User talk:Nableezy/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

December 2010

AE--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you stand it?

Quite frankly I don't understand how you keep level headed when having to deal with a bunch of slimy, hypocritical, scheming, thugs on a daily basis (I am not, of course, talking about Wiki editors here as I am obliged to "assume good faith" and observe standards of civility) Prunesqualer (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Level headed" is not a description that is often applied to me. nableezy - 17:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

James G. Lindsay

As you can see I'm in the middle of writing the article. Wait until I'm finished and then if you think it's not important enough, suggest it for deletion. That's common wiki courtesy. Nik Sage (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Common "wiki courtesy" is to not recreate articles that had already been deleted. In fact it is not "wiki courtesy" that says this but rather it is Wikipedia policy (G4). You have recreated an article deleted by consensus. If you wish to do that you should be going to DRV. Ill be tagging that as qualifying for CSD G5 shortly. nableezy - 18:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

How could I've known that the article was deleted? I've started to write an article about Lindsay while writing an article about UNRWA's chief John Ging. Ging talked about Lindsay's report in an interview. I've looked for this man and saw that there is no article about him, so I started writing one. I first heard about mr. Lindsay while reading the interview twenty minutes ago. As I was not in the deletion arguement before, you should've deduced that I don't know anything about it and refer me to it through my talk page. That's what I mean by courtesy. Nevertheless, I'm not as proficient as you in wiki procedures so I'll be much obliged if you'll explain what are "DRV. Ill" and "CSD G5". Nik Sage (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You would know after I made my edit, as what you reverted, without comment, had a link to the AfD that resulted in the original page being deleted. DRV is "deletion review", it is the process used to contest the result of an AfD, whether it be keep or delete. You can read about it here. CSD is "categories for speedy deletion", it is a set of rules for what may be deleted without discussion. One of those rules is material that has already been deleted following a deletion discussion. You can read about is here. Finally, to the problem with reading an interview and making an article. Wikipedia has rules for what may be acceptable articles. Those rules include demonstrating that the subject is "notable". This requires citations to third party reliable sources. Your "article" is nothing but a collection of quotes from papers written by the subject, that is not a single citation to a reliable third party source is provided. That is not what Wikipedia articles, especially biographies of living people, should be made of. nableezy - 18:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks dude. Now I know more about wiki procedures. When I write on Wiki it is usually focused articles and I don't spend much time editing others - hence why I'm not so proficient in these rules. I'm still writing the article, and I'll try to do it by the wiki rules you presented. Give me a chance and then I'll be glad to hear any comments or criticizm. Nik Sage (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to do that you should do it in your userspace. You could for example make the article at User:Nik Sage/Lindsay. Once complete you could post to DRV and ask if people feel your draft should be moved in to article space. What you shouldnt do is revert the redirect, and you really shouldnt revert two different users who restore the redirect. nableezy - 19:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi dude. I've incorporated Lindsay's info inside UNRWA's page, thus expanding the James Lindsay section there. I think it makes UNRWA's page a little cumbersome, what do you think? What do you say about me creating a special page for the report, i.e. Lindsay report or something to that nature, or is it best to leave it as is? BTW, Thanks for all the wiki tips. Nik Sage (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont think that material needs to be given such in-depth coverage at the UNRWA page, it is a single person's opinion about a very large organization. If there are enough third-party sources covering the report an article on it would be fine, but you cant write an article on the report and use the report itself as the source. You need to get secondary sources actually covering the report. nableezy - 17:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Leave and learn. I'll start digging in the web. Nik Sage (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Is criticizm from inside UNRWA of the report, is considered as a secondary soure that covers the report? Nik Sage (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it wouldn't be a third party source so it wouldnt demonstrate notability of the topic. nableezy - 15:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy. I've found third party sources. Lets continue the discussion in Lindsay talk page. BTW, I'll appreciate your inputs about this page List of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East employees. Nik Sage (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry, but as you may see below I cannot comment on this as it is in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. nableezy - 03:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Recognition

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Because you continue to argue your case calmly and reasonably, refusing to compromise your beliefs or your commitment to the principles of Wikipedia, despite all of the pressures and hostility you encounter. RolandR (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Roland, nableezy - 03:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well deserved. Sol (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 7224 hours for treating Wikipedia as a battleground and violation of your topic ban on multiple articles and User talk:Enigmaman. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

On further examination, it appears the article edits occurred half an hour before you were informed of the topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What? All of the article edits took place before the topic ban was instituted and the conversation with Enigmaman was started before the topic ban was placed as well. Had he responded in a timely fashion, that conversation would have been done before as well. This block is wrong (it was made based on a misapprehension by the blocking admin) and should be immediately lifted, with apologies. Tiamut^talk 23:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what the fuck is this? Could you please post a single diff of me violating my topic ban? nableezy - 23:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You've been unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

All right. nableezy - 00:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)