User talk:Nableezy

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.

Okay I'm asking

Say what's on your mind. Let loose. I won't report. Talking sh*t doesn't bother me. Messing around with content does.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

All right. And feel free to return the favor. Here though, none of this belongs on an article talk page.

The biggest problem that I see with your editing is not that you have a clearly identifiable view on the subject and that you promote that view, but that you demand that view, no matter how poor the sources are, be placed ahead, and sometimes even to the exclusion of, what are clearly super-majority views. This edit pissed me off. Everything that you wrote in your edit summary is true (well, the Golan Law never actually says "annex", see for example Eyāl Benveniśtî (2004) The international law of occupation p. 114), but you then decide that because Israel considers this place a town that it somehow is not an Israeli settlement. The other problem that I have had with your edits is your reliance on incredibly poor sources, verging on propaganda, to try to push what can at times be a fringe view. On the tourism article you present a source by Dore Gold and say it is "a more contemporary view of the subject of sovereignty" of the Golan, as if it being newer means it is of higher quality. The source you were comparing this to was a peer-reviewed journal article by Adam Roberts (scholar). And you were presenting this source as if to argue that what Roberts wrote is not accurate. Do you really dispute that the Golan is recognized by the international community as Syrian territory held in a state of belligerent occupation? Really? You cannot be that dumb, you can not name 3 states that do not hold the view that is Syrian territory held under occupation by Israel, and Ill even let you say Israel as one of the 3. The same issue with Deir Yassin. You pushed and pushed to get garbage sources into the article, to the point that any legitimate sources that you had were drowned out by the bullshit. There was one or two sources that were acceptable, the problem was neither of those sources went as far as the garbage ones did and they didnt support the kind of language you were using in the article. So you put in a bunch of bad sources that did support that material. You will use any source, no matter how low the quality, to get across a story more sympathetic to Israel. The thing that bothers me about this is that I do think you are a smart person, smart enough to know many of the sources you use are garbage and some of the arguments you make are fallacious. Let me ask three questions. Do you really think the statement that "the Golan Heights are recognized by the international community as Syrian territory held by Israel in a state of military occupation" is in any way inaccurate? What about replacing Golan with West Bank? What about replacing it with East Jerusalem? Not if you think they are or are not occupied, but if they are recognized as such. nableezy - 07:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty tame. I was bracing for worse. My turn. You've been on wiki a bit longer than I so I was unfamiliar with your edits or views when we first crossed paths. Our first encounters were adversarial but cordial. Though you took positions that were frequently at odds with mine, I still thought you were a decent chap. I even offered to mediate disputes you were having with Stellarkid and DrorK (telling the latter that you were a decent guy). My impression of you began changing when I saw you jump from one IP subject to another, knee-jerkingly taking Israel-bashing positions, filing AEs in an attempt to silence those with opposing views and tag-teaming with those of like-mind to ensure that your view and only your view, dominates. Sorry, but that's not what Wikipedia is about.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually regret taking Drork to AE as I think he is a smart person who should be contributing here. But if you did not notice why I did so let me elighten you. Drork came back from a small amount of time off and did nothing but call me and a few other anti-Israel mafioso type bullies. That was all he was doing, over and over again. If he had just resisted the urge to be a complete douchebag I would not have brought the AE against him. And I dont take "Israel-bashing positions", or not what any reasonable person could call "Israel-bashing". There is an odd tendency among those on your side to say that anything that is not sufficiently "pro-Israel" must be "anti-Israel". Nobody every says "anti-Palestinian" when describing the most lunatic fringe of the far right in Israel, they are always just "pro-Israel". Have I ever advocated that there should be no "Israel"? Then how exactly am I "anti-Israel"? Which of my positions is "Israel-bashing"? I am not trying to silence anybody, but since you bring that up, have you noticed a number of users have tried to get me blocked for reverting vandalism? Does that not bother you as an attempt to "silence" an opposing perspective? And I am a "decent chap", if you dont fuck with me I dont fuck with you. Simple really. But my "decency" ends when you start making a mockery of historical facts purely out of some nationalistic, or something else, sense that you must defend a certain state, regardless of the facts of the situation. I can work well with people on the "other side", ie "your side", but not with those who insist that anything that Israel says is true and that is the end of the story, to hell with all the high quality sources that dispute Israel's propaganda. You are rapidly becoming one of those people. I have, more than most, if not all, on the pro-I side, put things in the mainspace that reflected well on the "other side" or poorly on "my side". When you can point to edits that you have made that goes against the position of a certain state I might take you seriously when you say that I am trying make sure my view is the only one that dominates. Did you not notice that you removed what the entire world calls Katzrin and instead only left what Israel calls it? Who is trying to make their position dominate? nableezy - 19:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In case you didn’t notice. I took no part in that latest AE filed against you. In fact, I never commented on an AE in which you were involved. As far as making edits that went against my personal viewpoint, I did that as well. In fact, I worked hard with an editor (Elummah) from the “other side” on a particular article that was fraught with edit warring and endless reverts. We both agreed to compromise on contentious issues and brought stability to a very unstable article. One editor from "my side" actually made a pejorative reference to the "honeymoon" that I was having with Elummah precisely because of my compromising stance. The POV tag was ultimately removed and stability, (to the extent that any article on Wikipedia can be called stable) was restored. I am asking you, as an editor from the "other side" to work with me on Deir Yassin. Are you up for it?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I did notice, I havent accused you of trying to get an opposing editor blocked. I am saying there is a lack of consistency in your view and that you are off-base with the Drork issue, though I do regret his being banned. I am pretty much in agreement with most of the others at Deir Yassin. The only real source you brought says that some "Arab men" wore women's clothing to attempt to escape, not "Arab combatants" as you have continually put into the article. I am fine with including what the reliable source says, not what the rest of the garbage sources say. And you dont help your case when you bring garbage sources or misrepresent others. You have repeatedly said that Milstein does not call it a massacre yet he devotes an entire section to, you guessed it, "the massacre". After things like that some people, myself included, stop taking you seriously. I myself have no problem including the claim that Arab men had dressed as women to try to escape the fighting, sourced to Gelber. But you want to go much farther than that, and no real source supports what you are trying to place in the article. And you conveniently side-stepped my question about Katzrin while continuing to pretend that I want to have my personal view and only my personal view in the mainspace. nableezy - 21:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And comparing your editing behavior on Richard Goldstone and Caroline Glick is very informative. Consistency, that is the only currency that I recognize on Wikipedia, and you have shown yourself to be consistent in only one way. Whatever argument is needed to push a right wing Israeli POV is the argument you will make, doesnt matter how intellectually dishonest that argument is or how incompatible it is with other arguments you have pushed. nableezy - 21:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I won't be a dick and run to AE if you both to choose to have some candid dialogue between yourselves here.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing? nableezy - 07:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Didn't want there to be any confusion on anyone's end Cptnono (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

'48 massacres

FYI : [1]. 81.244.167.24 (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better for all involved if you signed in and requested an unblock. nableezy - 17:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not blocked (?) but I only contribute under IP. What is important is not who says something but what is said. 91.180.158.68 (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

All right. nableezy - 14:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought you were somebody else. Sorry. nableezy - 04:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No worry Nableezy :). You are right that contributing under IP -and not with a pseudo- is not the best way, particularly on difficult or polemic articles. But I prefer this way to avoid wikiholism. Rgds, 81.244.59.5 (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem

I see you edit jerusalem. I'm banned from this article, but it is a simple philological point. I supplied a draft on the talk page a year and a half ago to fix the etymology section, but no one seems to wish to use it. But some details are too stupid, and beg for correction.

In Greek and Latin it is transliterated Hierosolyma (Ιερουσαλήμ).

This is completely screwed up. 'Hierosolyma is one thing, the Greek should be transcribed as 'Ierousalém' (where 'é' should be an 'e' with macron and accent above it, though ή by that time was pronounced 'i'.

In ancient Greek there were two ways of writing Jerusalem

• (a)Ἱεροσόλυμα (Hierosólyma) (The initial 'i' is aspirated)
• (b)Ἰερουσαλήμ (Ierousalém) (The initial 'i' is not aspirated)

What the text does is give the English transcription of (a) and gloss it with (b), which is nonsensical. You might either fix it, or better still notify the page and get some editor to adjust to avoid the confused nonsense that stands there now. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you overestimate my intelligence. This is all jibberish to me, what exactly needs to change? (And I don't think you are banned from that section of the article, has nothing to do with the conflict) nableezy - 16:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Change:'In Greek and Latin it is transliterated Hierosolyma (Ιερουσαλήμ).'

to

'In Greek and Latin it is transliterated Hierosolyma (Ἱεροσόλυμα).'

Sorry for the trouble. Scruple about blurry boundaries stops me from making the edit.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You should know better than to tell me thanks. Uncouth Chicagoan that I am I might be inclined to tell you where you can stick your thanks. But no problem. nableezy - 19:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, dead right, ye ugly, creepin, blastit wonner --NSH001 (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it wouldn'ìt be worth the effort to try and shove my oversized 'thanks' where you're minded to. To judge from tonight's meal, the place will be fully occu-pie-d. But go'n get stuffed, the bowf a yez, An don't come the raw prawn with that pseud's corner crap about overestimation. The only thing that's overestimated about that septic (rhyming slang) joint you call a hometown is the real-estate, and I'm sure the boys on the Chicago exchange and their NY Walled-eyed street buddies are working to fix that. Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

An oh, Neil, thanks for that Burns. It took me back several decades, to the day I heard my father recite 'The Ball o' Kirriemair' in the pure unbowdlerized (bawd'a lair-ized?) original. Sorry for saying thanks, in closing, so, to hew to the tone demanded of our host, eff off mate! Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thievery by a man of Irish ancestry! I hereby claim "The Ball" back for the good people of Kirriemuir (and the four-and-twenty virgins of Inverness extraction). (See also: John Strachan (singer))     ←   ZScarpia   17:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wellfuckmedead, Scarpy. Yer an 'auld naig' as Burns'd say. That inference is an owtrageous violation of WP:SYNTH, ya swine. Sure we was Irish, but there's a blighting tincture of Blighty blood there on grandfather' side, and the cultural side-effect, or side-effuckt was that pop grew up with a master's ear for dialect, spouting cockney and Scots as well as well as blarney in his brogue when tipples turned to topering, and he held the stage as the pub's raconteur, tho' wowsers with an ear for Joyce wudda spoken of a 'raccoon turd'. An Irish captain offered him in his retirement a cabin for a year on a cargo that travelled the world, on condition he sat at the captain's table and told tall stories about pommie poofters and the like every night. So, as my good friend below, our eminent French colleague would say, pal, 'fous le camp'! And, uh, fanks guv Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah ... fous le camp. I believe that an appropriate response by a well brought-up person such as myself is to give you the Bras d'honneur and suggest that you va te faire foutre?     ←   ZScarpia   20:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh mate, well-bred people would never tutoyer in such circs! Well-bred people don't communicate with Nableezy or write on his personal page! They wouldn't have anything to do with him or any dumbprick silly enough to cultivate his company. Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Word. كلنا سيئة و مافيش ولا واحد مننا عنده أخلاق. nableezy - 21:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

An historical footnote. I'd speak according to the style you prefer Nab. But when I adopted that style while remonstrating with Ashley Kennedy3, it was interpreted by an admin as a grossly offensive attack on a wikipedian, and I was banned. It was lifted of course, almost immediately, but then dredged up when the ultimate ban was given, as key evidence I am an abusive editor with a record for using obscene reproaches. Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you did do that on AN/I, a page patrolled by almost countless admin drones who have no sense of humor and lack the ability to distinguish between welcome banter among "friends" (as much as one can be "friends" with somebody they have never even seen) and actual attacks. But you should be fine here; my talk page, my rules. Let a muthafucka block somebody for "incivlity" on this page. See what happens to them. nableezy - 21:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"by almost countless admin drones" :-)

Godness ! And what about the 4th pillar, Nableezy.

Mon ami Nishidani peut comprendre pourquoi je contribue maintenant sous IP / My friend Nishidani can undertand why I only contribute under IP :-)

Cheers, 81.244.175.25 (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

most or some

[2]. It is really difficult to source this because it is hard to find several historians who would have written this sentence precisely but that is quite correct to state that "most of those who had not fled were expelled except in some areas such as around Narareth or in the small triangle". 81.244.175.25 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Some covers most, and if most is disputed then some is fine by me (though it would be better to give numbers, either % of those who remained or total number who were expelled or fled). The main problem I had is with "convinced to leave by the Israeli military". I suppose if somebody sticks a gun in my face they "convinced" me to give them all my money, but the correct term for that is that person robbed me, not that they convinced me that my money should be theirs. nableezy - 21:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I missed that point.

You are of course right : "They were pushed to flee" ; "They were forced to flee. 81.244.174.220 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to help me with my new article?

Here it is: The Arab heroes of the Holocaust. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont know, we'll see. It isnt something I know much about. nableezy - 22:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant to help with my English, not only contest. I believe your English is very good.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

?

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)

Wikipedia: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:

1. I have no particular interest in the Israeli/Palestinian issue
2. I have no interest in Stellarkid except that he happened to join a mediation I'm running
3. 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 Wikipedia: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)