Jump to content

User talk:Nableezy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gaza City

Images of war-inflicted damage are not suitable for city infoboxes. Again, cf. Mariupol, Bakhmut, Avdiivka, Kharkiv etc. infoboxes: these are all cities that are heavily damaged by Russian artillery and airstrikes but we only use pre-war images in the respective infoboxes. GreatLeader1945 TALK 14:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreatLeader1945 That seems to be personal opinion, an opinion the talk page rejected previously. You need to revert your revert as well as learn that your personal attack of an edit summary is unacceptable. nableezy - 14:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about possible 1RR violation

Hey @Nableezy, I'm checking to see with you if this is indeed a 1RR violation as it's from the same user you notified of this a while back.

They added highly contentious POV-pushing content, this content was then reverted, then they reverted it back again, and then they also reverted another part of the page shortly thereafter.

This seems like a pretty clear 1RR violation but I'm not sure. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consecutive reverts with no intervening edits by another user are a single revert. nableezy - 01:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for the clarification. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Nableezy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BilledMammal (talk • contribs) 04:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term "massacre"

I agree with you that there is a double standard with the use of the term "massacre" in article titles.[1] I have written Draft:Manual of Style/Israel- and Palestine-related articles (abbreviated as MOS:PIA) to resolve that specific issue, and I want to work with you on getting this implemented. A rules-based approach will benefit the topic area by allowing us to make arguments based on a common understanding of the rules. Writing those rules into a guideline will make it easier to achieve consensus in the future.

Ideally, we would collaborate on a policy banning the term "massacre" from titles and then co-sponsor a proposal to adopt this policy at WP:Village pump (policy). In the future, when editors feel like there is a double standard across multiple articles, those issues can be brought up at the talk page of the MOS instead of fighting over precedents at every article or noticeboard or going to WP:AE. If a standard or rule is a guideline, closers can implement WP:NOTAVOTE more easily and admins can deal with editors blatantly disregarding the standards. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think banning except in the case of an actual common name, and name meaning an actual name of an even, not just a description of it, is the correct answer here. There are things like the the Hebron massacre or the Qana massacre that are so widely known by those names they should be titled that. Then there are things that are described in a number of ways, sometimes overwhelmingly but sometimes not, that don’t themselves have a name but rather a descriptive title. I think for descriptive titles it should be no massacre in titles. That would also make it so basically everything in the last year besides probably Reim and the Flour massacre would be titled massacre. Things that have a name should use that name. Things that we describe should have a less emotive title. nableezy - 00:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And no SFR, arguing that while we do not have such a rule that we should follow the precedent of our existing move requests is not a WP:POINT violation, it is recognizing the world we live in is not the world we would like it to be. POINT requires disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, and that isn’t disrupting a thing. nableezy - 00:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are some guidelines we can give for what constitutes a "common name" beyond what's at WP:COMMONNAME? I can agree in principle to that exception. I would add that a name should be used beyond just Arab or Israeli sources. So, the sources used to establish a common name should reflect a broad perspective.
Additionally, it'd be better to use historical examples with broad agreement in the guideline rather than ones from the present conflict, given that both explain the point effectively. So, the 1929 Hebron massacre or Qana massacre are good examples (especially as they're called such by both Arab and Israeli sources), but I wouldn't include the Reim or Flour massacres because there's still activity on trying to move them. The Cave of the Patriarchs massacre is also a good example, but I would like to keep the number of examples in the guideline evenly balanced between both sides. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the draft taking into account your feedback. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was this recent discussion Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 111#When can titles contain "massacre"? Selfstudier (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: It seems like there's some form of consensus over the term "massacre" in titles. The issue is we can't easily cite that consensus. Ideally, an editor can just !vote Oppose per MOS:PIA, massacre isn't a common name, and the closer can ignore arguments that don't demonstrate how massacre is a common name. It's more difficult to cite a random discussion or another RfC; Nableezy is currently at AE over whether or not their behaviour was POINTY, POV-pushing, or legitimate.
It's easier to determine if someone consistently advocates against prior consensus when it benefits "their side" if we write down what that consensus is.
Also, feel free to discuss on the talk page of the draft. Agreeing that sources should be required to add categories such as "massacre" or "war crime" is another uncontroversial principle I think we can get behind. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CPUSH can only be determined with proper evidence, I don't see what that has to with anything here. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: The AE thread is partially over inconsistent usage of the term "massacre" in article titles and has now been referred to ARCA. A guideline on when to use the word "massacre" in article titles would address some of the issues that started that thread. Nableezy's input is important because a style guide on the Israel-Palestine conflict should be a collaborative effort between all editors. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Committee clarification or amendment

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely bonkers. nableezy - 19:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nableezy&oldid=1257017356"