User talk:Nableezy/Archive 6

New geographical template
Hi Nazbleezy! I appreciate your efforts to fix the issues with the pushpin maps. However, it appears that the template you created does not work, and does not have the correct geographical coordinates (for example, it showed Nablus in a completely incorrect location with the correct coordinates). I have removed the map for now, in order not to mislead readers; please take a look! Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 21:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again! The parameters on the map template are fairly self-explanatory: 'top' means the top edge of the map (in this case, somewhere around Hasbaya), the 'bottom' is the bottom edge, which is just south of the northern tip of Saudi Arabia, etc. It will be fairly difficult to get anything accurate if you're going to guess, therefore I suggest using Google Maps and a test template to get it right. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 21:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Sorry, I meant of course the larger Israel map. The edges on the smaller territories map are different. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's correct on the large map, yes. However, I thought you wanted to use the smaller map. Let me know if I can assist you in figuring out the coordinates. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See User:Ynhockey/Template, User:Ynhockey/Call, User:Ynhockey/Call2 and User:Ynhockey/Call3. I think Call (1) is not necessary, but the others are, to really test this stuff. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few tweaks. It appears to be properly aligned now, although I only tested a few points. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Great idea Nableezy! The map looks good, but two things: First, could you add the name of the locality next to the red indicator point? Second, is it possible to sort of widen the map so that it fits the infobox properly more suitably? Other than these two minor things, the map is great. Also, it has revealed that Gaza has had inaccurate coordinates which need to be fixed (Gaza is not in the ocean). Also, you thanks for reminding me about the GA review. It's been over a month since it has been on hold - the reviewer seems to be very busy in real life, so I'm going to give him a little reminder. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Eventually, we should zoom in on the maps into four general regions: Gaza Strip; southern West Bank (centered around Hebron), Central West Bank (centered on Jerusalem and including Ramallah and Bethlehem), and northern West Bank (centered on Nablus). Perhaps, Jenin and Tubas could be split from a potential Nablus region, but this could be handled when we get that far. I myself am not so knowledgeable when it comes to maps, but you and Ynhockey seen to have skill here. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine job, Nab. My only reservation is 'Palestinian territories', but that can wait. Thanks once more.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the template at first glance, but you should test it first, because as you said yourself, it's used by a lot of articles. Also, you might want to crop and re-align the image, I think its size could be reduced in order not to hurt short pages/stubs too much. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 12:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any alternative than to use Mandatory Palestine. I'm not sure what you mean about the coords. You're saying in addition to adding "pushpin_map=blank" we have to the "latd=" and "long=" to the infobox, right? --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. That could be taken care of easily. On a totally separate note, I've been reading up on Abdel Nasser and I think I'll be ready to commit to his article in a week. Regards, --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WPP

 * Al Ameer son invited me a while back, I'll think about it but I don't think I can contribute that much to that specifically, I am much more read up on Egyptian history. I'll think about again, but thanks for the invite. Nableezy (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, Nableezy, do I have to add your name to the list myself? You make plenty of valuable contributions to Palestine-related article, way more than I do and yet I am a member. BTW excellent work adding the pushpin maps! --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Chill, be a bad association for the project to have my sinnin name on the list ;) Nableezy (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You have been accused of some things but they are nothing compared to what I have been accused of . Ha! -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But honestly, I am becoming somewhat disenchanted with this place, let's just see how long I stay around. Nableezy (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That would make sense if you were in stressful predicament in which you are being treated unfairly by the rest of community here. But you are not, so what's the problem? -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I havent had personal problems, I just dont like how things are done here. Some people put a lot of time into research to get a complete perspective, another googles for some obscure phrase and demand that both be given equal weight. That pisses me off, almost to the point where I want to say fuck it, this is useless. My problems here dont involve my interactions with others, it involves the very nature of this place. Some of the major articles are so completely fucked up I almost don't even want to work on them, there isn't even a point. I dont know, I recognize that it is important to have good articles on this topic, it is the first google result on almost any search term. But at the same time, I also think that anybody who is dumb enough to use wikipedia as a primary resource for even the least controversial topics is an idiot, so why should I care if that idiot remains misinformed? I dont know, we'll see. Nableezy (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you 100 percent. And another thought that I would add is that the people responsible for Wikipedia topping search results are the editors and not the readers. I really doubt most editors feel that Wikipedia is a legitimate encyclopedia and I strongly doubt they read most of the articles they edit. Nevertheless, many people do use Wikipedia as their number one source for information... and the project hasn't gone to the dogs just yet, so I plan to fix up as much as I can and I hope you continue with your cleanup/fixing. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Some of the major articles are so completely fucked up I almost don't even want to work on them, there isn't even a point".....I feel the same way. If you look at the whole occupied vs disputed etc naming/description issues across articles it's a mess. It made me wonder whether the WikiProject Palestine should perhaps work on and advocate standardised/template-like descriptions (with a standard set of refs) for certain terminology so that a standard set of information is used in all relevant articles. In other words, if the article mentions/deals with the occupied territories in any way a standard chunk of text+refs is included. It would need a lot of effort to get consensus for it but it would be simpler and more stable.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 00:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with the disputes over naming/description issues, but you're welcome to place this suggestion on WPP talk where many members are familiar and/or involved with these issues. Not sure if you have an interest in Palestinian issues (just seen you on the Gaza offensive article), but I invite you to join the project because you have good ideas... that and you are pro-Palestinian (which means you are much beloved) :D--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sean is not pro-Palestinian, in fact he is a bit of a flip-flopper in who he appears to support. Apparently, Sean is both a supporter of antisemitic Islamic terrorism as well as being an Islamophobic racist who hates all Muslims. He may perhaps support Palestinian Christians. Not sure about that one, as he may also violenty oppose Christendom as well. Nableezy (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well he seems nice, but of course no one can be trusted. Even you Nableezy, primarily because you're Egyptian, no one knows which side you guys are one. hehe another lowblow --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite. Yes, I've had an interest in Palestinian issues for years having been enlightened by living in the middle east and I'm undeniably pro-Palestinian I suppose but I try to suppress that and stay neutral here. Not always easy given the amount of bogus bullshit disinformation/partisan editing here on issues that involve Israel e.g. Golan_heights. This is the kind of stuff I mean about occupied vs disputed over at the Israel article. I joined the discussion as a kind of social experiment to what kind of strategies pro-Israeli editors use to counter policy/guidelines. It's quite informative hence the idea that this kind of thing is perhaps best dealt with via standard chunks of text+refs as agreed building blocks. I'll drop by WPP talk at some point. I probably won't join for now because I might be assigned a task that don't have time to complete.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I'll pony up gratitude with a moral. Not strange you should find the flagicon there, similar history. When the Basque soccer team first visited London, they were unfamiliar with buses, trains, elevators, and what not, and the worst tribulation they suffered was being booked into the Ritz. Revolving doors had been installed, and the whole team squeezed into the one section, and the doors jammed. It took hours to get them out, and as a bobby quipped. 'It just goes to show. As the proverb says: Never put all your Basques into one exit." Nishidani (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * plenty people got jokes, but i defy anybody else who sees this to come up with something funnier than that, doesn't even need the punchline; or another all-timer, 'as tight as a nun's nasty'. Nableezy (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Mandate pushpin map
Hi Nableezy! I noticed that you made a British Mandate pushpin map. It appears that the map is actually based on the 1949 armistice lines (noticeable in the northeastern section) and not the British mandate. Please fix this if you have time. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 23:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you based it off File:Israel location map.svg. Anyway, the mistake is the Israel–Syria DMZ (which should be 100% part of the Mandate) which is shown on the original map, but in your map it is part of Syria. One of my earliest maps shows the DMZ as well. --Ynhockey (Talk) 00:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks great to me. I was thinking you could still use the map with the outline for the Wes Bank and Gaza, so it would show how most of the villages are in what was conquered in 1948, but having British Mandate boundaries of the districts showing on the map might be even better. Either way, having a map in itself is a great improvement. So whatever you decide is cool with me. Thanks for your effort and hard work.  T i a m u t talk 07:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the Golan Heights. Look at the map again, there's a demilitarized zone there. On my older map it's highlighted in green. On your map it's part of Syria. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's looking much better now! Still three issues left, but they don't have much to do with the mandate so it's kind of OK:
 * The Jordan–Saudi Arabia border is incorrect (there was a land exchange between them in 1965).
 * The southern Dead Sea part is incorrect, although it's also incorrect for the modern map. I don't have an online map from that period to show the exact basin, but see this map (1972) vs. this map (2008). The sea is shrinking with time.
 * There's no Syria–Lebanon border. Might've been intentional, I guess it depends on what period we're talking about. However, since Jordan is shown as entirely separate, I'm assuming that your map must represent 1946–47, when a Syria–Lebanon border did exist.
 * Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 12:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A dotted line seems fine in principle, but let's see what it looks like before deciding. Unfortunately, the vector editing program I use, CorelDRAW, isn't too good with SVGs (or maybe it's too good and everything else is not as good), so the display is not the same as in browsers (that's why I always release PNGs for maps). Maybe I should download InkScape... --Ynhockey (Talk) 17:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will try out InkScape, but CorelDRAW is just really good for general vector editing. It has all the same advanced features (and more) as Adobe Illustrator, which I believe is also not great for SVGs (both have proprietary formats--.CDR and .AI respectively). Anyhow, replacing the current image is fine, since all versions are saved anyway. I will keep a watch on it. --Ynhockey (Talk) 17:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a way, but IIRC there's an RSS feed for the watchlist, so you can configure that. I don't use RSS at all, so I wouldn't know much about it, maybe ask in their help desk. --Ynhockey (Talk) 17:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Al-Fakhura school incident
You are in violation of WP:3rr. Please reverse your last revert. Also, discussion of what constitutes a reliable source really belongs in the talk page, not an edit summary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Go read WP:3RR Nableezy (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And WP:RS Nableezy (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverting my edit
Excuse me, but I don't know why you reverted my edit. You said that the number given by PCHR in that sentance is their latest release. No, the number is not from the latest release of PCHR, their latest release says 236 combatants (not 223) and 255 policemen (not 167), this is already mentioned at the begining of the paragraph. A source has been given directly from PCHR where it is clearly stated that 236 full blown militants and 255 cops were killed. Also, your sentance didn't have a reference for it's claim.188.2.195.153 (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about that, but will look into it. Thanks for the note, Nableezy (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct, my bad. Nableezy (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem.188.2.195.153 (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist
I do not think that one can have pages in wiki project "X" show up in the watchlist of wikiproject "Y". Perhaps they know at the help desk? Also, the second half of the major days of Passover start tonight, so I'll be offline again for a couple of days. -- Avi (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * However, you may want to see this: http://toolserver.org/~luxo/gwatch/login.php. Looks promising! -- Avi (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the help. After looking at it I'm pretty sure it is not going to be acceptable, though. I actually hate the article so it doesn't hurt my feelings too bad!Cptnono (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

10x for discussion
I just wanted to pop up to say hello and thank you for helping me see better the other side of the coin. You were silent on the article talk page regarding last Sean's "break" proposal. It looks reasonable to me. I wanted to make sure that you agree. Keep well, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And totally agree, Che rulez big time. I just love Buena Vista Social Club performing Hasta Siempre :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

New pushpin maps
I've noticed that you have been seemingly manually adding pushpin maps to articles. Please note that I made a tool for that purpose, which should speed up the process considerably (paste the coord template there, and get the pushpin map formatting). I will add Mandatory Palestine as an option now. Also, I reiterate the request to fix the Jordan–Saudi Arabia border; I didn't think you'd use the map before fixing this, but since you did, please try to fix this ASAP! Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please consider using a smaller default width for the maps. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 00:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No response to talk
You failed to fully respond to the talk discussion at. There were several users who endorsed my POV and you failed to recognize those points, simply relying on Cole's by virtue of being a somewhat notable yet partisan and clearly biased professor/activist. Your revert without consensus is beyond irritating. I imagine you're baiting me for an edit war, LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont respond to 'Ugh'. And several users also disagree with you. Why dont you wait till the RFC to complete? Nableezy (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * RFC? Rationale provided answers all disputes and as I said, you resorted to "Juan cole said so." Your argument went from 1 paragraph to 4 words. I said "ugh" because this was typical. Either response to points, or we cans end this to dispute resolution. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You commented in a section reserved for a 'Request for Comment', aka a part of 'dispute resolution'. The article is about charities accused of having ties to terrorism, and should include notable accusations against charities for having ties to terrorism. Cole's accusation is notable and is an accusation of having ties to terrorism. I dont see what is so hard for you to understand. But I dont really want to know and would rather just have you not post anything to this talk page. Nableezy (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And the response went to 4 words because everything you said was completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the US, EU or Israel doesn't consider a group to terrorist, it doesn't matter if you think the group in question is not a terrorist group. All that matters is whether the answer to the question 'is Cole's accusation against a charity of having ties to terrorism notable?' If the answer is yes it goes in, if it is no then it stays out. About the RFC though, I would suggest you make your points and move on, that is not the place to be cluttering it up with arguments (or useless pictures), it is a place for us to get some input from the rest of the community as to what they think. Nableezy (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I downloaded Inkscape, and will attempt to use it. Good luck with work, and enjoy Egypt! --Fjmustak (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the template. I guess we still could upload my versions back to the main ones, this way if any changes are made to the map, they are only done once.  I can think of one change that should probably be made.  That is to the bodies of water: the Dead Sea was bigger and there was a Lake Hula. I created new files so as not to mess things up.  I'll update the old files and request deletion of the duplicates. --Fjmustak (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what I'm doing wrong. I uploaded the new files, and reverted your changes to the templates, but I still see links to the new files (which should be deleted).  I tried shift+reload, but that didn't help.  Do changes like these take a while to take effect? Can you request the files I made be deleted, as I don't know the procedure? Shukran. --Fjmustak (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanx!
Hi Nableezy. Thanx for the welcome note and for the tips. I will surely need more. I guess we will have a lot to debate about... But your attitude is appreciated. A question, are you from Chicago or somewhere around here? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

ya Nableezy
No problem bro. That should give me enough time to update all the Palestinian locality populations and raising the quality rating of Saladin, and maybe History of Gaza. Good luck with al-Azhar Mosque (there should be more Egyptian mosque articles) and have a wonderful trip to Egypt. Regards, --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Belated thanks Nableezy
Your sweet post made me laugh.--G-Dett (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan's concerns
While I'm pretty sure you'll end up removing this, I believe your editing at Charities accused of ties to terrorism has developed potential for tag-teaming. I know you've collaborated with User:Tiamut quite often. Both of you share similar views in relation to the conflict, and that has reflected your history in the mentioned article: Tiamuts edit which I reverted, you reverting my edit, here. You've re-added the reverted material a total of five times in the last 4 days, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Between you, Neon, and Tiamut, approximately 8 reverts of this identical source has occurred in less than a week. Comparatively speaking, your cooperation in the discussion, a discussion you directed me to when I wanted to forward this to an admin, has been nothing but roadblocks and stalling. Your opinion has not changed in spite of extremely valid and simplified explanations as to why the material should not be in the article. You failed to address the majority of the complaints, and ultimately asked User:NoCal100 to send this off for the admins to decide. I wish you would have been more honest instead of telling me to waste my time in discussion. Next time I'll do the right thing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didnt tell you to waste your time, I told you to add your input and move on and hopefully get some outside comments from others. And I said the same thing about the BLP/N earlier, if that is his issue raise it there. The RFC was about what it takes to be included in the list. I told you to add your input (after you had already treated it as a regular talk page section) and move along until the RFC is closed. And tag-teaming, are you out of your mind? Neither Tiamut nor I have email enabled here, any communication we have had is plainly visible to anybody interested. I haven't raised this article to anybody at all. Perhaps you should look at yourself, tundra and nocal(ton) when raising these issues. Stop bothering me with these inane delusions, if you have a complaint raise it at the appropriate noticeboard and drop me a courtesy note that you initiated a discussion about me. Besides that, please just leave me alone. And yes, I readded material that is verifiable 5 times in 4 days, because a dedicated group of editors insist on keeping certain information out of the article. Do you really believe that this charity has not been accused of having ties to terrorism? Really? Even after having seen the actual accusation? Nableezy (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen the actual accusation. The one source from partisan/hateful/dogmatic/propaganda website Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. In fact, it was you who didn't know what the source actually said. See discussion There is no evidence to support his accusation (fringe.) No "notable" "experts" affirm Juan's accusation (fringe.) And no organizations, countries, or groups beyond Washington Report on Middle East Affairs endorse these views (fringe.) The only note-worthy party involved is the FBI, and as I predicted they are investigating the charity for FRAUD, not terrorism. We might as well include the laundry list of CAMERA accusations in the article. You know this is bogus and yet you continue to demand its conclusion which never had a consensus to begin with. Don't pass the blame to someone else. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What is your point? Actually, dont answer that and please stay off my talk page. Nableezy (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On further thought, I think I'll let this stay, as I did not adequately respond to your 'points'. We are reporting it as Juan Cole's accusation. We need notable experts to affirm that Juan Cole made the accusation? Your argument there is about the truth of the subject, something I refuse to discuss with you as I find you to be thoroughly unreasonable and irrational and I dont like arguing with such people, especially random people on the internet. The question is verifiability. It is verifiable that the charity in question is 'accused of ties with terrorism'. There is no way that can be in dispute, we have the accusation. Why should wikipedia care what the FBI is investigating, we don't say that the FBI has accused them of having ties to terrorism, we say Juan Cole has. Consensus? This has been in the article for 2 years. It has not been disputed in that entire time until very recently. I dont even know why you say 'dont pass the blame to someone else', who am I blaming and what am I blaming them for? But really, just try to leave me alone, if you have something to say to me about an article put it on the article talk, if you have something to say about me concerning my behaviour take it to an appropriate venue, if you have anything else to say to me I dont want to read it. Nableezy (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The question of Juan Cole being a notable is a non-issue. Now, is he notable in accusing Israeli settlers of committing terrorism? Of course not. Factor in BLP concern, and possibly libelous issue because NO other source affirms Cole's opinions outside of the non-RS. I like your last sentence, "if you have anything else to say to me I don't want to read it." Good. I hate responding to your rhetoric. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As both uninvolved editors on the BLP noticeboard said BLP is not an issue here. Libel is also not an issue, Wikipedia is not saying the charity is linked with terrorism, we are saying Juan Cole has accused them of being linked with terrorism. And sorry, he is notable and his accusation is notable. And if you hate responding to my 'rhetoric', then by all means stop. Nableezy (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Only 2 uninvolved editors said it wasn't a BLP issue. Both of which have yet to respond to many of the rationales provided. You also had a congratulatory chat with one of the editors during the BLP: lol. Hardly a win Nab, but thanks for playing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That person said something funny, I put a nice note on their talk page. Then you follow me over there for no reason. Nobody except for three highly involved editors (you, tundra, nocal(ton)) see a BLP issue. You have to continue to be your usual self, hurling insults and posting things that are completely irrelevant (the BLP noticeboard is for determining whether or not something violates BLP, not for continuing every aspect of the discussion) and wasting peoples time. Not a single uninvolved editor sees a problem as far as BLP, yet you keep playing this trumped up card. You have no idea what you are talking about, so kindly stop responding here. Nableezy (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If by nobody you mean the highly involved editors, than yes. You're giving too much credence to a 2 sentence IPer and 1 uninvolved editor. As you say, wait for "discussion." Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm considering re-submitting charities to the BLP unless more people respond because your rationale was far from accurate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And the discussion would have a chance of actually accomplishing something if you did not clog it up with irrelevant bullshit. If you noticed what I did you would see it was not "disruption" as keep saying. I self-reverted and took out the offending passage. I then took the complaint to the BLP noticeboard so that other non-involved editors could determine if one aspect of the discussion. But instead of allowing the discussion to take place, you need to keep shouting and spouting nonsense, and the same thing that happens to every other I/P conversation happens in this one; too many editors feel that the shitstorm of nonsense from some of the editors is worth even giving an opinion. You cannot just let everybody make their points and try to limit your involvement in a discussion. You turn everything into an argument, and worse you turn into an argument about either the real world issue or an argument about the actual editors. You are unable to keep your own views on the motives of others to yourself, you are unable to have a rational discussion about anything. And you wont even take your complaints to the appropriate place, presumably because you know they are bogus, instead choosing to poison every other discussion taking place, which just creates the environment where it is impossible to get a wider community consensus because too many people dont want to deal with the type of bullshit that you specialize in. While I dont have much of a choice on seeing that bullshit everywhere else, I would ask that you not continue to make me see it here. Nableezy (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's way too long. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And has been put to you before read a book you troll. Nableezy (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That hurts. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, if I may: I think this conversation is helping neither of you. You are both making entirely defensible, non-silly points, but they are undercut by the tone they are made in. Wikifan, I think Nableezy gets what you mean. I'd encourage you to keep pursuing this on the article talkpage, RfC, or even dispute resolution, if you have a mind to. IronDuke 20:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I get what he means, I do understand bullshit. He doesn't understand basic things. It is verifiable that Cole made the accusation, the accusation itself does not need to be verifiable. Nableezy (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, my point was only that you both had good points. There is a reason people call I/P editors batshit crazy -- I'd love for there to be less of one. IronDuke  21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And my point was that he does not have any good points. There is exactly one valid argument about the material in question (though I personally think that the argument would not stand up), and I know exactly what he should be arguing. Maybe I should tell him, but it is kind of funny watching him flounder about making ridiculous arguments. But that isnt even the point. Every complaint he has made has been disproven, all he does is shout more and shout louder. I just want him to stop shouting here. Much like you it seems, I have a problem letting go of some things editors say, and when a certain editor makes a completely unfounded accusation, flat out calling me an antisemite multiple times without justification, it is kind of difficult to take that editor at all seriously. And it isnt asking too mich to ask that editor to limit the contact we have with each other. Nableezy (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to say that Cole is a questionable source, both in terms of being a polemicist and not having the right credentials to weigh in on who is a terrorist. Also, the study being used... does it say the org in question is supporting terror? I don't see where it says that. Oh, and I do think I can let stuff go. Believe me, I've been trolled by professionals, so I know whereof I speak. IronDuke  21:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That was the one fair point that I was thinking of, and if you wish to raise it then please do as I think that argument can be defeated. About letting things go, I meant raising an issue with a user making a statement for which they were blocked for, agreed to remove it and was unblocked. Nableezy (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Iron Duke, if you check my history you'll see I've been doing that all day. My primary beef is Nableezy submission of an article I created immediately after our dispute occurred: Disruption. Good faith is doubtful. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For an example of shouting louder and longer see here where he again makes assumptions as to my motivations in that venue, despite repeated requests that he take them up in the appropriate place. As he has called me an antisemite multiple times, I would prefer that he either keep his concerns to himself or that he take them up at an appropriate noticeboard. He refuses, presumebly because he knows all of his complaints are bullshit, completely unjustified attacks that serve no purpose at all. Nableezy (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you followed him there (and I don't know that you did), I can see how he might be annoyed. IronDuke  21:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When he originally created the article he had posted to Cerejota's talk page about creating a new article. I have that page watchlisted. I looked at the new article. Back then I said that I thought it should be deleted on the grounds of notability, and have had it on my watchlist since. I gave him a long enough time to show notability and had not done so, I then started the AfD. He is basing all his accusations based on an argument that occured because he followed me to the Charities page. His concerns are unfounded, and even if they werent he shouldnt be clogging up the AfD with them. Take them up in the appropriate venue. He refuses to do so, claiming I am making false statements about him in the AfD. Can you actually find a statement about him that I made in the AfD? He attacks everybody who disagrees with him, an admin asks him to remove the personal comments and he refuses and in fact continues, and then makes accusations about the admins motives. This user is truly disruptive, meaning he makes it impossible to gave a rational conversation/debate as to the merits of an argument. He is a troll, making every discussion into either a discussion about the real world issues or the editors involved. He is completely useless as an 'editor of an encyclopedia', for any positive work he has done is dwarfed by the amount of time wasted having to deal with his inanity. Nableezy (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that in general personal comments are not helpful. However, you undercut that argument when you call Wikifan a troll. He clearly he isn't -- I can show you to some real trolls if you don't believe me. Though there may well be much to criticize in Wikifan's editing and/or interpersonal approach (and I am not saying there is), that doesn't make him a troll, anymore than your being a supporter of Palestinian causes makes you an anti-Semite. IronDuke  22:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A while back you said that people who love Palestine the most need to step up and stop the people spouting antisemitic rhetoric. I agree with that. But so to do you need to stop those among 'your side' that consistently spout bullshit, leveling charges of antisemitism without basis, creating hostile environments everywhere they go. He is a troll, all he does is antagonize. He equated my being a 'supporter of Palestinian causes' to being an antisemite. But I wont be saying this everywhere I see his username, if I have a complaint I will take it to the appropriate place (in fact I am contemplating whether it is worth it to make one about his behavior at the AfD), not in every discussion I can find him at. But he refuses to leave me alone. I have asked him repeatedly to limit our contact to outside of this talkpage unless he needs to perform so administrative need, like a 3RR or noticeboard report notice, yet he refuses to do so. So sorry if you dont see him as a troll, but I have yet to see a situation where he helped resolve an issue rather then inflaming it. Nableezy (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that I have indeed been pretty forthright in challenging ostensibly pro-Israel editors who apply the term "antisemite" without care, or otherwise misbehave. Indeed, I feel I am one of the very few editors involved in I/P issues who feels free -- duty-bound, even -- to criticize or question both "sides."


 * We may disagree about what "troll" means (though I think mine is closer to the wiki-definition). For me, a troll is someone who is out to disrupt, full stop. It's about lulz and making people feel foolish or bad. It's not about insulting per se. I've been on the end of some galling insults here, but I wouldn't call the people who made them trolls. Just emotional and wrong. IronDuke  22:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your consternation would have been appreciated here. Nableezy (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't weigh in now, can I? For the record, I see no evidence that you are an antisemite, and it would be and is wrong to call you one without evidence. Anti-Israel? Fair cop, isn't it? But I see no Jew hatred. Is that good enough? IronDuke  22:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Anti policies of the Israeli government is as far as I would be willing to accept. I have plenty of admiration for certain aspects of Israel, and a deep respect for a number of Israelis. Nableezy (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. IronDuke  22:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But the Bulls game is about to start and I am afraid I have decided that there needs to be a change in priorities in my life, and part of that is the Bulls come before wiki, so I'll be off for now. Nableezy (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha. You are clearly anti-Celtic, as I'd long suspected. IronDuke  22:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See, you make the same mistake as before, KG is one of my favorite players of all time; you can say anti-Celtic attempt to beat the Bulls. (Well, KG is likely out for the series, so for the time I guess anti-Celtic is fine) Nableezy (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I will say again: What goes around comes around. Your continued stalking, hounding, whatever you call it, in combination with your uncontrollable POV-pushing and punishing editors for reverting your disruption by gaming the system will eventually come back to you. You might interrept this as an attack, it isn't. Simply a caution. KG is overrated. Lebron all the way. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That was retarded, you are the only one hounding and you are the only one unable to control your POV. You are delusional, everything that you say about me applies to you, not me. Leave me alone, I dont like reading retarded rants. Nableezy (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

More crying about things that just are not true, and the user in question is unable to show if they are true: this edit summary and this refusal to back up his fantastical claims. Nableezy (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

CAoTtT Mediation
You participated in a dispute about an entry on Charities accused of ties to terrorism. Would you agree to participate in requesting Mediation - or at least agree to abide by the outcome? Please comment at Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism. --GRuban (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like you're the only one who hasn't either agreed to the mediation or stated they're withdrawing. I think we need everyone for mediation. Can you please comment on the talk page section linked to above? --GRuban (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sabotage attempt?
Nableezy, weren't you the one who asked to resolve controversy in the discussion page? I kindly ask to restore the wording. Please notice there is a huge difference between 'suicide attack' connotation and 'combatant' connotation. Best regards. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)