User talk:Nableezy/Archive 52

Deprecation discussion
Nableezy, I've been thinking about raising two deprecation related questions and wanted to know if you had any thoughts/suggestions. The first is what is the standard for deprecation. It seems that we have a rather clear idea what you can/can't do with a deprecated source but we don't have clear criteria where a source moves from generally unreliable to deprecate. Second, should we have a separate process for nominating any source for deprecation? Tied to this question is should the typical RSN RfC be changed from 1-4 to 1-3 (no deprecation option)? Finally, where is the proper place for this discussion? Thanks for your thoughts. Springee (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There isnt actually any policy laying out deprecation, and any attempt to create one is stymied by the editors who have taken advantage of this situation to impose this standard. And now, for any number of topics, people are attempting to impose some sort of ideological purity test on sources. I actually hate the entire idea of RSN being filled with sparsely attended RFCs that purportedly rule out entire publications across the entire encyclopedia. RSN is supposed to be a board to answer a question of the form "is this source reliable for this statement?" Now its people trying to rule out sources they dislike followed by robotic implementations of "deprecation" that result in iron-clad reliable sources being removed by somebody who hasnt even attempted to read the sentence they are editing. What to do about that? Well there was Requests for comment/Deprecated and unreliable sources, which went absolutely nowhere, and you have absurdities like an editor claiming that what never had a proposal at VPP pass to create a policy now requires a formal VPP process to modify. We have somehow ended up in a place where the people who seek to enforce these blanket bans on sources they dislike but cant argue against particular uses of them have determined that a. they are unquestionably right and despite having no policy backing can enforce their position through reverts, and b. demand that what they never did, get a policy backing for their edits, is something you must do to revert them. Its insane tbh. Some of those sources on this list come from well-attended discussions and could reasonably be said to form a consensus of the English Wikipedia editorship on the quality of a source. Some of them come from 5 people with an axe to grind and cannot. Idk what to do, too many vested users with an interest in maintaining the status quo. A status quo that is bullshit based on nothing, but it is the status quo.  nableezy  - 12:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you are saying. When I have a bit of time I'm going to try to put together some sort of minimum concern list at least regarding deprecations.  I feel like the need for it made more sense prior to the creation of RSP.  While I think RSP and it's bucketing is flawed, it does seem to make deprecation redundant as with the list anything in #3/generally unreliable is unlikely to be used.  Prior to RSP one would have to search through various archives to argue if Rolling Stone was OK for a particular topic.  Now you can refer to the summary.  That makes it much faster for both those who are checking if a source is OK and for those who are concerned about how a source is being used.  If RSP were in place before Daily Mail was deprecated would we have even created the deprecate bucket?  If yes, why do we still have it or argue over deprecating sources that are used rarely?  Anyway, this is my line of thinking.  Would you like to be kept in the loop? Springee (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure,  nableezy  - 15:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit in the article "Beneberak"
Nableezy, with your permission, I wish to make the following edit in the article Beneberak:

The town of Beneberak (Banaibarka) is specifically named in the Aramaic stele (Oriental Institute Prism) detailing Sennacherib's military exploits in the country, along with the towns of Beth-Dagon and Joppa, among others, as places subdued by him. (End quote)

I suppose that I'll also need to add a section heading, entitled "History". Davidbena (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was traveling without my computer, but this looks fine to me. Though you should consider WP:AGEMATTERS and see if you can find something more recent to support that.  nableezy  - 01:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for your response. Nableezy. I'll still look to add other, more recent sources.Davidbena (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Qumran
Hi, Nableezy! In the Wikipedia article Qumran, there is a request to merge the page with Qumran caves. The merger is discussed on Talk:Qumran. Since the page is protected by the ARBPIA tag, I cannot comment there without your prior consent. If you agree, I wish to insert my opinion that the two pages should NOT be merged together, namely, Oppose, since one article (Qumran) refers specifically to the archaeological site (village) by that name, while the other article refers to the scattered caves in the general vicinity of Qumran; two separate issues altogether.Davidbena (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, think you need to sit this one out. The overall scope of the articles is covered by the topic ban imo.  nableezy  - 21:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. No problem.Davidbena (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Israeli occupation of the West Bank
The article Israeli occupation of the West Bank you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggested edit
Nableezy, hi. I wish to add the following edit to the article Temple Mount, in the section entitled, "Opinions of contemporary rabbis concerning entry to the site." The proper place for insertion of the edit, in my opinion, is after the sentence which reads: "Rabbinical consensus in the post-1967 period, held that it is forbidden for Jews to enter any part of the Temple Mount, and in January 2005 a declaration was signed confirming the 1967 decision."

(suggested edit) The late Chief Rabbi of Israel, Ovadia Yosef, prohibited any Jew from ascending the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, because of its extreme sanctity. (End Quote)

Davidbena (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Think you have to stay away from this one David, I think it may be technically ok but so many parts of that are on the edge. Ovadia Yosef itself is in ARBPIA, the prohibition on entering has been a repeated hot point in discussions on the future of the Temple Mount and how committed to upholding the status quo the Israeli government is which again would be in the topic area, the very year 1967 is part of the topic area because of the 67 war and Israel's subsequent occupation, both in the topic area. Sorry,  nableezy  - 20:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That said it may technically be ok, but I think youd be on shaky ground at AE if somebody raised it and I think you are better off staying a bit further from the edge here. But ultimately its up to you.  nableezy  - 20:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll stay away from it. Thanks for the solid advice.Davidbena (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

are you ok?
I realize I don't actually know where you live, but I guess I thought maybe you were from Nablus, due to your name, and possibly your family? If so (or even if not!), I just wanted to drop you a line and hope you and yours are well. IronDuke 19:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nah no Nablus association, just an Egyptian boy from the Midwest. But I hope the same for you and yours, and hope everybody you care about is staying safe wherever they are. Have friends who have family in harms way, as I imagine you might too. Take care ID, good to see your name more than once a decade now too.  nableezy  - 20:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed! I hope you don't mind, I went ahead and kind of spot-reverted your last five edits. Not even sure what the substance of your edits even was, just felt like it for old time's sake. IronDuke  20:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Scientelensia
Hi,

Just to let you know that I have updated my statement on the arbitration board. Thanks for your support in a difficult and stressful situation. Scientelensia (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit
, with your permission, I would like to add a sentence to the article al-Ahli Arab Hospital, in the section "History," immediately following the words, "Southern Baptist Church." The additional edit, with your permission, will read as follows: "known then as the Baptist Hospital (Arabic: المستشفى المعمداني)." (End Quote).

BTW, there is currently no ARBPIA tag on this article.Davidbena (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * that’s fine David hope you’re well.  nableezy  - 23:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm well, but sad at what is happening here.Davidbena (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅Davidbena (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Your method of signing posts
I'm sorry to bother you with something so minor, but your unique method of signing posts often causes mild formatting issues on mobile. I'm not sure if there's a particular reason you sign the way you do but just so you're aware in case you're not married to doing it that way. XeCyranium (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you explain further?  nableezy  - 23:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Essentially normally text strings are placed within the limits of the page and get broken up into different lines, so the page remains the same width and text stays "zoomed in" as it were. But on talk pages and the like your bordered signature doesn't get split up if it's too long to be displayed in one line so the whole page gets widened and all the text is subsequently "zoomed out". It's especially noticeable after a few indentations, where your signature can extend very far outside the normal page ranges. XeCyranium (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, but if I dont do non-breaking spaces then the box gets split between lines. If there is some way of maintaining the single line for the signature Id be happy to adjust it.  nableezy  - 02:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not proficient enough to know if there is a way. That's fair though if you'd like to keep it as is! XeCyranium (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for letting me know, so I had a chance to self-revert, just in case, even though I disagree than my edits were reverts. My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Israeli occupation of the West Bank
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Israeli occupation of the West Bank you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SurferSquall -- SurferSquall (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:1RR at War crimes in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war
Hi Nableezy,

You seem to have made two reverts within 24 hours at this article:

Please self-revert the most recent. BilledMammal (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Just reaching out and being polite
Greetings - I noted your revert on the Rafael article - I comprehend folks can get a tad passionate about some of these subjects.

Many of them are a tad hyperbolic - and I get this - claims of how great a thing is etc.

I deleted a lot of these PUFFERY claims - as did you I think, kind of looking for support to keep these articles NPOV - and not hyperbolic -

I am totally objective regarding this and related topics - ABSOLUTELY no agenda - the materials are of interest. BeingObjective (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no clue what you’re talking about tbh.  nableezy  - 19:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol - okay - apologies. BeingObjective (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hospital explosion
Hey Nableezy, please would you consider taking a step back from that talk page, at least for a day or two? I feel (as an uninvolved admin) that you're bludgeoning the process and that several of your posts are combative in nature and address issues with editor conduct rather than article content. You are more than welcome to bring conduct complaints to AE. When things are as out of control as they are at the minute, I'd rather see lots of complaints about minor misconduct that can be handled with a warning or a slap on the wrist than have people hold off and present big complaints that take days to get admins to agree on. I considered blocking you from the page but I know you have the encyclopaedia's best interests at heart, which is why I'm asking you to be more mindful of the heat:light ratio. Thanks, HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 16:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Harry, with all due respect I feel like you are taking an editors view, uninformed in my view, as fact. I am not the only one to have taken issue with the FTN notification, an uninvolved admin had to change the heading, another editor called it blatant canvassing, and so did another one. As far as bludgeoning, I disagree that bringing more and more sources and arguing about policy is bludgeoning. I am not simply responding to every person who disagrees with me and badgering them, I am addressing the substance of their comments with sources. Yes, things are hot, but I am arguing my position in good faith and based on our policies. In fact, other users who have done the same have thanked me for remaining calm and discussing civilly, and I have productively engaged with any editor who discusses the content of the article. Yes, I respond when people are misrepresenting the edit, by for example claiming we are citing a tweet when we are citing the New York Times and three other reliable sources, or when they post a non-neutral message at a noticeboard that violates WP:INAPPNOTE. Yes, I get upset at the never ending stream of attempts to silence Palestinian and Arab views in articles covering something that has so far resulted in some 2,000+ Palestinian children being killed. You, an uninvolved admin who I certainly respect, are entitled to sanction me as you see fit, but I dont think voluntarily stepping away from an article in which every single comment and edit I have made has been well sourced and argued on the basis of our policies to be the best idea. But I do not think I have, as you say I have, been combative in nature and address issues with editor conduct rather than article content. I have consistently been addressing article content. Yes, I added a bit about what I find to be the GAME playing and tendentious editing in the sequence that led us to where we are now, and if you want I can remove that bit from my RFC !vote. But I do not agree with the characterization of my edits by you here in sum, and certainly not with the claims made by Alicbiades979 of "abuse".  nableezy  - 16:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed the one bit of my RFC !vote that was not about the substance of the issue. Thats the only thing I think I have done that is out of order on that talk page.  nableezy  - 16:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your signature appears on that talk page and at FTN more times than anyone else's, by a fair margin. There are plenty of eyes on the article; it's not necessary for one editor to dominate the discussion. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm not saying that Neutrality wasn't out of order. I'm (mostly) just asking you to consider whether a comment helps the heat:light ratio before you post it, and if you want to complain about someone's conduct, do it at AE or on a user talk page, not an article talk page. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I will do that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Friendly side note
I am not objecting so please take this in the best possible way, but some old line Wikipedians would object to clerking a discussion one's closely involved in. I thought you might want to hear that from a friendly person who isn't going to bring you to drama over it. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 20:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I asked in the thread below me, he said yes. I guess I should have waited for the other participant and asked you as well. But its making a mess of it, but fair enough Ill stay away from tidying up. And if somebody reverts it thats fine too. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't see why anybody would object to simple housekeeping. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not object, but wait for the other participant and me, was what I meant. But I do not object at all. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 20:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:DTTR. Objecting to poor editing is not incivility. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a recommendation, I would suggest (1) striking the false accusation you made against me on the talk page and then (2) going to the map talk page to discuss the issue with the users who have updated the map. Your accusation against me was completely unwarranted as I have 0 edits on the map. Please strike it as, per Contentious topics, editors are suppose to assume good faith, and falsing saying "Objecting to your continued use of OR in encyclopedia articles is not a FORUM violation", when I can point blank show I haven't edited the map is very much assuming bad faith. So please, strike that comment and then take the concern to the correct talk page and users who change the map. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh for fucks sake, I didnt accuse you of OR in that specific instance, but in several others. And yes, this map is full of OR. Fine, not yours. But your attempt to shut down a discussion about OR by claiming it to be a FORUM violation is nonsense. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of massacres in Palestine


The article List of massacres in Palestine has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "no material"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Drako (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

RFC extended confirmed
Please stop adding to discussions, it causes breakage of the RfC listings. I have found three instances so far: Thankyou for your co-operation. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * On 17 October 2023, triggered  with consequent damage at  and
 * On 24 October 2023, and  triggered  and, with consequent damage at  and
 * ok, is there some method of informing users that doesn’t break the rfc listing? The notavote template does the same? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The tag doesn't call in Legobot. It's fine to use in an RfC, but should not be inside the RfC statement; and if used before the  tag, won't be seen by anybody following the link from the RfC listings or from FRS notices. It's best used at the start of the discussion/survey, . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So if the removes the parts on determining if you are extended confirmed would that work? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No. It is the presence of the tag itself that is the problem. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok well then the template is useless and might as well be deleted (I modified it from the RM one), and if you have any suggestions on how to notify people that some RFCs have higher requirements for participation than most others be very helpful to hear. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you created a fork of Template:RM extended confirmed without giving attribution, which is contrary to WP:CWW. There was no need to create another template: you could have used . I suggest that you tag Template:RFC extended confirmed with . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didnt consider the attribution but yes. But from what I can tell if I do in the RFC that will have the same result as this in disrupting the RfC listings? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with the code inside the template. The template name was the problem. Apart from that, it's rarely a good idea to create a new template if an existing template already does a similar job. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok got it, so I can add to each of the RFCs that I added the other one to without issue? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see you did that, ty. Sorry about the screwup. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Nableezy. Since you are interested in using it for RfC's, I have added the template redirect Discussion extended confirmed so that the wikitext doesn't need to say "RM". You can write the notice as . <small style="color:#667;background:white;border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">SilverLocust  💬 00:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of content based on a reliable source
Can you show me where it was said that Arutz Sheva a garbage source? You also removed content from Maariv, which is one of the most-read newspapers in Israel and a reliable source. Why did you remove it? Eladkarmel (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per BLP, this hearsay needs stronger sourcing. As far as Arutz Sheva, see here or here or for example the NYT describing it as "a news organization that represents the view of Israeli settlers in the West Bank". Im sure I can find more, but its reliable for the views of settlers and thats it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh? Agree with you on the need for good sourcing for BLP. But bias is not indicative of reliability, as you've rightly argued many times elsewhere. Neither RSN reflects a consensus view that AS/INN or Maariv are unreliable. The NYT does not say AS only reliable for "the view of settlers." RS also say that Al-Jazeera represents the view of Qatar. But we wouldn't say that AJ is only good for the views of Qatar and that's it. Longhornsg (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Arutz Sheva has a long history of being a settler mouthpiece, and for any material related to Qatar I would not be using al Jazeera either. But see for example: such as the establishment of the radio station Arutz Sheva, which represents the settlers, Arutz Sheva, the settlers radio station or Arutz Sheva, a settler source. It is a garbage source, and there are countless other Israeli sources of much higher quality that we can, and do, use. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Popping back in, though I love talk page debates, as no arguments provided here resonate with me and sound like WP:DONTLIKE. Sure, Arutz Sheva is biased. But bias != unreliable, and excluding a source that is quoted extensively by other RS solely for its perceived biased (but that produces similar journalism as other RS in this area) would be a violation of NPOV, just as excluding Al-Jazeera Arabic or Al-Arabiya, etc, would be. And there's no consensus that AS is "garbage" (despite umpteen threads at RSP). Longhornsg (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Arutz Sheva isnt extensively quoted by anybody, so the rest of the comment does not follow. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 10:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If Obama, a Muslim who is not known to have ever apostasized, is elected, then 'Israel is screwed'. That is just one of hundreds of articles one could link to to document the moronic, hysterical, extremist quality of its input.Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying the site posts some looney-bin op-eds. So does the Guardian, Counterpunch, Washington Report, and a whole host of other outlets you would likely deem RM. Again, that has no bearing on its reliability for facts. Longhornsg (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Compare how Arutz Sheva covered the material under discussion here and how a more respectable outlet did: A7: The Palestinian activist and terrorist supporter Ahed Tamimi called for the murder of the settlers in Judea and Samaria. In a post she uploaded today (Tuesday) to her Instagram account, Tamimi wrote ... vs Haaretz: Palestinian activist Ahed Tamimi was arrested overnight into Monday by the Israeli army after allegedly threatening to kill Jewish settlers. Reuters: Israeli troops on Monday arrested a Palestinian activist, regarded in the occupied West Bank as a hero since she was a teenager, on suspicion of inciting violence, but her mother denied the claim and said it was based on a fake Instagram post. So we have A7 making a statement of fact that Tamimi did such a thing, before she was even charged, we have Haaretz saying she is alleged to have done these things, and we have Reuters saying she is alleged to have done this things and the allegation has been denied by her family. You think A7 is reliable for facts that Tamimi did these things that all the responsible outlets are saying she is merely alleged to have done, and more than that most of them include the denial? Where A7 simply says, without any substantiation whatsoever, that Tamimi is a. a terrorist supporter, and b. wrote in Hebrew a Nazi inspired threat, and c. that this is a fact so clear we shouldnt even include a denial? Well if you feel that way thats nice for you, I do not. And I will continue to remove bullshit sources like A7 where I see them, and I dont need a consensus that it is generally unreliable to do that. I dont need that consensus for Stormfront either. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Most read" ≠ good; The Sun/Daily Mail are the most read in the UK, and crap. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Arutz Sheva hosts a writer driven out of mainstream Italian newspapers because he plagiarized stuff. It hosted articles by people arguing for conspiracy theories about Obama. It is happy with ethnic cleansing. It cannot be used for facts, but, rarely, for settlers' opinions. That is obvious. We don't use The Electronic Intifada by consensus, and the same should go for a partisan rag of dubious worth, like Arutz Sheva on the other side of the line.Nishidani (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Arutz Sheva is more than a settler mouthpiece. It was founded by settlers for the very purpose of being a settler mouthpiece. Zerotalk 00:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Saying Sorry!
I just saw your reply and I have to say sorry. I reverted to remove vandalism and made my way through all the edits that were made in between to manually reinstated as per RV. I reinstated your edits here |here and here but may have missed one.

Just wanted to say apologise and happy editing! Jo Jc Jo Talk💬Edits📝 15:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh no worries, I didnt even notice. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Dovidroth
Hi there, I recently came across your post on Dovidroth's behavior in regards to their topic ban and for what it's worth, Dovidroth still engages in such behaviors (1, 2), particularly socks of AndresHerutJaim/Yaniv Horon. There are likely a few more discreet examples where Dovidroth would "repackage" their edits instead of outright re-reverting but I am unfortunately a bit too busy to sift through all their edits at the moment. John Yunshire (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

 * Thank you very much very kind of you. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Addition of the info on helicopter
Hello! Have you seen this edit and it's comment right before you have added the info again? Could you please clarify why you have done it? Please also see this and this. Do you mind to remove what you have added? Thank you! With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * yeah, no, Im not removing Haaretz reporting on Israeli investigations because PolitiFact discusses some other video that has nothing to do with what Haaretz reported. I dont know what NewsRu is, and based on my quick perusal of sources it doesnt come close to Haaretz in terms of reliability. Beyond that, Haaretz doesnt report this as an Israeli police investigation, but Israeli security services, which would include the Shin Bet and be outside of a police official's ability to respond to. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You can find what is NEWSru here: NEWSru. And it was not the only source. Here is another one. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ill include the Times of Israel on the police denial, thanks for the source. That doesnt justify the removal of the Haaretz article however. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is better then nothing. I hope we will be able to shed more light on it later on. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

GA nom of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank article
G'day Nableezy, I hope you are well. Just had a quick look at the subject article wondering about assessing it, and beyond the few currently uncited passages, I cannot see this article getting to a stable enough state for a successful GAN while the current levels of fighting and activity in the West Bank is ongoing (and it will be needing updating as it progresses), and I think at over 18,000 words it is too long and would benefit from splitting. There are also a few single sentence paragraphs. Some widget I have installed is telling me the Abdullah, Daud source is generally unreliable, and there appear to be dozens of sources in the Sources section that are not used for citations in the article itself (for example, Algazy, Bishara, Mearsheimer, Slater and Halper, and many more). The latter gives the impression there are more sources used in the article than there are. I have a great deal of respect for the work that yourself and others have done on what is an important article, but just don't think it is going to be able to be positively assessed against the GA criteria until things settle down a bit over there and it is updated and the points mentioned here are addressed. Just my two cents, take it or leave it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * A bunch of material has been condensed over time, so some of the sources that were in the article aren't used. I'll go through and prune that section, or re-add them as sources. I can replace the MEMO cite, no worries. I dont think the article itself is really getting that much editing so as not to be stable, but if you want to table the review thats fine with me. Obviously Ive had other priorities for my editing time as well. Thank you for the feedback, Ill try to get to it as soon as I can. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)