User talk:Nableezy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Nableezy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

bilady bilady bilady, laki hubbi wa fuadi

Hi Nableezy. I'm from Egypt too. Glad to see you :). --Darwish07 (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Tamam zaii el foll. Koll sana wi inta tayyeb :D. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Peace indeed

Hey, thanks for the message. I appreciate it. Our dialogue (as unproductive as it was...) actually made me understand a little better what "the other side" thinks about the issue, so some good did come out of it. There's really no right or wrong here, just two sides to a story. And, indeed, the same should be reflected here in WP. I really hope both Palestinians and Israelis will all move past this period of aggression and into more productive times, so I could drive down to Gaza and have some good humus with the people. So take care, and indeed let's hope for some more peace. Rabend (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox inclusions

I have forwarded a compromise solution at the talk page of the Gaza conflict about the inclusion of UN workers and women and children. See it and reply please.BobaFett85 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fading away

Nableezy, my time limit is too small these days cause of the exams. If this silly debate about the "Gaza Massacre" term continued, just take a look at my 3-point ("Reply to claim 1", "Reply to claim 2", ..) answer to the 3 proposed "problems". I believe those 3 points are sharp enough to cut off all the proposed arguments, including bolding. Thank you. --Darwish07 (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So far, my 3-point reply has not been challenged, cause I think they are powerful enough. See you soon. --Darwish07 (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Massacre

The reason I'm not taking active part in this discussion (as well as in many others) is that I am having a hard time to crystalize an opinion. I must say that I am appalled by the "massacre" terminology, as I find it to be nothing short of simple case of racism, yet, I can't see how we can ignore the fact that most of the Arab world does call it that way. That said, I guess I would have no objection to include the term in the lead, but don't quote me on that just yet. Also , most Israeli media outlets call it "the Gaza War". If "massacare" goes in so should "war" (maybe, I don't know). Bottom line: I am still contemplating, but I tend to agree it should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omrim (talk • contribs) 19:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: I didn't take part in this discussion (I think). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omrim (talk • contribs) 19:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me post a message by myself--Omrim (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We disagree with a few of your points but you have not let any discussion devolve into an unproductive debate. Thanks. I keep on forgetting to sign my posts.67.170.88.215 (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Edit: And logging in.Cptnono (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In regards to your message: Just wanted to better understand what you were saying, do you think I am right about Hamas specifically using the phrase as the name? And if not, why not? If yes, does it not then follow that the name used by one of the governments be included in the lead paragraph? I dont think the phrasing is all that great, that is why I worked on that Option 3 in the archives. But do you think that the phrase should or should not be included just on the basis of it being used by Hamas? Nableezy (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC) I recently heard that it was called "The Gaza War" (or at least referred to as such) in the region. I don't speak Arabic so it is a little rough to look up multiple sources. I don't mind "massacre" being used but assume it is a place holder until history provides an actual title for the conflict. I do like that it states "described as the Gaza Massacre" in the article. Also from most sources, Hamas does not call it the Gaza Massacre. News agencies say ".... Gaza massacre" which is different then a title used by most Hamas, scholars, residents (again what I can find is limited), media, and so on. That is a discussion I really don't care that much about since consensus is obviously not going to happen in the near future. Also, no offense intended on the debate comment on the discussion page. Just felt it was appropriate to mention it since most editors speaking up disagree with you. My original comment (shown above) still stands unless this digresses into complete sillyness.Cptnono (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess it is contentious enough that a few other editors brought it up. Realistically, "massacre" stirs plenty of emotion so it is not surprising but right now it has to be in until/if sources predominantly say otherwise.Cptnono (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Grossly gross

No problem man. I appreciate it. I'm sure that poor soldier who misfired is utterly devastated and would have liked to apologize for that horrible accident. Maybe when the war is over. Rabend (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate the compliment, and sending a similar one your way. It is exhaustedly difficult to maintain reason and calm in such tense times (while trying to have real life outside wiki at the same time) and I deeply appreciate anyone trying to do so, such as yourself. Peace indeed (even though I am quite skeptic about seeing peace in my lifetime...)--Omrim (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, I was not near a computer most of the day, I see what I can find for "gaza war".--Omrim (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts

Hey. Thanks for the vote of confidence. I also value your thoughtful contributions, and I think we’re helping this article finally reach a point of sustained neutrality.

I’ve been trying to put into actual words what’s bothering me with the massacre statement. I think it’s basically the effect that it has on the naïve reader, who is the target audience of this encyclopedia. I think that when the user encounters “the Gaza Massacre” in boldface in the opening lines of the article that is supposed to objectively sum up the conflict, cognitively, he will barely notice the suffix, and that the strong words will be imprinted in his mind and will be subconsciously associated with the conflict, thereby potentially creating an undue bias, before even reading the facts. This term is so emotionally charged, that the danger of such a potential bias overrides the necessity of putting it right up at the top. I agree it should be present in the article, but further down. The Hebrew term, by contrast, is “operation” (the people actually refer to it as “war”), which is a less strong expression, in my opinion (so is “war”).

This issue is particularly disturbing to (left wing) pro-Israelis, since we know for a fact that the IDF is doing all that it reasonably can to avoid civilian casualties. That’s why it’s using so much advanced intelligence equipment and smart weapons and doing door-to-door urban fighting, which is uber-risky. If the IDF really wanted a massacre, it would do it in a single 5-minute sortie with 0 casualties on its side and 100,000s of dead Palestinians. It feels like the use of “massacre” is not only false, but used as propaganda by Arabic media to bash Israel. When the western reader encounters this word, it is in the context of the western reporting standards that he is used to, and is more likely to accept that as fact. Again, the suffix is not so noticeable after those strong words. That is my opinion.

On a personal note, and please don’t be offended by anything, I think it also does a disservice to the Palestinian people. The term suggests that the Palestinian people are mere victims, and thus further consolidates what I view as the eternal victim stance. The Palestinians always try to show how they are always victims in everything, and I think that’s not a good for them, strategically. In my opinion, they should take a more proactive, independent stand. Not always the crushed people, even though they might feel that, and Israel may indeed make them feel that. You see what I’m saying? Call it a “war”, or something. Anything that implies that you’re not again the hopeless victims, coz if they keep it up, no one in the world would ever expect them to make something of themselves, and that would be like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not to compare in any way, shape or form, but take a look at what’s going on Israel, solely from this perspective. Forget about history and context and who’s right. Jews came to israel after being victims themselves in the Holocaust. But they chose not to wallow in the victimization feeling, but actually to be active, and build and create their country, despite incessant wars. I wish the Palestinians would do the same. While talking with the UN to see who’s right and wrong in this never ending conflict, decide that you stop being hopeless victims, and build a working country for yourselves. If they keep sticking to the victimization thing, they have a reason to not do much for themselves and instead blame everyone around them. The vast majority in israel thinks just that. Most Israelis have no special connection to the Gaza strip, and really don’t mind Palestinians around them. They just want them to create a viable, peaceful country alongside israel, so that the two people could live in peace. Right, wrong, guilty, victim. Whatever. We are all victims here to some extent. Let’s try to move past that.

I’m sure you might disagree with most of this, and you might think endorses a patronizing view (which I hope you won't), but I just wanted you to hear my opinion and the thoughts of the average Israel supporter. Rabend (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute the claim that the Arab world calls the war by this name. I have no problem with that (although, as I said, I don't think it does the Arabs much good). My concern is that such a powerful emotional elicitor is used in the opening lines of the document, and can (subconsciously perhaps) instill some preconceptions in the mind of the naive reader, before he actually reads the facts, thereby biasing him right from the get go. In this way, we are not being encyclopedic, in my mind. I agree the term should be mentioned, coz as you said it is the most common name for it (although an official name would have been preferred, like Operation Cast Lead), but lower down the article, again, mainly due to its effect and that it is not the official name.

Try to place yourself in the eyes of the naive reader. You load the page, assuming it represents the objective truth, you start scanning thru the article, see the word Massacre in boldface, followed by the Arabic script. I doubt that, as a western naive reader, you would continue past the Arabic script. I know I wouldn't. Psychologically, you'll just skip the rest of the sentence and continue scanning, and never even notice the "used by the Arab world" part. Thus, you already have made the association between the conflict and a massacre taking place.

I'm not trying to be petty here. My MA is in a field similar to cognitive psychology and I work with things that are relevant to "user experience", and that is why I am so sensitive to the effects of seemingly small things on our perceptions. I would not have objected had I not thought this was important. Rabend (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My optimal wording would be "Hamas leaders and the Arab media have termed the conflict "The Gaza Massacre" (arabic script here). (sources)". without boldface.

I'm really concerned about the boldface. It is somewhat inappropriate, since, again, it is not an official name. For example, the Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing is often referred to as a massacre as well, but the term, coined by Israeli officials, only comes up in the 2nd paragraph, and with quotation marks. This format seems reasonable to me, only I agree that this way it should be indeed in the 1st paragraph. What do you say? Rabend (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I must say that i scanned thru several Arab news sites (English versions), and I haven't seen this term used as the conflict's name. It may have been used as a noun in a sentence, but not as a semi-official name. Perhaps it's only in Arabic? I don't mean to suggest any bad faith or anything, but I'm not sure that The Gaza Massacre and Operation Cast Lead are used in the same way. i.e., as the name of the entire conflict. Rabend (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To me it still doesn't feel like it has the same level of "official name"-ness like Cast Lead, and I'm still bothered by the boldface font, but I also see where you're coming from, in wanting to list the war's name. Perhaps you want to invite user:Omrim into the discussion and see what he thinks? Rabend (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm all for agreeing on something here, and then bringing it to the group. It's nearly impossible to get a consensus there. Some on your side are pretty nasty too, like that racist NonZionist. It's like he's doing everything to stop our collaboration.

BTW, there's at least one part in the lead that could be made neutral, about the death toll. First of all, it should be in the same format, or at least referring to the same categories, i.e., "All but three of the Israeli casualties have been soldiers, while xxx of the Gaza casualties have been civilians". The reader should be able to figure out for himself which side has many more civilian casualties. Right now it's like we're directly going for empathy for one side. Also, immediately following is yet another count of children. While the facts are horrible, this is redundant. What do you think? Rabend (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the casualties. How should we change it, though? The lead discussion is a huge mess? Rabend (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As per our discussion yesterday about casualties in the lead, can you please review my/your proposition and agree it with (if it's worded fairly), so that we can start getting a consensus about this? Thanks. Rabend (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And my thoughts too.

Hi. Well thanks for your kind words. I think "reasonable" must be the highest compliment a Wikipedian can give, especially on an article like that. I'd like to think that we're all reasonable outside of the terse dialogue of the talk pages. I'm sorry that I didn't respond earlier but I haven't been on WP since I made the comment.

I quite agree with your first assertion. I don't think a term should be excluded because it is inflamatory if it otherwise deserves inclusion. That might be a valid NPOV reason for excluding it from a descriptive title but it would also be an NPOV problem to ignore a widely-used term even if it was an ugly one. I also don't think the interwiki should be removed. If that was a valid reason the German Wikipedia could remove us for not having the "Cast Lead" name as the title like they do. =)

I also think that you did raise a good point about the Hamas name. We do have to consider the various reasons that we would include a name. The official name from the government would be one but the usual name in a society is quite a different thing. I think that most Americans would remember the invasion of Panama but not that it was called Operation, ugh, Just Cause. Similarily I don't think that most of my fellow Canadians would know the names that our government uses for operations in Afghanistan, although they are sometimes said in the media. I would actually suspect that average Israeli doesn't talk about "Cast Lead" to friends but probably uses another "Gaza" term.

So maybe "massacre" deserves some inclusion as the Hamas name even if it is not the usual Arabic name. I'd have to think about it and look into it some more before I can say. But thank you for your comments and the message on my talk page. It has definitely made me rethink things. That's really the best reason for having Wikipedia. The "sum of human knowledge" would be pretty hollow if we leave here thinking all the same things as when we arrived. --JGGardiner (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I just responded on the article's talk page but I liked your suggestion very much. I'm hoping that it may also disarm some of Tundrabuggy's concerns as well. It would be nice to settle the issue. Thanks again for all of your patience and consideration of my concerns. It makes that talk page a little less scary to know there are actually good users who are willing to actually talk things out. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw it on the article talk page. It’s beautiful. Just like looking at a work of art in a gallery. =)

Thanks again for the compliment on the article talk. Maybe the two of us can get that article straightened out. I’d definitely agree with what Nishidani said below. I think you’re making a great contribution here. I didn’t actually realize that you were a new user. Although it probably explains your good behaviour there.

And I also agree with Nishidani’s comments about not getting burnt out and making valuable contributions. My feeling is that we’re here because we enjoy it. If you’re not having fun with it, there are better ways to spend your time. That’s why I sort of stick to certain parts of the talk pages. There are some arguments that I just don’t want to step in the middle of.

It has been nice meeting you. I hope to see you around WP more. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still optimistic. Whatever happens, I think it was a good effort that seems to appeal to people of different viewpoints. If people from "both sides" support it, then it probably is really constructed properly. And that's the best we can ask for as Wikipedians. It is nice to have text in the article but even better to have a good idea that isn't.

Like I said before, Wikipedia is only worth editing when you're enjoying it and I've enjoyed working with you. Peace and happiness to you too. And hopefully for the people we're writing about soon enough. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't get too discouraged. Working on articles, especially ones like these, is a never-ending process of improvement. So I think that our edit would have been a good step forward but I have faith that eventually it will be done. And when this item comes up again, I think they may remember, like Nishidani said. And the most best thing is that we tried to do something for the good of the project and not just to advance our own agendas. That's important. Because the better the talk page is, the better the article is going to be.

And remember, the point of Wikipedia is to spread knowledge but I think that the point of being a Wikipedian is to enjoy yourself. So if things are bothering you, take a break from that article. Check out the Blackhawks article or better yet check out a Blackhawks game. The articles aren't going anywhere. Cheers. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Soapboxing on Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

First, this is not meant as a direct complaint about you or your behavior. I am sure you have noticed the excessive soapboxing from User:NonZionist which is in violation of Wikipedia talk page rules and guidelines. Almost all of his posts on the talk page are on his personal views on the subject and not at all about improving the article. I noticed you have occasionally responded to his comments. Please do not respond to soapbox comments with additional soapbox comments; even if well intended, they only encourage additional soap-boxing which violates Wikipedia rules and wastes space on the talk page. Some guy (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If that one comment is directly relevant to the article, perhaps it might be important, except it is obviously heavily bogged in soapboxing. Since I do not wish to edit only a portion of comment and misrepresent the author, I feel it is more appropriate to delete the text entirely. I would be very surprised if anyone tries to go and read the massive talk page all the way through carefully enough to notice the deletion of some soapboxing. Some guy (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have created an administrator noticeboard discussion thing here, so you may participate in the discussion if you wish. Some guy (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been attempting to follow the guideline here Wikipedia:Talk#Editing comments which says such inappropriate comments can be removed. I do not have the time to remove all soapboxing from the page but I did my best to remove the most obvious incidents which were directly related to NonZionist. Since I was not originally a part of the discussion I find it difficult to keep track of everything involved, but I tried to remove instances of clear soapboxing with little or no relevance to the page. I would argue that even if some of his posts make reference to improving the article, this is only a thinly veiled excuse to continue saturating the talk page with his opinions. For now I suppose we shall wait and see what an administrator decides. Some guy (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Several users have commented on his talk page regarding the matter already. I decided to Be bold in this instance and remove the soapboxing comments myself. I apologize for creating a new conflict. I was hoping to avoid wasting a long amount of time on this and of course by trying to be quick about it I've already wasted over an hour. Some guy (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Engaging other editors on the Gaza page

Hi Nableezy, I commend you on keeping your cool, I think you realize there are editors who try to goad others into making personal attacks, please be aware of that. Some editors there have long histories of this, or of aggressively continuing apparently resolved discussions, introducing more and more arcane arguments to keep the "controversy" alive to suggest a false dilemma and force "compromise." I think of it this way: "5+5=10," if an editor persists arguing that "5+5=8," this does not require a "compromise" of "5+5=9." Cheers. RomaC (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

oops, I left out one word and that changed the meaning or my metaphor entirely hehehe. Fixed, ~I would also not make that compromise, as it isn't a compromise at all it's just wrong . . . RomaC (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nableezy. I'm a writer myself, but I have no words for what is happening - I'm still shell shocked by what I've seen. The least I can do is cite the words of others and do my part in disseminating information about what is happening on the ground from the few media reports available in "the people's encyclopedia" which should document what is happening to all the people of the earth. You keep up the good work too. Tiamut^talk 11:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can borrow it and do with it as you will. Tiamut^talk 22:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Re lead

I've been much impressed by the quality of your work, and that of several others who are, at least to me, though I only watch s few hundreds pages on I/P articles, new to this area. I do hope that, without compromising other interests, you sustain an interest in wiki's I/P area. This article has been edited with a far greater quality of balanced and informed intelligence than are most articles in the I/P section, and it has made the otherwise arduous work of editing much more pleasurable than is usually the case. Best wishes. Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a rapid turnover, with enthusiasts burnt up by the huge bickering that can occur. I don't wish to see that in a newbie of promise, so without being, I hope, read as condescending, a tip. Most of the best information on these issues is in books, and not on the net (though extensive checks can be made at times, on crucial things otherwise inaccessible, by consulting Google Books with a search engine). Much time is saved by simply being close to a public library. Never allow this to dominate your life, for the frustration level is not worth it. One can be most productive by slow preparation with standard historical works, from all sides of the argument,which allow one, by virtue of the quality of the evidence, to make contributions that are less liable to factitious challenges. See you around and about then. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

archive on talk:gaza-israel

Sorry. I thought I was changing only one number on the regular talk page. Maybe I was on an archive page, or a Mizrabot diff, when I changed the number. I have no clue. Thanks for catching it fairly soon. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead

Please do not place these warnings on others' talk pages about not changing the lead. The lead is unacceptable as it has been recently written. Thus allow others to make changes and discuss those changes in talk rather than simply constantly reverting. Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Nableezy. You have new messages at Tundrabuggy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ha ha

yes, a sense of humour is a curse that we'll just have to learn to live with especially given that we're surrounding by death and destruction at micro and macro scales. living in a buddhist country has taught me many things of course and helps. for example, 'spend more time ironing'. i forget the precise details of the wisdom but that's the jist of it. peace. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Disappointed. Reply

Friend. You must expect this to happen. There's been much worse. Don't give up. This page is hugely popular and damage-control is the most one can do at the moment. Most people tire quickly of any page after the 'thrill' of commenting so much carnage burns out. The good work will be done, a week or two on from the ceasefire that will be imposed shortly. As I said, don't get too intense, and you are not under an obligation to make extenuating explanations to people who will not listen. Bide your time, study the best sources, try to get under 50 on the back-nine, have a beer or whatever you drink, and clean up stuff that's just bad. You and Gardiner, to repeat, created a very pleasant collaborative atmosphere, and we may be able to retrieve something of it, and its results in the next month or so, as occasion dictates. Best Nishidani (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Bravo

Good job on this. It takes guts to realize your mistake. It also takes a lot of patience to seek solutions through dialogue as opposed to simply abandoning talk pages and reverting articles (like many have done). Keep up your positive attitude.VR _talk 06:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Policemen

Despite our consensus at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Policemen to keep militants and policemen separate, the user Bobafett85 keeps combining them. I've asked him to join the discussion at the section. Can you ask him(User talk:BobaFett85) also to join the discussion at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Policemen?VR _talk 18:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, see the talk page then, new section added.BobaFett85 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Stated a compromise proposal on the wording in the infobox, see talk page.BobaFett85 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your user page, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. After you look over that guideline, could we discuss that concern here? I'd appreciate hearing your views, such as your reasons for wanting this particular page and any alternatives you might accept.

There are several options available for resolving this matter:

• If you can relieve my concerns through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
• If you decide to delete the page yourself, please add {{Db-userreq}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it.
• If the two of us can't agree on what needs to be done, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's user pages for discussion, which may result in the page in question being deleted.

Thank you. 16x9 (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What parts are you concerned with, the top quote box, the first 3 paragraphs of a political nature, or the last paragraph and picture? Nableezy (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The paragraphs in the middle. 16x9 (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, lets talk about that. My understanding of the user page guideline is that editors who have shown that they can contribute meaningfully to the project are given a little more leeway with regards the contents of their user page. And I would like to ask you why you came to my page. I see you were on the Israel-Gaza conflict talk page so I assume you came here from there. Why does one come to a user page? I would think to find out more about the users they are involved in discussions with. I think my page does provide that information to anybody coming to my page why I think what I think. I don't see anything in that page that could offend anybody (if you do take offense to something let me know), so I really don't see a problem with it. The most violent statement in the page is throwing rocks at tanks. I would agree that this material would be inappropriate in an article or article talk page, but I think I have established good will among even the people who disagree with me, as you can see from the other comments on my talk page. I don't think anything in the page is all that controversial, I am just saying that I am for the application of International law, with some of my own rebuttals against those who try to excuse some states from their obligations under those laws. I could certainly replace those paragraphs with quotes from others that are much more inflammatory, but I felt I would rather speak for myself. Is that really a problem? Nableezy (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

see WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTBLOG. 16x9 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of these policies, if that is how you are going to respond do whatever you think you have to. I dont see why you care though. Nableezy (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

16x9: that is really a misuse of the template (in particular coming from a new user him/herself), and you are absolutely wrong. Users can use their User page in this fashion, and many editors do so to promote wikipedia articles about their religion, their politics, and their views on the immortality of the crab. Perhaps Nableezy should editorilize a little less, but your templating is really uncalled for.--Cerejota (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How am I wrong? I cited policy which says I am correct. Having a large political soap box is not promot[ing] wikipedia articles. 16x9 (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is promoting wikipedia articles, I am linking to a number of articles that I am 'promoting' to others. Since you are unwilling to listen to me, and instead come back with a 4 word response to a long paragraph, I do not really see the point of this discussion. You want to try to get my page deleted go ahead. But what is currently on my user page is harmless, and like I said earlier, there could be a whole lot of more inflammatory quotes that I could use instead of the mild stuff on it currently, which would certainly be within policy, as we are explicitly allowed to post our favorite quotes. And I suggest you look at the user page guidelines again, "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants." Perhaps you should not be so quick to try all these deletions you have been involved in, especially when it serves no purpose. Nableezy (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

edit war Tundrabuggy and Doright

You can report at edit war noticeboard. 3RR is one form of edit warring, but not the only reason. But yeah they have for weeks done this. Be careful tho, consensus is not static and can change, this particular discussion is about user conduct, do not lose focus on that. --Cerejota (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying

Unfortunately, many a time did I feel like you do when going over this article and facing certain editors who managed to make me say to myself "eh, fuck it". And even more unfortunate was my subsequent introspection, realizing that opposing extremists actaully made me more extreme in my views and edits. On the other hand, exchanging views in a reasonbale and calm matter with moderates like you actually made me more moderate, and I truly feel that I now understand more of what "the other side" is feeling. So what I'm saying is that you need to ignore extremists (perhaps, occasionally, throw in an acrid remark), and concentrate on more reasonable editors and their views. Otherwise, we'd be leaving WP in the hands of Kahane and Bin-Laden admirers. In any event, it's really been enlightening working with you. I hope that I did help you understand more of the Israeli side, like you helped me understand more about the Palestinian side, and I hope will cooperate in the future. Rabend (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A virtual

arm on your shoulder and those of your bereaved friends' kin. I caught your note on NonZionist's page. One 'answers' such remarks of insouciance towards the dead and dispossessed, not with words, but by further digging into one's pocket. Best wishes Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

gaza conflict lead archive

Hey, Hapsala moved the archived stuff to talk archive 23. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Nableezy, I live half an hour by car from Nablus. Are we neighbors? I remember how Gaza International Airport was wide open. Some say the source of violence is Nakba. Israel is doing whatever it can to create Palestinian state, it is in Israel's best interest, but there is need for couple in tango. I'm sorry if you believe "facts" like quoted by BBC and UN: Israeli troops herded gazan civilians, members of a large family, into a room and began shooting them systematically. There are a lot of people traumatized on both sides of the border. I still hope the peace will come. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)