User talk:Nableezy/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Haaretz

How do you access Haaretz? I tried accessing this article via the wikipedia library but it didn't work.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Put an archive.is/ in front of the url you want to read like [1]. That or google bypass paywall clean for desktop. nableezy - 16:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a similar bypass link but for books? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

No, sorry. nableezy - 19:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Journals? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:TWL has almost everything I need. nableezy - 00:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Notification

A comment you made in an ANI thread is being referenced at this request for clarification (specifically by Hydrangeans). [2] I have not added you as a party but another editor has recently added other editors involved in a different debate so I think this meets the threshold of notifying someone out of courtesy. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Jewish Insider article

You've been mentioned in this article, just so you know. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Cool. nableezy - 11:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Reverting my edit

thanks for reverting my edit. I have no way of proving this, obviously, but right after I posted I was like oh shoot this is part of IP- and I went to revert (after taking time to copy the text bc I'll be EC soon), but you already had. Just going to ping @Kashmiri and @ScottishFinnishRadish before anyone gets excited. JoeJShmo^💌 13:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Will also tag @Selfstudier and @Callanecc. Will also tag @ScottishFinnishRadish again as I'm not sure if he's seen this. Also @Nableezy I would appreciate if you edited your comment at Arb to include a link to this page. JoeJShmo^💌 13:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I reverted it three minutes later, dont think there is any definition of "right after" that means "several minutes later". You are free to add this to your section at AE though. nableezy - 14:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I did add it, just would appreciate it if you would edit your comment too. It took a few minutes because I wanted to copy the text too, and on the phone I edit with it's difficult to do that without going into the source editor and copying there, so I had to do that and scroll to the bottom to copy, and that's besides the fact that the editor took a while to load due to the long discussion (and weak service). As I said, I can't give proof, but that's what happened. JoeJShmo^💌 14:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

AE

I think they rushed to EC, which I see as gaming, then made those edits. I've posted to Redtailed wawk. Doug Weller talk 10:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Just saw this.[3] Doug Weller talk 10:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah idk why it was just a you’re banned from what you are already banned from until the time you would not be banned from it is over. But I never claimed to understand how this place works. nableezy - 10:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

See also User talk:Red-tailed hawk#topic ban Doug Weller talk 11:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Topic banned for 6 months and 1000 edits. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a note

You stated perceptively a few weeks back (at AE i think) that the standard caricature of 2 POVs, pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian, was skewed, in so far as the latter position was confusing (a) support for the bozos of the Palestinian Authority with (b) support for International Law. I think this is the view entertained by most of the latter so-identified editors, but technically, other than the issue of settlements, there was no legal ground for taking so many of the systematic abuses as 'factual': they were at best POVs represented in the work of major human rights organizations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B'tselem etc. With the ICJ's advisory opinion yesterday, the claimed subjectivity of this POV has suffered a decided setback. It is now formally a matter of international law that what AI,HRW, and B'tselem are 'claiming' is, factually, a direct reflection of the legal lay of the land, which all nations in the world are under an obligation to underwrite and act in accordance with. So what you suggested is now endorsed as the reality of that inferno.

Of course nothing will change substantially, but at least clarity has been obtained in terms of the legality of what has been, for 57 years, dismissed or sidelined as just one partisan, indeed 'radical left' perspective. It's somewhat amusing to note that for 12 hours the New York Times (it's 6.30 a.m. here) has stubbornly relegated news of the decision to the online back pages, way way below its updated report on the Houthi drone strike in Tel Aviv. Idem with the Washington Post. Nishidani (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Didnt change much in the wall article, idk how much it'll change in these either. nableezy - 11:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This is qualitatively different from 2004. That applied exclusively to Israel. This ruling creates a broad range of legal problems, hypothetically, for all states unless they rigorously monitor their trade and other relations to ensure that they themselves do not, directly or indirectly, run foul of the international legal picture as now clarified. I.e. importing anything from settler industries in Palestinian territory or supplying weapons that are used against Palestinians in the Territory. It also makes recognition of the State of Palestine far easier, because that can no longer be spun as antisemitic, or 'political'. It finally renders the absurdly stupid but influential Working definition of antisemitism, with its energetically programmatic attempt to conflate criticism of Israel/anti-Zionism with antisemitism, dead on its feet. Of course, nothing will change the situation in I/P land. Miracles went out of date some millennia ago.Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. By saying demonstrable omissions of data that is inconvenient to the desired outcome you are accusing my of POV pushing; of excluding data because it isn't aligned with a specific POV. You have no evidence for this, and there is considerable evidence against it. Please strike that personal attack. BilledMammal (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The demonstrable omissions are the ones that Vice Regent demonstrated. That they are inconvenient to the claim that the math supports you isn’t an attack on your motives or claiming you purposely excluded it. It just means that the math changes away from the position you have been arguing when those demonstrated omissions are included. nableezy - 15:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

And also, WP:DTTR. Oh and WP:BLUDGEON while you’re reading. Could have swore that like 30 comments ago you said you were stepping back from that discussion. nableezy - 15:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You told me to omit syndicated content, and accused me of POV pushing for including it (for example, saying I cannot believe that anybody can argue about it in good faith)

I then omitted the syndicated content, and again you accused me of POV pushing, this time for excluding it.

This is disruptive and uncivil, and does not help the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I told you not to count it ten times lol, not omit it entirely. I also showed a non wire service article that was omitted. I really don’t find conversing with you to be an enjoyable use of my time, so I’d rather avoid it if possible. Now obviously that is not possible in a lot of places but it *is* possible here. So kindly take your leave from this page. Thank you. nableezy - 15:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

So kindly take your leave from this page.

If I have understood correctly, that is a ban from your talk page. This means that I will need to escalate any conduct concerns rather than being able to discuss them here. I would rather be able to address minor conduct concerns without all that drama, so please correct me if I have misunderstood. BilledMammal (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You think this is you avoiding drama? Not a ban from this page, yet, but certainly a request that this thread end here. If you feel you’d like to escalate this issue then do that. nableezy - 16:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It is an attempt to, yes. I did exactly what you asked of me, and you accused me of POV pushing for doing so; coming to your talk page, rather than escalating it or discussing it in the RfC, is the way to address it with a minimum of drama.

But instead of striking it, you instead continue to make allegations that I am deliberately omitting articles because they are inconvenient to the desired outcome, even though you have already been informed that the specific article you raised was excluded because it was published two months before the start of the reviewed period. BilledMammal (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I literally just said I made no comment on deliberate or motive. The desired outcome is the one you have been arguing for. Articles that do not support it are not included in your count. This is 2 plus 2 equals 4 minus 1 that’s 3, quick maths, territory. Putting words in my mouth so that you have some sort of complaint isn’t exactly something I want to continue dealing with, so I repeat my request that you stop badgering me about it. BLUDGEON applies here just as much as it does at NPOVN. nableezy - 16:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

demonstrable omissions of data that is inconvenient to the desired outcome is you saying that I deliberately excluded data to strengthen the argument for my desired position.

I'm asking you to strike these accusations. If you want to argue that my sample isn't representative, then do so - but you can and should do it without personalizing it. This is particularly the case because two of the articles omitted that you presented as evidence of your accusations were omitted because you demanded that they be.

I will leave this discussion now, but if you still don't see why your comments were uncivil and personal attacks I hope a friendly talk page watcher will be willing to comment and help you understand. BilledMammal (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

As fiendly talk page watcher, I'll dob in my two hemitetartemoria, to avoid any more drachma, um, drama here. There's simply nothing there BM, and from great experience, I would note that templating experienced editors, and claiming successively over time that an editor is making personal accusations when the evidence is less than thin, but a highly subjective construal of language that can be read otherwise, usually functions as an alert that an AE case is being meditated, and that the page notice in question will form part of the evidence. This is either flimsy or frivolous, and I would suggest that editors of great experience show it by doing the appropriate reading of sources rather than combing comments minutely to elicit AGF evidence. It's not collegial. Were I to have adopted that temptation, I would have made scores of complaints and wasted my time, better spent on focused article redaction.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ve said repeatedly that I make no comment as to the motivation for omitting such material. If you continue to misconstrue my words and intent in writing them even after I have explicitly disclaimed any meaning other than intended then I cannot help you further. I will again clarify I make no comment on your motives or intent. nableezy - 22:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess Nableezy's thinking, in his own terms, 'what's that prick doing trying to piss in my pocket as if I were wet behind the ears. The bloody incontinence, um, incompetence of old age.'Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Settlements boilerplate

Am I right that there was a consensus over the wording in settlement articles , "illegal, blah, blah...Israel disputes this." If so, do you have a link to it, please? Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:Legality of Israeli settlements Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Tks v much. Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

See this

Special:Diff/1237225924 Doug Weller talk 19:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Ty Doug, hope you're hanging in there. nableezy - 02:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. A bit of a struggle but I'm still doing my 5km a day on treadmill. But it's early days still for the chemo. I'll get through it and fight to regain my strength. The bugger is a new covid variant in the UK, Flirt, that ignores vaccines - never expected a summer wave. Doug Weller talk 07:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

All the best Doug, every time I see your username I smile, stay safe and hopefully all of us here will keep smiling at that signature for many more years to come. nableezy - 11:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s very kind. Doug Weller talk 11:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

What did I mean by this?

Hi Nableezy. Nice to meet you. You and Doug Weller asked me here "What did I mean by this?" It was a joke. However, it is very disturbing to me that since I posted this privately on a different editor's own talk page, and not on your talk page, or Doug Weller's talk page, it makes me feel like you are stalking me. That is creepy. Are you saying I do not have freedom of speech on an editor's talk page on Wikpedia? I am not free to tell jokes to an editor? Please clarify, because I certainly do not want to go against any Wikipedia policies that might hurt someone's feelings. Thank you. DaringDonna (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

No, DaringDonna, you do not have freedom of speech here (WP:NOTFREESPEECH), and no I am not stalking you, and that is an outrageous accusation. And no, user talk pages are not private. If I see another "joke" like that I will not be asking for an explanation, it will be straight to arbitration enforcement asking that you be banned from editing this topic area if not the entire encyclopedia. Have a nice day. nableezy - 02:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I apologize. You are right, it was inappropriate. DaringDonna (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Seeking an opinion about whether an edit conveys a neutral POV

Hello Nableezy, Im writing this message to seek your opinion about the following edit: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Mesut_%C3%96zil&diff=1237767410&oldid=1237448533 made on an article about a former professional Football player. You seem well versed with topics related to the Palestine/Israel conflict, so Im wondering if the aforementioned edit and its contents conveys a neutral point of view. To me the edit seems negatively skewed to present the player in a bad light, as most people would assume his social media posts meant to show support/solidarity to the oppressed people of Palestine who are undergoing a genocide. However Im unsure of how to fix the edit to present it in a more neutral manner. Instantwatym (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Your impression is correct, and I would seek comment at the talk page before raising the issue at WP:BLPN on how to properly include, if at all, this material. nableezy - 17:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Lustick

Nab. Could you just take a captain's (Captain Cook =look) at professor Ian Lustick's page. perhaps he'd prefer to have a proper sign-in handle, and I may have screwed up in giving the other advice. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the simplest thing, given he's a busy scholar, is to suggest any issue's on the page can be addressed by his dropping a personal note at Talk:Ian Lustick. Nishidani (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, never responded to this, I'll take a look if this still a thing. Been a busy time in out of Wikipedia life. nableezy - 17:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Choose real life over wiki any day. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Nakba parameters

I'm curious, because of your very certain response in the recent thread, but isn't the "Nakba" sometimes taken to embrace the expulsions beginning prior to the Arab-Israeli war component of the Palestine civil war? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldnt call the expulsions the Nakba, they are the central element of it, but Nakba is wider. Im not really a fan of that part of the edit, my bigger problem is restricting the expulsions to the Arab-Israeli war, when they started in earnest well before it. nableezy - 17:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Permission by you to add edit

Nableezy, I hope that you're doing well. Here, all is well. In the article Ovadia Yosef, in the section entitled "Halakhic rulings," I wish to add the following edit:

That it is prohibited for fellow Jews to ascend the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, in this day and age, due to its extreme sanctity and the people's inability to purify themselves with the ash-water of the Red Heifer. ---

References

Davidbena (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

On the edge but think it's fine. Hope you're well too David. nableezy - 04:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

My emails to you

If you'd like to post them, go ahead. Be careful to redact any of the information that relates to my reports to Arbcom about certain actors in order to protect privacy all around. If you'd like, I can post them with some redactions made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

No need, I thought that was a forum for us to be honest with each other without having to worry about Wikipedia or WPO. Guess you decided the rules changed when it suited you. And I wasn’t asking about the change from one to two, but rather about the comparing the continued bludgeoning with my comments about your request. But I can guess the answer at this point. nableezy - 17:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't think that a request to look at again something I'd already seen fell under that. I'm sorry for misunderstanding, that's my bad. To answer, no I didn't think it was any worse than you going back to the RFC seeing they had made two edits, and pinging me there. Yeah, BM made two extra edits, yeah, they should have remained disengaged. That's why they got a demerit instead of a thanks. You weren't bludgeoning as bad as BM before I asked people to step back, and I didn't think your ping was bludgeoning. It was battleground editing, though. I asked if you (everyone I pinged in the discussion) to please disengage, I didn't make a hard and fast warning. I was just hoping that you (again, everyone I pinged) would scale it back so we didn't end up with another novel of an RFC when it wasn't necessary. BM shouldn't have continued, but two edits isn't enough to draw a sanction for bludgeoning, just as pinging me there wasn't enough to draw a sanction for battleground editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Going back? You think I didn’t have that both in my subscribed topics and watchlist? When one editor has twice as many comments as another you told to stay away, your response is "one demerit point"? When that editor compares their continued comments in that discussion with three that came after and one responding to apparent unequal treatment in the initial caution, you think that’s honest? Cool. This is like the fourth time you’ve tried to pin some sort of ban on me. Maybe it’ll work out for you this time. nableezy - 17:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Referral from the Artibration Enforcement noticeboard regarding behavior in Palestine-Israel articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)