Template:Archive box collapsible

You said you know who it is [1], please ad your evidence here: [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do know who it is, but at the moment I am not inclined to say. The IP isnt a "sockpuppet" as there is no overlap in edits. My concern is that the IP is purposely "evading scrutiny" by editing as an IP unconnected to any history the named user has. But I kinda sorta like the named user, of those on the "other side" this one was not a complete twat. nableezy - 01:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy. You have implicitly referred to a large segment of the community as "Twats," which is a less than flattering term. Please either retract the insult or strike it from your page.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually explicitly said that one user is not a twat. I made and make no comment on whether anybody else is a twat. But what about "be gone" do you not understand? nableezy - 15:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are you still allowed to edit here with that mentality? Don't worry about it JJG. Eventually the admins will stop giving him passes. Let him talk as much as he wants.Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were you not asked, multiple times, to leave this page alone? nableezy - 15:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you are free to have Nableezy (and my) talk pages on your watchlist, do you have to chime in everytime you think a clarification or scolding is in order (both on our pages and at AE, ANI, or anywhere else you think someone might act on your wishes)? Reminds me of my busybody neighbour who everyone tries to avoid lest they get an earful of unsolicited advice with a finger wagged in their face.

@Nableezy, Ramadan Karim my friend. Tiamut^talk 09:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shukran, nableezy - 15:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol... while I am in no way admitting any connection to that IP, I appreciate the halfhearted compliment Nableezy. Of all of your "friends" here on Wikipedia, you too are one of the very, very few non-'twats'. Salamat (yes, that is the slaughtered Arabic that we Israelis stole and now use in a sense that wouldn't otherwise make sense), Breein1007 (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not halfhearted. I wholeheartedly feel that you are not a twat. Take care, nableezy - 20:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nableezy for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really did not think you were that stupid. Thanks for enlightening me. nableezy - 04:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[3]. Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its only fair. I cant grant permission for people to insult anybody besides myself. nableezy - 23:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has already given a warning so you need to stop with the pointed comments.Cptnono (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What "warning"? You mean where WGFinley wrote Some folks need to simmer down, when the personal attack accusations start flying things get unproductive. If they start that direction again article bans will be needed.? I have not made any accusations of personal attacks, or any personal attacks. What "pointed comments"? You mean where I ask if you know how long the war lasted? Or when I ask you to actually say what you think is missing from the first paragraph or how something is "undue weight"? Those were serious questions. I actually think you didnt know how long the war lasted. Would you like to take a guess? Be honest, how much have you read about the war? What books have you read about the war? How much do you think you know about the war, its causes, and its consequences. If you cannot, or choose not to, answer the questions honestly, then honor my previous request and stay off this page. nableezy - 15:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nableezy! I have filed a WP:AE complaint about your actions on pages related to Israeli settlements. I would really like to work with you to improve these articles, but unfortunately this doesn't seem to be working. I hope we can collaborate at least on other topics that we happen to edit together. Please leave your comments at the WP:AE page. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yn, in the future when informing somebody of an attempt to ban them you should really consider using a different greeting. "Hi username!" has a jovial ring to it. But if you would please do me the favor of answering a question. You told me that if I felt the issue was important to "feel free to mention it in 8 words or less". I did exactly that. What is the problem? nableezy - 21:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I am not reverting the edit. I merely don't think you should be making more edits about settlements if you have openly stated that you wish to make no further contributions to the article Psagot (and judging by your edits, every other article about settlements). As I said, I hope we can collaborate on other topics that we happen to edit together. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So because I wont make edits on topics that I am not interested in, such as wineries or theatre shows in settlements, and do make edits on topics that I am interested in, such as the fact that the settlements are illegal under international law, makes it so I should not be allowed to make any edits to settlements? By that logic the fact that you have not added information found in sources you have used about the illegality of the settlements demonstrates you should be banned from editing articles on the settlements. You have effectively shown your hand here, that you just dont want the fact that these colonies are illegal under international law to be included in the articles, and as it appears I am the only one adding that information banning me from settlement articles would accomplish your goal. Too bad you had to team up with an obvious sock to do so. That might damage your credibility just a bit. nableezy - 21:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am sorry if I offended you by saying "Hi Nabeezy!" This is my standard greeting on Wikipedia, including when I make less-friendly comments like warnings (unless it's a template), etc. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but it would be better if it were just "Hello username" instead of "Hi username!" for such notices. I dont care though. nableezy - 21:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, obviously you are aware of the WP:ARBPIA decision, which included amongst other things, the following advice:

In regard to the question of whether each settlement article should explain the legal status, and other questions, such as whether the term 'settler' should be used, there doesn't seem to be a consensus. I'd suggest that you try to build a consensus, perhaps by holding a centralized discussion. However, I would certainly advise against edit warring over this. PhilKnight (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Phil. I havent edit-warred over whether or not to call these places "settlements" or whether or not to call the residents "settlers". An IP, not me, has. I havent gotten involved in that issue except on one talk page where two editors are making claims of defamation and "dehumanization" by calling settlers "settlers". I objected to that, but havent made any edits about the issue. I dont think I was edit-warring on the Psagot page, though if you say what I was doing was edit-warring I may change my approach further. An editor removed a line as being unsourced, I restored it with a source and reworded it a bit. I dont personally think that counts as a "revert" as I am not simply undoing the others action, I am addressing the issue he raised. Another editor removed it again, I reverted. That editor removed it again. The only other editor engaged on the talk page said the material could be returned if kept under 8 words. I kept it to 6. Could you tell me which edit I made that would cause this sequence to be called "edit-warring"? nableezy - 07:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was to advise you to centralize the discussion regarding the legality of the settlements, and not to stick a particular label on you. I guess I could have chosen my words more carefully. Incidentally, there's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues#Legality and edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, I added this today to the opening paragraph about Psagot: "Although the Israeli government disagrees,[3] most legal authority considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including Psagot, illegal.[4]" Not that I'm asking you to get involved in the matter, but do you think the preceding is an acceptable compromise sentence? Would you change the wording?Haberstr (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would change the wording. I would mimic the BBC's standard line, "X, like all settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, is illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this." Your sentence implies there is a real dispute about this issue, there isnt. It is not "most legal authorities" that say it is illegal, it is a near unanimous view among those authorities. The International Court of Justice, in a unanimous opinion, said that all Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, violate international law, specifically the 4th Geneva Convention. The ICRC likewise has said that Israeli settlements violate international law. As far as I know, the United States has never rescinded or modified its position that all Israeli settlements violate international law. That is likewise the position of the EU and countless other multinational organizations. It is also the view of numerous human rights organizations, from B'tselem to AI and HRW. Sources are unambiguous about this point, and the text you quoted here does not reflect that unambiguity. It presents this issue as dispute where the two views are essentially equal. nableezy - 21:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You've persuaded me.Haberstr (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you're going to continue to be repeatedly dragged to the various noticeboards. A problem with that is that, no matter how 'correct' your positions are, over time it builds a stronger and stronger impression that you're a source of disruption. When administrators see disruption, they start handing out topic bans. When they do that, they judge behaviour not content. Those who get hit are the ones who appear to be at the metacentre of the disruption, no matter which side they are on. Since it's behaviour that will be judged, to avoid being banned you have to ensure that you're much cleaner than your opposition. Pardon me if I'm lecturing or stating the obvious; it's just that I want to try to ensure you don't get kicked out of the IP part of Wikipedia.     ←   ZScarpia   12:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing something on this [4] --WGFinley (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That content reversion has not been discussed? I need to open a new section every time a disgruntled IP or "new" user makes the same change? nableezy - 15:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why dont you do something about the banned user repeatedly making the same edits as a an IP? That might help things on that page. nableezy - 15:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't control someone evading blocks, just take care of him when it's clear it's him. I asked a range block be looked into and it's not possible. And yes, you need to explain your reverts on the talk page like everyone else. --WGFinley (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand I have to "explain my reverts", my point is that revert has already been explained, numerous times in fact. What I am asking is do I have to explain it each time? If so I'll do that. nableezy - 02:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because that article is under 1RR restriction and all reverts have to be explained. As a matter of fact if you had put it on the talk page instead of just reverting I probably would have seen that earlier than the revert war that took place.--WGFinley (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making accusations about other editor's intent on article talk pages. You know that it is not acceptable behavior. I already explained how I came to this article anyways and don't need to reiterate.Cptnono (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you are unable or unwilling to stay off this page? I say I am getting fed up with seeing your username in articles that you have never shown an interest in and appear to have no knowledge about and your response is to make me see your username here? Stay away, should not be that difficult for you to get that through your head. Finally, do not misrepresent what I wrote. Nowhere in that post did I make an "accusation about other editor's intent". Either way, go away. nableezy - 21:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not productive at all. Any editor has the right to click on user contributions of any other editor. That you are getting fed up about this is just another sign that you cannot handle opposing views and collaboration. Pity... --Shuki (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say this is just one of the many times you have no idea what it is you are talking about. nableezy - 00:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:-( --Shuki (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly make a mention on your talk page if you are out of line. I am not allowed to do it on the article. You cannot just say whatever you ant and expect that a response can't be given. And you are sick of seeing my name? I am sick of seeing you be disruptive. Stop making making inappropriate comments and I won't be on your talk page. You think that I am following you around but you fail to realize that we have many of the same articles and user talk pages watched which means we are bound to run into eachother. The best thing for you to do is not break talk page guidelines and you won't have to deal with it. It isn;t that complicated.Cptnono (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have I not made it clear that I do not care what you think? That no matter what you say I will not pay any attention to whatever you think about me, my behavior, my editing, or really anything at all? If you want to continue wasting your time making this silly little comments fine, they will just be reverted sight unseen from here on out. nableezy - 00:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you access to this book? [5] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not any online access. nableezy - 14:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know someone who has access to books at informaworld? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 would be the only person I could think of, though I am not sure if he has access to this or not. nableezy - 15:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SD, you should have an email from me regarding the book.     ←   ZScarpia   20:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the ongoing dispute, I'm restricting you to 1RR/day until December 31 for all article which relate to Israeli settlements in the West Bank. PhilKnight (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]