others. There were three people who had pushed for my first topic ban. One of those was later blocked as a sock of NoCal100, the one who filed the complaint has now been blocked as a sock of Dajudem/Tundrabuggy, and the last is still taking aim at me. I wonder when the next one will show up. nableezy - 16:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, in the past I suppose I had to suffer that one (more often than I was aware of at the time, of course). Anyway, you and George win this month's Columbo award. N-HH talk/edits 17:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If you would stop screwing up I wouldn't be aiming for anything. If you chose to ignore criticism just because it is from a sock (and that was some fine sleuthing by George it looks like) then you are just going to repeat it and find yourself in more situations.Cptnono (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Aw golly gee, I'll just get right on that. Straight away sir! nableezy - 04:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Your trip to Egypt

outlived any usefulness
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, you took a short wikibreak and said you were going to Egypt. How come you never edit anything about that country, or went on a 'editting binge' with the new info you learnt about. Usually, people come back from a significant overseas trip full of interest from that area. Just wondering. --Shuki (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC) I did write al-Azhar Mosque a while back. But when I go to Egypt it is to visit family, not go to tourist spots and take pictures. I haven't taken a trip to Egypt like that since I was a lil kid and my family went on a tour from Luxor to Aswan, stopping at places like Karnak and the Valley of the Kings (though this time I did go to Sharm; I wanted to go to St Catherine's Monastery, but the beach was too nice to leave). If I felt like the material dealing with Palestine and the occupation weren't so badly skewed I would probably take time to write about things related to Egypt, but I see much bigger problems in the coverage of the occupation than I do with the coverage about Egypt. And I write about the things that interest me. Is that a problem? nableezy - 00:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC) A friend also came back recently from a short trip there and has a ton of stories about the places and culture, and you seem to not have anything to say. You released that great article during a topic ban several months ago and since then, nothing. I find that weird. --Shuki (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC) ok. I actually started to write that article before any topic ban. I got stories, just not ones I want to share with random people on a website. And your friend was a tourist, I was going home, bit of a difference. The stories are going to be very different. Again, I write about the things that interest me and I see huge problems with the coverage of the occupation. That is more important to me than covering Egyptian cuisine or the history of Shubra or how Shara el-Terra got its name. If I did not feel the need to deal with the incessant nonsense a few people regularly push into articles dealing with Palestine perhaps I would write about those topics. But the nonsense continues so I dont. nableezy - 00:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Okay, I have to ask... "occupation" of what, exactly? IronDuke 22:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Cocaine production. Oh wait, you werent asking what my occupation is. nableezy - 23:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Really? Your self-disclosure leads me to conjecture it would be some other organic crop... and I see you have not answered the question. No matter, you are certainly under no obligation to do so. IronDuke 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC) There is a money-making crop and a happy-making crop. I live by my mans commandments and dont mix the two. And since I cant tell if you are serious or not about the question, I'll provide a link that should help explain what occupation I am referring to. . Excellent book. Coming to many articles near you as a source in the not so distant future. nableezy - 23:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Should have figured. My man disagrees with your man. I was serious, in that I was hoping you did not mean "occupation" as in occupied from the river to the sea. Not sure about your source... I would use caution, and I know you aspire to edit as I do. IronDuke 23:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC) I meant the occupation of the Palestinian territories (the West Bank, including E. Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip) and the Golan Heights. I dont consider Israel proper occupied territory. I hope I havent given such an impression in the past, I dont think I am that extreme in my edits that such a view should be ascribed to me. The source is solid, authored by a university professor and published by a university press. nableezy - 00:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC) You are exactly right, and I would have been surprised and disappointed had you held such a view. Still not sure about your source, in that he has been condemned by that same university. Not saying never use it, just use with caution. Feel free to ask me for guidance, as needed. IronDuke 00:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC) He was criticized by some in the Department of Education and donors to the university, as well as a board member, for supporting a boycott of Israel, not for writing this book. However, his own university president defended his right to voice such a view, while not agreeing with the view, after Gordon received death threats. He remains in good standing at the school, and the criticism of Gordon had nothing to do with the quality of his work. nableezy - 00:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Right, I think it has more to do with whether a specific and strong POV attaches to the work. Is anybody advancing the idea that he's a neutral scholar in this? The condemnation he received isn't speaking so much to any given fact he'd assert as true, but the lens through which he views the issue (which he seems very much to be an activist in). IronDuke 01:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC) If that is what you require of sources then we need to purge any reference to a whole host of sources. We both know that "POV" does not factor into how wiki defines "reliability". I dont think there will be a problem with the way I use the source, but we'll see. nableezy - 01:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC) K. IronDuke 01:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC) You asked me a question that I would like to turn around. You said you would be disappointed if I were a "river to the sea" person. What about those who define Israel as the "river to the sea"? Does that definition bother you? nableezy - 02:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Well, I think that's perhaps a bit fuzzier... can you say what you (or they) mean, i.e., exact geographic contours? IronDuke 02:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC) All of the territory that Israel currently controls, Israel proper and the occupied territories. nableezy - 03:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC) That's a hell of a question. I'm taking you to be saying West Bank, Gaza, Golan, and East Jerusalem. Should all of that belong to Israel? Doesn't even merit discussing (and very, very few are). But each separate case is negotiable -- a different problem, and admits of a different solution (or set of possible solutions). For myself, I think all sides are going to have to feel like they got ripped off for a real solution to be effected. IronDuke 03:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC) For myself, I think one side has already been disproportionately ripped off. I have my own thoughts as to what would be an ideal solution, but I doubt anybody would like it. But thank you for being your usual engaging self, and I mean that sincerely. nableezy - 04:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Nableezy, why you consider Gaza occupied territory?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC) For interest, this very brief piece by Iain Scobbie is quite a nice summary of the widely held "occupation via effective control" view. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Because Israel exercises effective military control over Gaza. See here: Israel is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip. In 2005, as part of what it termed “disengagement” from Gaza, Israel removed its settlements and settlers. Yet despite the redeployment of its troops in 2005, the Israeli army has retained effective control over the Gaza Strip. Israel maintains sole control of Gaza’s airspace and territorial waters and does not allow any movement of people or goods in or out of Gaza via air or sea. Israel also continues to exercise a degree of control over Gaza’s border with Egypt and Israeli officials have repeatedly made it clear that this border can only be reopened within the framework of a joint agreement with the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. Israel also continues to control electricity, water and telecommunications in Gaza. It has regularly conducted raids in Gaza, often arresting “wanted” men; and carrying out so-called “targeted killings”, in air strikes which have claimed a high toll on civilians. Effective military control is the determining factor, but what I consider occupied really does not matter on Misplaced Pages. Gaza itself is a complicated case that I don't think Misplaced Pages should say is occupied or not as a statement of fact. There are actual conflicting opinions on that question and we should simply describe those opinions. The case of the West Bank, including E. Jerusalem, and the Golan are much more clear cut. Clear enough that Misplaced Pages should be able to say as a statement of fact that those territories are currently occupied. nableezy - 04:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks, you know what I agree with you: Gaza is an occupied territory. Now, could you please tell me, if you believe that as soon as Hamas and the company will stop firing rockets to Israel, she will lift all blockades for good? Israelis left Gaza not because they wanted to continue "occupation". Israel is a small and a poor country. They want peace, no war, but does Hamas? No, It says:"Palestine will be free from the river to the sea". Please do tell me what in your opinion Israel should do in such situation?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC) You really want an answer to this? That wont be enjoyable for you or me. nableezy - 04:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I do, if your answers are going to be polite and civil because I do like to understand.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I didnt plan on not being polite, I generally act the way other act with me (unless of course somebody pisses me off, then I revert to my usual charming self). I just dont think you will like what I have to say, and I dont think the policies of this website actually allow me to discuss at length my views on these topics. And as I am sure you are aware, a number of users watch my edits with an intense scrutiny just waiting for the opportunity to finally get me banned (God bless them, doing the Lord's work and all). So if you insist I might be inclined to answer such a question, but I dont think it would be in anybody's interest if I did. nableezy - 04:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Nableezy, there's nothing, and I mean nothing that could justify rockets firing into Israel. When a crime is committed, to find the criminal the question is asked: "Who benefited from this crime?" Did Israel benefit from killing "peace activists" on Gaza flotilla? No, no and no. Did Israel benefit from any war she was forced to fight in Gaza? No, no, and no. Does Israel benefit from being forced to maintain Gaza's blockade? No, no and no. Israelis want peace. If you are afraid that you responding my questions could make you topic banned, then please do not. The fact you mentioned topic ban gave me a pretty good idea what your responses would be like. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Thats nice. The reason I am not responding is that a certain Sherlockian Captain has made a habit of trying to get me blocked and I would rather not add violating WP:SOAP to his list of transgressions. nableezy - 06:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Oh, yes, it is a response of anybody, who has no arguments to prove their points. rolandr and some others on your side called me a political extremist and a racist. I am neither. I am for two states solution, I am for peace, I am suffering when an Israeli kid is killed, and I am suffering, when a Palestinian kid gets killed absolutely the same. I will never put a hate propaganda image at my user page, aren't they? Are they? No, I am not a political extremist, and I am not a racist. Aren't they?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I have an argument, it just is not one appropriate to make on Misplaced Pages. nableezy - 14:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC) And here, where I see the problem. I could put and prove my arguments anywhere without being afraid of getting blocked or topic banned, but anyway... I've taken enough of your time already. I am letting it go now.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Mbz1, you dont have multiple users digging through your contributions looking for a chance to bring you up to AE. At least 2 users do this on a regular basis with me, one of them going through months of contribs to do so. nableezy - 14:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I also have lots of wikihounds, but I said nothing that I would not have repeated anywhere, and I stand behind my words. If somebody will take me to AE for that, so it be. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Ok, whatever you say. Take care, nableezy - 15:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I'd like to suggest something. Let's pretend that the peace in Middle East depends on us. Let's pretend that we are ambassadors, PMs, whatever. Let's discuss peace conditions here at your talk page or at mine, or whatever. IMO it will be an interesting exercise, which might help us to understand each others better. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I dont think that is wise. nableezy - 04:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Why not?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Because this is an emotional topic where the discussion can get heated and at the end of the day we do have to work together. Let's say that what I say makes you furious with me, or what you say makes me furious with you. What then? We end up with nothing accomplished besides people disliking each other more than they already may. nableezy - 04:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC) During your visit to Egypt, did you see any racism towards the millions of black muslims and christians that have fled since the late 1990s to major cities in Egypt, forced to live in refugee camps and considered to be 2nd class citizens, only marginally below the viscerally hated Palestinian minority? What do you think of Egypt's recent support and defensive of Omar Bashir, as well as aid and tacit approval of Arab Islamists that conduct raids against dinka villages? I see Egypt as a rather progressive and modern country in contrast to other Arab nations, but have yet to understand the seeming double standard towards Palestinian human rights and human rights towards victims of Arab foreign policy. And FYI, there is more poverty in Egypt than in Gaza according to the United Nations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC) No I did not. And much of the population of southern Egypt is dark-skinned, so I dont know what you are talking about their fleeing to the big cities. But then again, I was for the most part in the big cities. What exactly does this have to do with anything? nableezy - 14:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

outlived any usefulness

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

Hi, you took a short wikibreak and said you were going to Egypt. How come you never edit anything about that country, or went on a 'editting binge' with the new info you learnt about. Usually, people come back from a significant overseas trip full of interest from that area. Just wondering. --Shuki (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I did write al-Azhar Mosque a while back. But when I go to Egypt it is to visit family, not go to tourist spots and take pictures. I haven't taken a trip to Egypt like that since I was a lil kid and my family went on a tour from Luxor to Aswan, stopping at places like Karnak and the Valley of the Kings (though this time I did go to Sharm; I wanted to go to St Catherine's Monastery, but the beach was too nice to leave). If I felt like the material dealing with Palestine and the occupation weren't so badly skewed I would probably take time to write about things related to Egypt, but I see much bigger problems in the coverage of the occupation than I do with the coverage about Egypt. And I write about the things that interest me. Is that a problem? nableezy - 00:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A friend also came back recently from a short trip there and has a ton of stories about the places and culture, and you seem to not have anything to say. You released that great article during a topic ban several months ago and since then, nothing. I find that weird. --Shuki (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

ok. I actually started to write that article before any topic ban. I got stories, just not ones I want to share with random people on a website. And your friend was a tourist, I was going home, bit of a difference. The stories are going to be very different. Again, I write about the things that interest me and I see huge problems with the coverage of the occupation. That is more important to me than covering Egyptian cuisine or the history of Shubra or how Shara el-Terra got its name. If I did not feel the need to deal with the incessant nonsense a few people regularly push into articles dealing with Palestine perhaps I would write about those topics. But the nonsense continues so I dont. nableezy - 00:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have to ask... "occupation" of what, exactly? IronDuke 22:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Cocaine production. Oh wait, you werent asking what my occupation is. nableezy - 23:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? Your self-disclosure leads me to conjecture it would be some other organic crop... and I see you have not answered the question. No matter, you are certainly under no obligation to do so. IronDuke 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a money-making crop and a happy-making crop. I live by my mans commandments and dont mix the two. And since I cant tell if you are serious or not about the question, I'll provide a link that should help explain what occupation I am referring to. . Excellent book. Coming to many articles near you as a source in the not so distant future. nableezy - 23:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Should have figured. My man disagrees with your man. I was serious, in that I was hoping you did not mean "occupation" as in occupied from the river to the sea. Not sure about your source... I would use caution, and I know you aspire to edit as I do. IronDuke 23:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant the occupation of the Palestinian territories (the West Bank, including E. Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip) and the Golan Heights. I dont consider Israel proper occupied territory. I hope I havent given such an impression in the past, I dont think I am that extreme in my edits that such a view should be ascribed to me. The source is solid, authored by a university professor and published by a university press. nableezy - 00:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You are exactly right, and I would have been surprised and disappointed had you held such a view. Still not sure about your source, in that he has been condemned by that same university. Not saying never use it, just use with caution. Feel free to ask me for guidance, as needed. IronDuke 00:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

He was criticized by some in the Department of Education and donors to the university, as well as a board member, for supporting a boycott of Israel, not for writing this book. However, his own university president defended his right to voice such a view, while not agreeing with the view, after Gordon received death threats. He remains in good standing at the school, and the criticism of Gordon had nothing to do with the quality of his work. nableezy - 00:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, I think it has more to do with whether a specific and strong POV attaches to the work. Is anybody advancing the idea that he's a neutral scholar in this? The condemnation he received isn't speaking so much to any given fact he'd assert as true, but the lens through which he views the issue (which he seems very much to be an activist in). IronDuke 01:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If that is what you require of sources then we need to purge any reference to a whole host of sources. We both know that "POV" does not factor into how wiki defines "reliability". I dont think there will be a problem with the way I use the source, but we'll see. nableezy - 01:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

K. IronDuke 01:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You asked me a question that I would like to turn around. You said you would be disappointed if I were a "river to the sea" person. What about those who define Israel as the "river to the sea"? Does that definition bother you? nableezy - 02:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that's perhaps a bit fuzzier... can you say what you (or they) mean, i.e., exact geographic contours? IronDuke 02:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

All of the territory that Israel currently controls, Israel proper and the occupied territories. nableezy - 03:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a hell of a question. I'm taking you to be saying West Bank, Gaza, Golan, and East Jerusalem. Should all of that belong to Israel? Doesn't even merit discussing (and very, very few are). But each separate case is negotiable -- a different problem, and admits of a different solution (or set of possible solutions). For myself, I think all sides are going to have to feel like they got ripped off for a real solution to be effected. IronDuke 03:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For myself, I think one side has already been disproportionately ripped off. I have my own thoughts as to what would be an ideal solution, but I doubt anybody would like it. But thank you for being your usual engaging self, and I mean that sincerely. nableezy - 04:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, why you consider Gaza occupied territory?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For interest, this very brief piece by Iain Scobbie is quite a nice summary of the widely held "occupation via effective control" view. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Because Israel exercises effective military control over Gaza. See here: Israel is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip. In 2005, as part of what it termed “disengagement” from Gaza, Israel removed its settlements and settlers. Yet despite the redeployment of its troops in 2005, the Israeli army has retained effective control over the Gaza Strip. Israel maintains sole control of Gaza’s airspace and territorial waters and does not allow any movement of people or goods in or out of Gaza via air or sea. Israel also continues to exercise a degree of control over Gaza’s border with Egypt and Israeli officials have repeatedly made it clear that this border can only be reopened within the framework of a joint agreement with the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. Israel also continues to control electricity, water and telecommunications in Gaza. It has regularly conducted raids in Gaza, often arresting “wanted” men; and carrying out so-called “targeted killings”, in air strikes which have claimed a high toll on civilians. Effective military control is the determining factor, but what I consider occupied really does not matter on Misplaced Pages. Gaza itself is a complicated case that I don't think Misplaced Pages should say is occupied or not as a statement of fact. There are actual conflicting opinions on that question and we should simply describe those opinions. The case of the West Bank, including E. Jerusalem, and the Golan are much more clear cut. Clear enough that Misplaced Pages should be able to say as a statement of fact that those territories are currently occupied. nableezy - 04:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you know what I agree with you: Gaza is an occupied territory. Now, could you please tell me, if you believe that as soon as Hamas and the company will stop firing rockets to Israel, she will lift all blockades for good? Israelis left Gaza not because they wanted to continue "occupation". Israel is a small and a poor country. They want peace, no war, but does Hamas? No, It says:"Palestine will be free from the river to the sea". Please do tell me what in your opinion Israel should do in such situation?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You really want an answer to this? That wont be enjoyable for you or me. nableezy - 04:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I do, if your answers are going to be polite and civil because I do like to understand.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I didnt plan on not being polite, I generally act the way other act with me (unless of course somebody pisses me off, then I revert to my usual charming self). I just dont think you will like what I have to say, and I dont think the policies of this website actually allow me to discuss at length my views on these topics. And as I am sure you are aware, a number of users watch my edits with an intense scrutiny just waiting for the opportunity to finally get me banned (God bless them, doing the Lord's work and all). So if you insist I might be inclined to answer such a question, but I dont think it would be in anybody's interest if I did. nableezy - 04:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, there's nothing, and I mean nothing that could justify rockets firing into Israel. When a crime is committed, to find the criminal the question is asked: "Who benefited from this crime?" Did Israel benefit from killing "peace activists" on Gaza flotilla? No, no and no. Did Israel benefit from any war she was forced to fight in Gaza? No, no, and no. Does Israel benefit from being forced to maintain Gaza's blockade? No, no and no. Israelis want peace. If you are afraid that you responding my questions could make you topic banned, then please do not. The fact you mentioned topic ban gave me a pretty good idea what your responses would be like. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats nice. The reason I am not responding is that a certain Sherlockian Captain has made a habit of trying to get me blocked and I would rather not add violating WP:SOAP to his list of transgressions. nableezy - 06:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, it is a response of anybody, who has no arguments to prove their points. rolandr and some others on your side called me a political extremist and a racist. I am neither. I am for two states solution, I am for peace, I am suffering when an Israeli kid is killed, and I am suffering, when a Palestinian kid gets killed absolutely the same. I will never put a hate propaganda image at my user page, aren't they? Are they? No, I am not a political extremist, and I am not a racist. Aren't they?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have an argument, it just is not one appropriate to make on Misplaced Pages. nableezy - 14:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And here, where I see the problem. I could put and prove my arguments anywhere without being afraid of getting blocked or topic banned, but anyway... I've taken enough of your time already. I am letting it go now.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, you dont have multiple users digging through your contributions looking for a chance to bring you up to AE. At least 2 users do this on a regular basis with me, one of them going through months of contribs to do so. nableezy - 14:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I also have lots of wikihounds, but I said nothing that I would not have repeated anywhere, and I stand behind my words. If somebody will take me to AE for that, so it be. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, whatever you say. Take care, nableezy - 15:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest something. Let's pretend that the peace in Middle East depends on us. Let's pretend that we are ambassadors, PMs, whatever. Let's discuss peace conditions here at your talk page or at mine, or whatever. IMO it will be an interesting exercise, which might help us to understand each others better. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont think that is wise. nableezy - 04:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Because this is an emotional topic where the discussion can get heated and at the end of the day we do have to work together. Let's say that what I say makes you furious with me, or what you say makes me furious with you. What then? We end up with nothing accomplished besides people disliking each other more than they already may. nableezy - 04:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

During your visit to Egypt, did you see any racism towards the millions of black muslims and christians that have fled since the late 1990s to major cities in Egypt, forced to live in refugee camps and considered to be 2nd class citizens, only marginally below the viscerally hated Palestinian minority? What do you think of Egypt's recent support and defensive of Omar Bashir, as well as aid and tacit approval of Arab Islamists that conduct raids against dinka villages? I see Egypt as a rather progressive and modern country in contrast to other Arab nations, but have yet to understand the seeming double standard towards Palestinian human rights and human rights towards victims of Arab foreign policy. And FYI, there is more poverty in Egypt than in Gaza according to the United Nations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No I did not. And much of the population of southern Egypt is dark-skinned, so I dont know what you are talking about their fleeing to the big cities. But then again, I was for the most part in the big cities. What exactly does this have to do with anything? nableezy - 14:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Your message

Done — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Done — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

admin question

{{adminhelp}} I have concerns that an editor has repeatedly violated WP:MEAT by attempting to recruit editors to join him in editing certain pages with a certain POV. However, to make this case would require linking to off-site publications that contain the editor's real name which would violate WP:OUTING. What should I do in this case? nableezy - 14:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please contact the checkuser / oversight team, via email, by sending an email to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org

They are the experts with dealing with such things.

Please do not discuss it on-wiki.

For more help (with anything), you can either;

Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
Use another {{helpme}} OR
Talk to us live, with this or this. Chzz ► 14:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other options? nableezy - 15:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want something to be done about it, no. --Deskana (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

All right, sent. nableezy - 19:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel and UN

I saw your complain about the user removing POV UN quotes from the article, and it reminded me a funny cartoon that I would like to share with you: File:Israel-vs -Arabs-21092009-by-Barry-Hunau-Jerusalempost.jpg --Mbz1 (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Small difference. That little guy has the most advanced army in the region (funded in part by my tax dollars), the only nuclear arsenal in the region, and the blind, and often irrational, support of a superpower. And what "POV UN quote" are you talking about? Do you mean Pantherskin's removal of a quote by Moshe Dayan? Not exactly a "POV UN quote". But how about we restrict the comments on this page to things that actually have something to do with Misplaced Pages? Sound good? nableezy - 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Speakinmg of funny Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)