User talk:Nableezy

I was smoking the other night and I began to violently cough. I coughed so hard that I pulled a muscle in my back. So what did I do next? Smoked some more to try to ease the pain.

Eraser

How are you? Do yourself a favour and read this: Wikipedia:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement --Shuki (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No shit, Sherlock. If I had reverted an edit in article space under WP:BAN you could revert me and take responsibility for the content. What you are doing though is reinstating comments made by a banned user who socked around their ban. Nothing in WP:BAN allows you to do this. In fact, in the irony or ironies, the editor in question actually asked this exact question here and was given the answer that comments made by socks of banned users are, as common practice, struck out. Do you have a reason why the comments made by a user socking around their ban should be permitted to stay? Or do you just like annoying me? nableezy - 01:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I promise you I will take this to AE if you remove the strikeouts one more time. nableezy - 01:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to have a problem reading guidelines, you do understand that in Wikipedia:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement it explicitly says: Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content. You also must understand that taking me to AE means that you are merely going to get banned as well for your repeated edit warring and ignoring the line I just posted. --Shuki (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And if you bothered to try to understand a simple point instead of rushing to protect a member of your "team", a member who has socked repeatedly to harass other editors, you would see why you are wrong here. You are not restoring 'content'. If this were in article space you would be correct, you could absolutely take responsibility for edits made by the banned user. This is not in article space. And the comments have not even been removed. You are doing this for no reason save for trying to piss me off. I understand what taking you to AE means, and we can see what happens if you wish to go that route. nableezy - 16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sad Sack janitorial geezers like myself occasionally slip up. But I feel obliged to fix the earlier looseness of phrasing here, Nableezy, a question of amphibological disturbance in No shit Sherlock.

(a) That can be read as 'Sherlock doesn't tolerate nonsense, cuts to the marrow' and, thus understood, would be vocative with regard to Shuki, denoting him as a man who gets to the nub of Nab's nonsense. This doesn't fit.

(b) 'No shit Sherlock' could challenge Conan Doyle's description of Holmes' 7% solution of cocaine, since 'shit' is traditional druggy jargon refers to hash, heroin or the like. In this case you would be hailing your interlocutor as a hyper-perceptive dogged 'dick' whose acuity in going over the spoors of your criminal behaviour owes nothing to stimulants. Mm. I don't think this is what you mean either.

(c) It could, in certain aged psychoanalytical circles, be taken as referring to an adversary's rather paranoid reading of the traces you leave on the scenes of wiki crimes as rather 'constipated'. But Freud is old hat, and this reading would be 'stretching it' (with no onanistic innuendo intended)

(d) If however one takes into consideration the fact that there is abundant evidence, esp. in your intricate summary history's style of language, that you disregard punctuation, a simple Housmanian emendation, namely, placing a comma after 'no shit', would generate a perfectly acceptable meaning, that of the modern vernacular where 'No shit' is interjective and signals one's 'amazement, incredulity, or derision'. The sense would therefore mean: 'That's unbelievable. You're pulling my leg, Sherlock'.

p.s. This fits best, and I have taken the WP:BOLD policy to heart, and adjusted your text. But, with diffidence, while fearing I may err. The pertinacity of philological exactitudes in my former profession obliges me to observe a slight dyscrasia in (d). For there is an additional nuance in 'no shit', namely 'a sarcastic response used when someone states the obvious'.

Since you doubt the veracity of what your interlocutor wrote, his comment can hardly be 'obvious'.

The local tobacconist closes in 20 minutes, and it is a 19 minute walk there. So my lucubrations, to your relief no doubt, must end here, or else, for want of 'fags' I'll be tempted later this evening to break into a pharmacy and secure a 7% solution myself. Your sincerely, Dr What'son, ret. Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

^^ *Wild applause* Also, someone needs to cook up a "Buffy the Sockpuppet Slayer" barnstar. Sol (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No Nableezy, that is simply your interpretation. Unfortunately for you, putting it in 'first person' does not make it the truth. Frankly, you seem to show you know policy but not actually carry it out. If you did AGF, you would not accuse me of wanting to piss you off, a really silly accusation on a Sunday afternoon. Stellarkid's comments on that page are legitimate and since they are not insulting anyone or controversial, I take responsibility for them. I guess you have the right to strike them, I have the right to restore them. If you cannot accept that, then you can continue to climb the tree you've promised/threatened to climb. --Shuki (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

All right, we'll see what happens. You could instead not to be a dick and leave the comments of a user who socked around their ban first to harass another user and then socked around their ban to again harass another user, and then again socked around their ban to harass me. But if you insist on being that dick then we can see what happens at AE. nableezy - 23:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Bah, leave the tongue twisting attempts to others. At least, they do not look as dumb with the attempt and poetic license factor put in. --Shuki (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont particularly want to decipher what you are saying, but I was not "tongue twisting"; what I wrote was fairly clear. nableezy - 23:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Tongue-twisting? (images of Chubby Checker blur with Einstein's) and poetic licence? Where's my Ben Jonson, no, not the steroid sprinter, the . . uh . .Shakespeare's cobber?

leave the rattling pit-pat noise

To the less poetic boys.(Ian Donaldson, (ed.) Ben Jonson: Poems, Oxford University Press, 1975 p.250)

What he wrote was 'clearly fair', and it's a fair day for the fowl, so let's not foul the fare.Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I remember a time when I used to attempt humour to fill in the blank time when I had nothing to say, but I realized it actually made me look stupid so I stopped that habit. --Shuki (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If alluding to Shakespeare makes one look stupid, and proof one has nothing to say, then my suspicions about 'postmodernity' are confirmed. What filling in 'blank time' means escapes me. All it brought to mind was a memory several decades ago of coming across, in a book sale, the small bound World Classics edition of Thoreau's Walden, or Life in the Woods for a few cents, and marvelling, on the train home as I perused the first chapter, at the lines:

‘Think, also, of the ladies of the land weaving toilet cushions against the last day, not to betray too green an interest in their fates! As if you could kill time without injuring eternity.’ (1906) p.5

It's hyperbole of course, as most truths stated plainly are, but wasting people's time with pettifogging seems to be fairly commonplace round here, and as part of my janitorial work in an enforced leisure, I often blank edits that appear to militate against eternity, and anyone's piece of it. I suggest you look over the last 500 edits here. You will see that 14 people, several obsessively, plunk complaints about the user, while several, who come from the same cultural area, work intelligently with him. The appearance (nb) of a group attack mentality carping against a single editor may, over a page, give stray admins the impression there is something problematical (no smoke without fire) with his behaviour. But if, as can be readily remarked, several wikipedians of extensive experience, with clear individual profiles, manage to work with him more or less on the same issues, while disagreeing with his POV (the opposite of their own), then the specious and vagrant impression will be readjusted. You might use some of that blank time to think this over. But for the moment I suggest editing time is best spent actually working towards articles and not persons. Carpe diem profitably then, rather than Carpe Diem, as Henry Cabot Lodge apparently told some generals in South Vietnam decades ago. Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Too much

[1] You really should know better than that. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand. nableezy - 15:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I assume that you have read the article, and should have known that one of the victims was 9 months pregnant, the other was 8 years old girl. To remove the word "civilians" knowing all that was too much IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did know that. I dont see how that changes the fact that the most accurate thing to call these people is "Israeli settlers". nableezy - 16:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope a further comment on my part wouldn't be regarded as disruptive. This exchange fascinates me. Seriously, Mbz1, it is worthy of a seminar by J. L. Austin. But I won't say why unless I get a go-ahead from both parties. It is a matter of linguistics, nothing more.Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nishi, I enjoyed our last exchange at your talk page, and was amazed by your erudition. I would have really be interested in learning why my exchange with Nab is worthy of a seminar by J. L. Austin, but I believe that by posting at this thread you're in violation of your topic ban. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

By posting on this page you agree that anything written on this page will not be brought anywhere else, such as AE or ANI. If you find those terms to be unacceptable I have to ask that you not post on this page again. If you accept those terms feel free to continue posting here. nableezy - 17:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That claim does not hold water anywhere in WP and you cannot give sanctuary (innovative idea though...) Editors under topic bans should watch what they say everywhere. --Shuki (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course it cannot be enforced, but we are all grown ups here. If you give your word I expect you to keep it. And I request that people who edit this page give their word that anything that happens here stays here. If people do not want to do that they can move the fuck on. I will say that if a user takes something from this page and uses it in a complaint elsewhere I will revert any future edit they make here sight unseen. nableezy - 23:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I get it now. You think that you've declared an micro-nation here independent of WP rules. What a fantasy to declare that and the weenie threat of repercussions as well that frankly does not scare anyone anymore. I promise you, wise Nableezy, that in the past, your talk page has been used against you, and it will be in the future as well. Nish is not immune either. --Shuki (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, if you are finished with histrionics, I would like to explain this once more. If you are unwilling to accept what I think are rather tame requests then kindly move the fuck on. You can use whatever you like to use, but if you do I will ask that you not comment here. If you comment here anyway Ill do the only thing I can do, remove whatever you write here. There are no "weenie threats of repercussions", just a simple request that if you wish not to follow you are free to do so. I am then free to ask you to not comment here. Simple really. Why you are wasting my time with this discussion is not something I want to understand. My guess would be that you are bored and get some weird sense of satisfaction in these banal conversations with somebody you perhaps dont like. I dont get that satisfaction from this though, this sidebar is pointless and the time I spent typing this response is lost. nableezy - 02:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for showing that you can take part in a discussion but you should avoid misleading other editors by claiming these various things about this page being extra-territorial of WP. If you think that you would waste time posting something, then just don't post a reply. Replying shows that you want to continue talking. Just some friendly advice. --Shuki (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Replying just shows I am a bit too much under the influence and did not notice what a complete waste of time replying is. Oops, there I go again. But since we are being "friendly", allow me to return the favor. Dont do this again. Ever. You think I am "biting" a newcomer you can file a complaint. What you cannot do is remove my comments from any page besides your own. At least until I am banned. nableezy - 03:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, your time would be better spent helping Nableezy identify editors who lie and break the rules e.g. "It hardly assumes good faith". I'm just saying. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, A) don't bother ever to tell me what to do, besides the main issue of that, you don't expect me to ever do what you tell me. B) I only removed your comments because I see that your pal Nish does the same here all the time and you have never biten his head off. C) You have probably noticed that I am quie tolerant of many things and do not run the judges each time someone does something wrong like you do and I seem to have not found the noticeboard for BITE, because that is the tone of that comment I removed, Your first sentence is fine, then you go into your infamous battleground mode handing out threats, D) Show me where Nish and Shuki are doing something against policy. mkay? --Shuki (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If you do that again I will ask that you be blocked. I have given Nishidani permission to remove comments from this page, if you can show where this user has done the same for you then feel free to remove whatever you wish. WP:TPO expressly forbids what you have now done twice. Stop. Now. nableezy - 13:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1. Given the hyperabundance of sockpuppets and meatpuppets around, I think, aside from one or two rash slips, I've peronally stuck to the spirit and letter of the law. I don't think the ban means that I was ostracized from having any contact of any nature with anyone who edits in the topic ban area. If it does, as you suggest, imply precisely this, I hope the point can be clarified. It would mean that even a neutral analysis of descriptors, logical consistency, and points of linguistic nuance in general English usage, would be denied me. People should remind themselves that the laws here serve to facilitate intelligent construction of NPOV articles, not scalptaking by putting trip-wires in the way of people one dislikes or, if dislike is not the issue, whose presence is thought of as disruptive. I'm quite prepared to define 'civilian' in your usage but only if you accept my bona fides that this is an abstract issue, not related to the banned context.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nishi, when you make minor changes to comments on a user talk page try to remember to mark the edit as minor. That way there wont be a new messages notice for the recipient for each minor change you make. But of course any comments you make would be disruptive. nableezy - 16:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I knew you'd bide your time, hovering in the wings, checking sedulously my edit patterns, to find some stupid negligance on my part, and, charging in like a wounded bull, exact a savage revenge for my quip some days ago about how you tend to ignore the niceties of punctuation in edit summaries. Touché, a nice flèche after my ballestra, as those savvy in foiling say.

Maybe I was wrong, as I got the indicator anyway. Maybe it needs to be marked as minor and bot for it not to cause the notification. Ah well, even the best of us, and by that I mean me, make mistakes. nableezy - 17:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You see, I ticked the edit box, as recommended and that distracted me from signing off. I couldn't come back and sign off, because that would mean I'd probably have forgotten to simultaneously tick the minor box (in one of my dialects that wording sounds distinctly Lolitesque, alas). Old age is really tough. One can't handle too many tasks at the same time.(I admit I did spell 'negligence' for fun). On second thought, I think the linguistic angles obvious, so won't crowd the page with further fatuous kibitzing. Cheers Nab. Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, do you really think a linguistic analysis of why 'civilian' is supererogatory (child) or an inferential construction (pregnant woman, for instance)in wiki articles to define the victims of terrorism in whatever area of the world or incidents we are dealing with, cannot be duly made by anyone, whatever their status, in this encyclopedia? Do you really think a general clarification of a principle of the meaning of words is beyond the restricted remit of an editor like myself, simply because one of probably a thousand potential instances happens to be cited from that area? I would remind you that the point was raised by Mbz1 who, for all of the excellence of her English, is not a native speaker of that tongue. If one cannot help out by elucidating simple misprisions about what words mean in one's native tongue, to assist second-language users, then this place is getting bedevilled by cavils that have no purpose other than to obstruct people because one dislikes them, irrespective of the contextual utility or merit of their remarks. Nishidani (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, exactly what do you want from me on this civilian/settler subject I have not taken part in? Please pay attention to the chronological order of this multithread section. FWIW, non-native speakers can often see language issues clearer than those of us who think we know English so well, even those who quote Shakespeare. If you really want to talk about the civilian/settler issue, which I'm now aware you cannot do here, please send me an email, or use another account. I apologize for the sharpness of my words, it happens often here because that bold notice that appears at the top of the page all the time. --Shuki (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Amazing how, with a thread, Ariadne loses her way. I had no intention of talking about the 'civilian-settler' subject. It would be a patent infraction of my ban were I to do so. So I never quite understood what the panic was about. Mbz1 said Nableezy really should know better than to elide the word 'civilian' from an article. And her subsequent clarification, for the reproval was mysterious, argued that (a) a pregnant woman (b) a child were victims, hence to elide 'civilian' is improper.

I thought of J. L. Austin because his How to do things with words, is very good on showing how, if closely scrutinized, otherwise grammatically correct statements can prove to be nonsensical, or slipshod. The whole English school, indeed, from I. A. Richards, through Empson to Oxfordian linguistic philosophy, inculcates us with the behest to be wary of what language does, unbeknown to us, who otherwise use it with native fluency.

The assumption Mbz1 made was that in describing the death of a 9th month pregnant woman, and a child, an emphasis is required that they were 'civilian'.

There are several things that this assumption ignores, and I thought it worth noting them to Mbz1 who is not a native speaker.

The first is that (I haven't looked at the articles's sources or the page itself) it is sheer nonsense to write, in English, that a child was a civilian. It's a pleonastic atttribute which, as such, can only function rhetorically. (The only exception would be to make a specification of this kind in one of those rare thirdworld countries where children at that age are compelled to bear arms). I challenge anyone to say to a disinterested party, 'they killed this kid, and he was 8 years old, and he was a civilian', and not get a look expressive of bepuzzlement or malicious smirking. It is redundant, and, (this is the worst of it) grotesquely comical, because it tells you nothing except about the state of mind of the person who made that perculiar qualification.

To say that a woman, nine months into term in her pregnancy, was a civilian, is slightly different. That, in this case, Mbz1 said 'civilians' is obligatory because 'one of victims was pregnant' interested me, linguistically, for two reasons. It implies that pregnant women are, ipso facto civilians, which is an illogical inference (what we call WP:OR), even though it may be, contextually, true. And secondly, it is wrong, as I presume the sources are misleading, since a woman 9 month pregnant, is two people according to several modern forms of the concept of rights, not one. Is an unborn child, however, a civilian? No. Linguistically, whatever any one cultural code might say about the unborn, they are not considered 'civilians' until parturition. Etc etc.

There was a more general principle at stake. Editing can turn out to be a 24/7 nightmare if everyone takes every occasion to stir the brew. Good editing means, as often as not, simply abstaining from querying things that, in a moment's reflection, contain several probable answers, all acceptable as answers, even if one might disagree with them. In every instance, when you make an editorial choice, there is, implicitly, an acknowledgement of a rule. If you demand in such contexts that 'civilian' be used, you are saying that, on all pages where someone is killed in an ethnic, or territorial war or incident, one must specify their status as combatant or non-combatant (civilian). It is a formj of incitement to opposing editors to immediately jump all over pages where his or her POV could get rhetorical leverage from the innovation, to plaster the word 'civilian' wherever someone was killed. Wiki is factual, and one does best not to egg the pud, or egg on people to egg their pud.

The problem cannot be resolved by sources, because some might say 'civilians', others might not. In this case, the issue was generic, but there is no precedent that might guide one. To post insistently on someone's page that they screw things up, as often as not, only leads detached observers to wonder why so much fuss is made, and why detached reflection on general principles is studiously eschewed.

In short, the intelligent approach to conflict is to elicit the principle either side's edits illustrate, and discuss it: it is certainly not good practice to lay seige to a page with remarks that are injudicious because poorly thought through, particularly this page, where vernacular rough-house has a licence, but frivolous nitpicking is denied a voice.Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that if we got the famous banned 8 back onto I-P, including you, things might be a bit better. I was totally unaware of that whole ARB case when you guys all got canned. Anyway, (trying to understand the issue) to include 'civilian' here is probably because the Arab/Palestinian rhetoric IRL regularly claims that all settlers are active combattants, criminals, violate human rights, etc... and that 'naturally' all Israelis are combattants since they do the army. It might seem redundant to claim that a pregnant women and child are civilians, the rhetoric POV is to assume that they are not. We usually do not see this Palestinian rhetoric in English, and that is why speakers of foreign language have a lead on people who only know English where this settler=war criminal rhetoric is very rarely translated literally. --Shuki (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the members of the "banned 8" who were sockpuppets or sockmasters, of course.     ←   ZScarpia   19:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict dammit, with Scarper Flow)

The infamous 7 actually, since 'two' were sockpuppets of each other. That sock has some claim to distinction since his systematic headhunting drove several experienced and a couple of potentially good wikipedians out of the encyclopedia. It was, effectively, a I/5 judgement, since the other 'two' was just a schizoid gaming act by a non-committed attack strategist, and certainly I would prefer to stay banned than to see that particular stalking walking disaster return under a general amnesty. I freely admit I have some high regard for Nableezy, despite the fact that the lout hates Shakespeare, because he has considerable talent in weeding out socks of the kind that caused the Arbcom mess. Things are hard enough on you guys without having the game tainted by uncommitted messers (in the German sense, now that I think of it).

Your point about local rhetorics is well-taken but was actually resolved by the Arbcom case. It was determined that in an area of conflict, the default descriptive terms were those of reliable sources in English, not those privileged of either in the two languages , or discursive cultures of the area. That verdict was won with much blood shed futilely and I do not augur a similar process on those of you who come to edit that area. Lessons should be learnt. Wikipedia is in English, and ‘speakers of a foreign language’ here are certainly invaluable sources for the history and culture of their respective countries, but they certainly have no edge in suggesting the appropriate terminology in English, which has a long and consolidated tradition of handling with an outsider’s attempt at neutrality, local conflict in how events or landscapes are to be described, since its constituency of speakers embraces all cultures, and must take into consideration all perspectives without favouring one. What you say of the other side’s rhetoric in its native idiomatic nuance, has been said of your side’s rhetoric. The dispute that got us all banned pivoted precisely on this issue: was Hebrew usage to be favoured over English usage. Arabic wasn’t even considered. The verdict was, consensually, after we were all banned, that standard English usage was to prevail, except in certain restrictive contexts. It was most refreshing to a retired old timer like myself to see this precedent applied recently with success in the case of Ist, 2nd and 3rd Temple naming dispute, in a debate that was civil, consensual and rational.

There’s a very large literature on this, a good deal of which I am familiar with, but which I can’t talk about. In general therefore I would suggest, in any case, that (a) WP:NPOV obliges us to pare to a minimum our language, and take particular care not to add in attributive epithets, substantives that can be both loaded, and cut both ways; and that (b) in a conflict that has wider ramifications (extension of one term on a page throughout many pages) one seek wider community imput. It’s a matter of mental economy to simplify a problem so that it doesn’t have to be argued endlessly page by page, but can be resolved by a general rule. (c) people aren’t obliged to like each other, in life as in virtual collaborative projects, but they are obliged to accept, in cases like this, that two realities exist, and neither must prevail discursively, and that the only determinant of how things are to be represented, according to the rulebook, is WP:RS and the default usage of the language the encyclopedia is written in.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nishi, I hope that you managed to copy and paste rather than had to type everything in again.     ←   ZScarpia   22:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Scarpy, no comment on you intended. As you can see by my lousy wordiness and loose sentence structure, I always write direct in the box, never think as 'minor' edit, edit summary, or that in posting a conflict might cause me to copy the inked, conflicted stuff laboriously back into the page. Bad practices. p.s. I woke up at 4 am cursing myself for not adding the obvious point, that 'civilian' in English is not a descriptor we use with single children or babies, or children because civis historically tends to carry over the idea of entry into full rights (to vote etc) which only comes in late adolescence etc. CheersNishidani (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't really have to worry about the status of children here. Mbz1 was mistaken with the comment that one of the victims was an 8 year-old girl. The girl seems to have been the child of one of the victims but not present during the attack. It is an understandable mistake because the line in the article is a bit misleading. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, JGG. Out of scruple I didn't even read the source or the article, and in any case what interests me in these things are the general concepts of language, not particular applications. In editing, we should always bear in mind 'if I suggest this edit here am I willing to see the same edit in similar contexts all over wiki?' If people did that, we'd have far less conflict, perhaps less edits, but far better pages. Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the "civility is not exist on this page" notice before editing in it? It's a joke right? Because talk pages, though less strictly scrutinized are not an excuse to change the idiotic but necessary rules of discussion -meaning, if we are forced against our will to respect each other and be artificial and fake for the sake of good order, or at least for the sake of the hope for good order in other venues then there is no reason to give one the pleasure to release steam on his or her TP. Anyway and anyhow, didn't know that to kill baby is much more moral if the baby is "not a civilian ", didn't even know the UN allow this and this is not a crime against humanity or war crime by itself. By all mean, any decent person would call it nothing else but lousy terror attack. So, I truly don't know about wikipedia, but I hope that real world is sane and loosing its patience for terrorists, what ever their excuses are. --Gilisa (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No it is not a joke. Much of your comment appears to be predicated on a misunderstanding of what has been written. Nishi does not say that a baby is "not a civilian". Read more carefully before making comments. nableezy - 21:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa, the real world sane? Bah! After 8 years in which it was official policy to dismiss with contempt anyone out there, beyond the Beltway, who still grounded their thinking in the given facts, rather than rhetorical spin? Hans Köchler, The use of force in international relations: challenges to collective security, International Progress Organization, 2006 pp.108-109 One of the functions of wikipedia is to step outside rhetoric, and just supply an otherwise increasingly ideologically-bedazzled world with straight, factual, unemotive and eminently verifiable articles. The less 'politicized' an editor, in this regard, the greater service he or she renders to the world that still retains expectations of a return to sanity. Sorry, for straying. This is not a blog. I just hope that we can swear more around this page with a certain amiable hostility, and niggle nastily rather less. Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Since settlers could serve in the security forces, perhaps it would have been more precise to call the victims "civilian Israeli settlers"?     ←   ZScarpia   09:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Are they still "settlers" while they are soldiers? Would somebody really say "an Israel settler soldier"? nableezy - 12:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you say that someone is a settler, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person is a civilian. And of course, in Israel you have the situation that a large number of people are security service reservists. Taking Baruch Goldstein as an example, you would probably want to mention that he was a settler and a reserve member of the IDF.     ←   ZScarpia   18:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree you would want to do that for somebody like Goldstein, but I think that underscores the point. You would need to also include that he was a member of the armed services, it is not assumed that one is not a civilian when they are called a "settler". nableezy - 18:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

PNG location map

Can you teach me how to create a PNG location map? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Whats the map? nableezy - 02:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Two maps, one of Syria and one zoomed in at southwestern Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean give me a link to the actual maps. nableezy - 18:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

[2] both can be created from this one. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The full Syria map already has a location map template, Template:Location map Syria. To make it you need to know the coordinates of each of the edges. If you just need a basic map it is pretty easy after that. If you want to do something more slick, like have a larger map on the left and the zoomed in portion on the right like the maps Ynhockey has made (eg Template:Location map Israel golan) you need to do some added math to get the numbers to work correctly. Make the maps you want and I will see if I can help make them location maps. But you gave a link to an svg file. You should keep the maps you make from it as svg. There is a free svg editor called Inkscape. It isnt the easiest thing to learn to use but it is relatively simple. nableezy - 20:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

When I rightclick on this I cant copy it: [3], so I used the printscreen button, but then I have to manually cut out the image, I cant find that button in Incscape. I have managed to create one in Paint but its a PNG file instead of the original svg, is it alright? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Right click on the link and press save file or save target. The file should be saved as an svg file. Then use Inkscape to open the file. nableezy - 13:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In inkscape, how do I cut out a specific part of an image? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Im not sure, sorry. You can save the svg as a png and modify that if it is easier for you. nableezy - 15:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Im done: [4], can you make this the Golan location map? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ill try. Do you have any idea what the coordinates are for the north, south, east, west boundaries for the golan side of the map? nableezy - 18:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know any of the measurements. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the two sides might not be of the same size. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

They dont need to be, I just need to find the coordinates for the right half. I can calculate how that translates to the coordinates we will use in the template. nableezy - 19:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Block

You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for violating the 1RR Parole stipulations on Golan Heights. As indicated on the talk page and the edit notice, all reversions must be explained. You did not explain this reversion, nor did you notify the other editor he was reverted or why. Edit warring on that article needs to come to an end, it won't if changes are reverted and biting the newbies is not helpful. --WGFinley (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary explained the reversion. That edit was vandalism, it intentionally introduced factual errors without any sources to back those errors. It is not a "content dispute", it is not a matter of good faith. It is a "newbie" editor making as their first edits in months the very same contentious edits continuously made by supposed "newbie" editors. This is similar to edits made to the Jerusalem article changing "capital of Israel" to "capital of Palestine". Those edits are reverted as vandalism without any controversy. I understand you have to stay "uninvolved", but that doesnt mean you dont have to think about the actual content or treat every reversion as equally "bad". nableezy - 03:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

And, again, it specifically states revisions need to be explained on the talk page, that didn't happen. You also assume that person isn't new, part of what creates edit wars is the failure to AGF. Rules on that page apply to everyone, have blocked others for it. --WGFinley (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason bots dont make blocks. If it were as simple as x >= 1 -> block x there wouldnt be rfa. (And the editor is not "new", the account was registered in 2007.) But thats fine. nableezy - 04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Assistance with meat-puppet investigation

If you have a minute, could you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Curvesall and see if you have any suggestions? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Scope of Racism in the Palestinian territories

Hi. I've attempted to systematize the discussion on the scope of Racism in the Palestinian territories with regard to racism by Israeli settlers and soldiers at Talk:Racism in the Palestinian territories#Proposed resolutions. This debate does not concern whether such racism exists, merely whether it is an appropriate part of the article. Issues of WP:POLICY are currently being discussed. You've previously addressed the issue. Please contribute your opinion.--Carwil (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Drork redux

You write that civility does not exist on your page, however it does exist on MY page. I therefore reported your unwelcoming behavior to whom it should concern, on the page called ANI. Kàkhvelokákh (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. nableezy - 13:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

1RR arbitration enforcement block

You were placed on a 1RR restriction here. You violated it on this article and this article. Since this was on two articles and was less than three days after your last block for violating a 1RR restriction under the same case, I've blocked your account for three days. You can contest the block via the usual means.--Chaser (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. I was made subject to a 1RR for articles on specific Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Golan Heights. That was the locus of the dispute that caused that restriction. Could you please check with PhilKnight, the admin who wrote the sanction, if these edits fall within the area I am subject to a 1RR? Additionally, the reverts at the article Israeli settlement are contiguous edits, they count as 1 revert, so even if I were subject to a 1RR on that article I did not break it on that article. nableezy - 02:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, the wording I used was 'for all articles which relate to Israeli settlements in the West Bank', and I'd accept that Israeli-occupied territories and Israeli settlement are covered. However, I agree your edits to Israeli settlement are contiguous, so you didn't go over 1RR there. Under the circumstances, I guess you could ask Chaser to reduce the block. PhilKnight (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine, I didnt even consider the possibility that the 1RR extended there. But so I am clear on this going forward, is the entire article Israeli-occupied territories covered or just anything dealing with the settlements? nableezy - 12:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction is just for anything dealing with the settlements. PhilKnight (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd also point out to Chaser that the last block wasn't for a 1RR violation but for not explaining your edit on the article's talk page. Contrary to what Chaser says, the Golan Heights 1RR restriction is also separate from your sanction.     ←   ZScarpia   13:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Chaser, given that half of what you blocked me for is not a 1RR violation, would you be willing to reduce the block? nableezy - 23:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that is reasonable, so I reduced to time served. Unrelated to the above, would you mind adding a link to your user or user talk page to your signature? It makes it easier for talk page readers to leave you a message if they don't have to trawl through the page history.--Chaser (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a link, and on any other page it would work. Any wikilink that is a self-reference to the current page will not show as a link but instead will be bolded. The default signature gets around this by, when used on the user's own talk page, not just link to User talk:Example but will link to User talk:Example#top. Compare how the next two wikilinks show. talk and talk. The custom signature doesnt do that, it will always link to User talk:Nableezy which on this page is a self-reference. I suppose it could be coded to act as the default sig, but I dont care enough to figure out how to do it. nableezy - 00:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my confusion. Thanks for explaining.--Chaser (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Salami

Thankfully there is beef salami and bologna, at least the Kosher ones are either beef or poultry. No pork, of course :) -- Avi (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

cmon Avi, thats cheating. nableezy - 17:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Responding

As you may recall, you and I once had cordial relations despite our many differences. But then you made an off-wiki remark about me that ticked me off. What's worse, you tried to out me to a banned user (in that off-wiki forum). I admit to making mistakes but if you had an issue with things that I wrote, you could have emailed me rather than making deprecatory remarks and trying to reveal my identity--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Your point is taken. Which part of the above-statement is untrue, the part that we once had cordial relations or the part that you talked shit about me behind my back at an off wiki forum?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I should not have employed that phrase.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The term Islamofacist.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with non-belligerency, if you are.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Socks

Dear Sock Slayer, Does User:Federalostt seem worthy of your attention? Zero^talk 11:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ill take a look. nableezy - 13:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I am just letting you know. I have no opinion on the issue yet The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was closed too quick for me to call somebody an idiot. Damn. nableezy - 19:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You could compensate yourself by going over to Wikibias to comment on editor wiki02138's articles (including the one discussing you). I wonder if he or she is deliberately missing the point at this one: There is, after all, no apartheid in Israel where black and white Jews live together, work together, serve in the army together and marry each other.     ←   ZScarpia   20:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Naw, I aint giving that fool a single extra page view. I dont care about what he thinks or what the people who read it think. Too many stupid people here for me to worry about ones over the rest of the internets. nableezy - 20:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Do off-Wiki idiot identifications count? If they do, I reckon you can sleep easy tonight.     ←   ZScarpia   20:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Did the old wikibias pull in the meat puppets like this one? I assume it's the same writer. Sol (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not the same writer. nableezy - 00:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Feedback

Hey there Nableezy! Seeing as you probably might be interested in the page Battle of Karameh and have quite a good reputation on Wiki I would appreciate it if you could take a look at this and submit your opinion or advice in order to lessen the pro-Israeli bias that seems to be present in the article. Thanks. Ymousa (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but Id rather not. nableezy - 20:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, I thought we could get to know each other a bit. May you provide a reason why you'd rather not or is it merely mazaj ? Ymousa (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(Egyptian here, so mazaag). No, not that. I just havent done enough reading about it to provide any informed opinion. There are too many people here that go into an article to support a "side". They have no knowledge of the topic and in fact are proud of being ignorant of the issues. They would rather make an uninformed argument instead of opening a book and learning something. In case Im not clear, that is a bad thing. I dont know enough about this battle to contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way. nableezy - 20:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Yes yes, you make an excellent point; decisively clear. Thanks anyway. Ymousa (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I still suck the dummy

I've learnt thanks to some Dr Spocky lessons from your disesteemed selfhood, to wipe meself and change nappies when it comes to this template technology, but still find myself in the 'suck-the-dummy' stage on some of the finer points. I wonder if you could crawl out a dem der trenches, cut through the salients under heavyweather gunfire from maraunding socks, and fix the mess I've made over the dual authored Hope and Holston templating? It's a warzone there as well, at Edward De Vere, but there's a lull for the mo', so I can promise you the shibboleth and safepassage towards quick and untroublesome sapper duties for this sad sap. Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeez! Greased lightening! Get stuffed!Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Think thats all of them. Let me know if I missed something. nableezy - 15:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Just curious, why the P in Sulayman Pasha al-Azm (سليمان باشا العظم‎) ? I ask because I happened across something about someone living in سليمان باشا in Cairo =(google translate-speak "a vital region of the cultural aspect, and full of cinemas, theaters") and it caught my eye. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It was an Ottoman title, so it kept their pronunciation. The pronunciation that I have heard is somewhere in between basha and pasha. These titles were no longer used in Egypt after Nasser. We also stopped wearing those little red hats, though I do have a picture of my grandfather wearing one and from what I know about him he was not the happiest man when they went out of style. nableezy - 15:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Those hats would have been banned in Europe eventually anyway for being too red or something. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about this Im not so sure. I know I have heard it sound more like, but never exactly like, a p, but Ive also heard it with the normal b. Ive heard "Ibrahim Pasha" with the p-like pronunciation when I asked "who is that?" (if somebody was that close and wanted to take a picture why on earth would they not walk around and get a lil closer??? Id do something about it next time I go, but its a hassle bringing a camera with you when you go out to downtown Cairo, and I dont care enough about this place to actually do it), but Ive also heard it with the normal b when people are using it in jest, which is really the only time I hear it used. nableezy - 05:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Much better. Now I dont even need to pretend that there is no decent picture of that statue. nableezy - 05:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This says it was pasha in the 1640s in Turkish, bash earlier and was bashaw in English in the 1530s. I'm curious what happened between 1530 - 1640 to change the b to p. That first photo is marvelous. Might add it to the Road traffic safety article. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman Turkish language made no distinction between the bilabials /b/ and /p/(unvoiced) though the further you go back the voiced /b/ was apparently how it was heard by Western travellers. Thus at a raw guess pāshā/bāshā, (from the word for 'head'(bāsh, in Eastern Turkish dialects, pāsh ) cf. Arabic rais: رئيس Arabic/Hebrew rosh: ראש‎) came into Latin through the medieval Latin form of the word bassa. With the intensification of Ottoman-Western contacts, esp. after the excommunication of Elizabeth by Pope Pius V (1570), trade between England and Ottoman merchants underwent an extraordinary boom, and by 1620, England had outmanoeuvered both Venice and France as the leading trading power with the Ottoman empire. This involved quite an intensive investment by London trading houses at that time in encouraging their traders in the Levant to master the relevant languages. Heightened familiarity therefore, by about the 1640s, a few decades later, would have effected a sea-change, or rather a b to p change in the transcription of the title. Just guessing.Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds very blausible. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Napleasy would concur.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My father, an immigrant, came home one night and said one of his co-workers seemed upset with him. He said "I dont know why Baul is so upset ..." I asked if the co-worker was bald (he was) and then explained to him that the name was Paul and that his pronunciation sounded more like "bald" then "paul". nableezy - 14:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Megaidler

I think he was unfairly blocked. I really don't believe that he socked and I don't think that he had a reason to do so given that his account was in good standing. What is the best course of action in this case?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You can reverse the decision by either hoping that MuZemike agrees to run a CU (and it comes back clean) or by raising it at WP:AN or by asking another CU. I dont know what the connection between Golan heights is our and Stellarkid is, that one actually surprise me, but unless Stellarkid was doing somewhat complicated things, things I doubt the user knows how to do, then if what Megaidler wrote about his or her location is true, which can be established by CU, then there is no chance the two are the same. You can either wait for MuZemike to respond (you really should do that either way), post to AN (where if you come across as strong as you have on MuZemike's talk page most people will ignore you), or you can ask another CU to take a look. nableezy - 05:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I should add though that I think your old friend has once again graced us with his presence with a new, different, account, which is one of the reasons I doubt Megaidler is the same. nableezy - 05:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ty--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing restriction

Due to an ongoing dispute, you are restricted to 1RR for the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, until the end of December. PhilKnight (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)