User talk:Nableezy/Archive 22

'48 massacres
FYI :. 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
. 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)

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: 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? -- Ludwigs 2 14:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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?  -- Ludwigs 2  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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Open SPI case
Regarding 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, Sh i r ik  ( 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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! <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Your trip to Egypt
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? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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 Wikipedia. Gaza itself is a complicated case that I don't think Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia should be able to say as a statement of fact that those territories are currently occupied. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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 Wikipedia. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Your message
✅ — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:34, 16 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. Stellarkid (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No I have not. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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)  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No prisoners!  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  17:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

admin question
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? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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;
 * Use another
 * Talk to us live, with this or this.  Chzz  ► 14:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any other options? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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 Wikipedia? Sound good? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I meant your complain about this removal--Mbz1 (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Which part? The whole second paragraph is from Dayan, and the first clearly says it is from the UN. That is not saying what the UN says is a fact, but you really want argue that we should not include what the UN said? Good luck with that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I am sorry I have missed you question between "retired" Nishidani posts, and you re-posting the link to the hate propaganda, copy-righted (yes, I could prove it) cartoon that has not a single truthful strike of a pencil. No, of course I am not going to argue "we should not include what the UN said" simply because I am sure there's no use in arguing this here at wikipedia as there's absolutely no use to arguing I/P conflict in UN. I just wanted to share with you what I personally think about fairness, neutrality and correctness of UN decisions on Israel. I thought the cartoon would be the best way to do it. I probably should have not posted this cartoon on your talk page. For me this cartoon was only a funny and truthful cartoon about UN. I did not realize it might be offensive to other people. I am sorry about that. I would only like to add that although my tax money are going for Palestine and other Arab countries, I am happy with that as long as they used for a good and peaceful cause, but are they? --Mbz1 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I ask that you reign in the repeated accusations of "hate propaganda". And no, your tax dollars are not being used for good and peaceful causes in the Arab countries. In Egypt it is being used to keep an oppressive pseudo-democratic regime in place while much of the population survives only on subsidized bread, recently made of substandard flour in an effort to reduce the cost to the government. In Saudi Arabia it is being used to keep in place a radical and backwards regime that regularly brutalizes a minority of its own population for having the temerity to think a certain person was bad and for providing cover for the funding of American and Israeli covert operations to murder (they say targeted killings) other Arab Muslims outside of their territory in such places as Lebanon. In Yemen it is used to oppress a minority population that seeks to live in peace and follow the religion of their forefathers. In Iraq, well, let's not talk about Iraq. And in the Palestinian Authority it is used to keep a corrupt leadership in place and deny the Palestinian people of their right to freely choose their representatives. And in Israel, the American dollars are not going to any "good and peaceful cause". Finally, if you can provide evidence that the comic linked below is in fact a copyright violation I would be glad to remove it. That you think that it contains not a "single truthful strike of a pencil" and think the one you posted is a "funny and truthful cartoon" only shows your inability to see these things objectively. But that you think it is "hate propaganda" does not concern me and is not a reason for you to remove the link. Bye. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all I'd like to explain why the cartoon is a lie. Only one of the explanation is here Arab citizens of Israel: Over 20% of the citizens of Israel are Arabs, who of course are not Jews and not Hebrews, and who have every right all other Israelis do. I could provide more proves by request. About copyright status of the cartoon. It was taken from [removed as promissed]. The name of it is: " Middle East's Only Democracy By Khalil Bendib, Bendib.com posted 9/2/2003" If you google for the creator website that I'd rather not to link to, you will see that these cartoons are copyrighted. BTW, when you done with your checking, I will remove the link I added because I do not want to link to the page full of copyrighted hate propaganda cartoons. Bye.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ive now replaced it with a link to the original. No copyright concern anymore. I dont plan on discussing this topic further. You think what you think and that is fine, I dont aim to convince you of anything. I dont plan on discussing the discrimination, both in law and in fact, directed against the Arabs in Israel and I dont think such a conversation serves any point. If you wanted to make a point consider it made and move on. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, I am sorry, but I'd like to ask you few questions please. You wrote: "And in the Palestinian Authority it is used to keep a corrupt leadership in place and deny the Palestinian people of their right to freely choose their representatives." So the questions are:In your statement I quoted you meant only West Bank, or Gaza too? Who is preventing Palestinians from freely choosing their representatives? Who do you believe is better for Palestinians Fatah, Hamas or somebody else? And no, I do not want to get you blocked and/or topic banned, but I am really interested in learning your opinion on those matters because I hope it will help me to understand you better. If you'd rather email me, please do, and of course feel free to delete my questions. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The most recent elections held across the Palestinian territories (in the West Bank, including E. Jerusalem, and Gaza) resulted in a victory for Hamas. Following that election, one that was called the "freest and fairest the Arab world had ever seen", the US and EU withheld money pledged to the PNA and Israel withheld tax receipts that they were obligated to give to the PNA. Hamas is the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people. They were not elected because the Palestinians want an Islamist state or support "terrorist attacks" or any other such reason; they were elected because the Palestinians were largely fed up with the corrupt and inept leadership provided by Fatah. There was a story about the luxury seen in PNA offices, gold plated toilets and all that nonsense. The money that was spent on such trifles was stolen from the Palestinian people, and the people reacted by doing something that sadly has lost its effect in this country, they voted the bums out. Who do I think is better for the Palestinians? I dont know, Im not Palestinian and do not live in the conditions that they do. What I do know is that they need leadership that will not sell them out for gold plated toilets and press conferences with the Americans. But really, thats enough. We arent here to learn about each other, so if there any further questions please keep them relevant to what we are here for. You know, writing an encyclopedia. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have many more questions, but that's it. I will let you go and thanks for responding to me. It did help me to get to know you better, and I liked something of what you said--Mbz1 (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Speaking of 'funny' Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @Nishidani, posting the link to the cartoon is a violation of your topic ban. May I please suggest you revert yourself? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See Nishi, this is what you get for not taking the easy way out of the topic ban. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mbz1, uploading a file to Commons which portrays Arabs as Israel-hating thugs with blood in their eyes and adds nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images is hardly going to be seen as constructive in a heated topic area, may I suggest you remove it before it's reported? RomaC  TALK 15:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That cartoon is not about Arabs. It is about UN, and please do report it to any place you wish.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sure the alarm bells are ringing like Donne's bell in the high echelons. Firecarts are clogging the bureaucratic pathways to put out the fire. Nervous nellies are putting the protocols of precedent and procedure for infractions under an electron microscope to see if a link providing tit for tat in a comic interlude comes within the threat-to-wikipedia defensive shield and sanctions regulatory order. The net will be clogged by dramatic emails wondering whether my blip can be linked to al-Qaeda and merit reporting to the Pentagon, etc.etc. Some things are irreversible, like myself, though I do regret the mispelling. In the real world, some people are grown up, and just laugh, say 'touché', or give as good as they get when they themselves play the stirrer. As the original inhabitants of Hokkaido would say: Kikiri kotoise.Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for butting in, but why is it any less constructive than the Latuff cartoons on Commons? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * RomaC. I think the protocol on Nab's page suggests one does not report whatever is said here. One should not abuse this hospitality of course, since Nableezy prefers to-edit-discussion here, which was, precisely, the point I was making rather unsubtly for Mbzl. I hope this interlude can now be buried, with Donne's funereal bell softly tolling in the wings, along with most of our edits, which is the fate of much that we do here. Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All that remains are sand-filled footprints and lingering patchouli. RomaC  TALK 16:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I love allusions to Shakespeare, and yours, in 'sand-filled footprints', to The Tempest Act 5, Sc.1, ll.32-3I. I emailed my analyst, who reviewed with meticulous scruple the daft tiff, and referred me to the second paragraph of a notable treatise, which seems to grasp the nettle of such trivial provocations. Take care Nab, and sorry for my meddling. Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry? That word, along with thanks, is disallowed on this page. Off to find an admin to block you for such a gross display of civility on this page. Oh wait, theres one right here. Malik, come through, block this fool! <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Oh, whoops.'That word' is Shakespeare. In citing Shakespeare I just realized I offended Nableezy, who can't stand him. The memory races to recover its tracks, elide the insult, and provide a better, if still pertinent, quote, more in keeping with what is going on round here. Take it as your wiki motto, Nab. And, of course, get stuffed.
 * ''thus your pains
 * ''May only make that footprint upon sand
 * ''Which old-recurring waves of prejudice
 * Resmoothe to nothing. (Tennyson, 'The Princess: A Medley', in Alfred Lord Tennyson, Poetical Works, Macmillan and Co.London 1899 p.184
 * And don't try to drag the exquisitely neutral Shabazz man into this. 'Malik' as you should know, means 'king' and kings tolerate jesters, even in other people's courts. See Enid Welsford's classic The Fool, you dumb ignarunt prick.Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, that Malcolm (not wiki's Malik) chose that name has always bothered me. The name Abd, "slave", (usually Abdullah, "slave of God", or Abd ar-Rahman, "slave of the most gracious", ar-Rahman being one of the names of God) is a much more common name. To call oneself "king" is to display a lack of humility, and I was disappointed that a man I admire so much chose that name. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A damned conspiracy, you . . . s!! But I will violate my non-block, or 'do my block', as the vernacular has it, by ordering you both, Nab and Malik, to take out some time this evening to read chapter 38 of the Book of Jeremiah, on the Cushite's 'Samaritan' behaviour there. I thought of it because Abd= Ebed, and Ebed-Melech (Abd-Maalik) made me think there's no case of hybris in the name 'Malik', if you take it as just shorthand for 'slave of the master' (God). Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)