User talk:Nableezy/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

FYI

Hi nableezy. This might interest you: WP:ANI#Using talk page as forum & other vandalism/issues, user warned repeatedly. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothings going to happen with that, aint even a point in wasting the time. But thank you for the notice. nableezy - 16:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Another demand

[1] Send me this right now! (I'm practicing being more forceful, per your request. ;) Tiamut^talk 11:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sent. nableezy - 14:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Pan Arabism

I keep checking in on that page, to see if anyone's taken up the challenge, but it's as awful as it ever was. I still keep choking on this sentence - which impressively manages to present one (probably legitimate but cherry-picked) opinion as a definitive assertion of fact up there in the lead: "Pan-Arabism is considered to be the source and origin of political totalitarianism in the Middle East, suppressing democratic movements and development of open free thinking". I'd remove it myself, but I'm probably barred from touching the rest of the paragraph, so I'd have to leave that alone, which would imply that the rest of it was fine, when of course it's just as problematic. Plus no doubt someone would start a daft AE thread about it all. Have you given up on it as well? I guess you've already tried a couple of noticeboards. But someone must want to do something ... N-HH talk/edits 17:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I went through that on the talk page, none of the sources say anything close to that. There are legitimate beefs with pan-Arabism, but not all that bullshit they got in that article right now. The problem is that it is so bad that I cant explain the problem with 1 source or 1 sentence at the NPOV or RS noticeboard, the whole thing is garbage. And with those 3 users continually re-adding things that have repeatedly been shown to be bullshit on the talkpage it is impossible to clean up. Fuck it. nableezy - 19:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, removal seems to be holding. Oh, and of course by "legitimate" I meant it was an opinion that verifiably exists, not that it was necessarily a right one - I have no strong views either way, other than a residual anger about Nasser stealing my canal. Like most political movements, and as you suggest, it has good and bad in it, and had good and bad consequences in practice. Per Sean below, I'm going to recreate the formulation for the Sun newspaper and The Mickey Mouse Club pages. Oddly, the Pan-Arab page has more references to Nazism than the Pan-Germanism page. N-HH talk/edits 16:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I, under penalty of death for treason, am required to say "fuck you" for calling it your canal. nableezy - 16:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And you jinxed it, seems a "newcomer" has decided to join the fun. nableezy - 06:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. I just seem to cause more problems that I solve, even without getting directly involved. If only everyone agreed with me, this would never happen. Anyway, the evidence is at least hopefully fairly clear as to who understands what Wikipedia is meant to be for, and the principle of NPOV and - see the last sentence here for example. I don't mean to mock enthusiasm, but when it comes bundled up with insults about being Nazi apologists and endless soapboxing, I feel less charitable. I'm assuming the newcomer came this way by some external forum or something, rather than being a outright duplicate account, but who knows. N-HH talk/edits 15:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

ps: there are secret plans afoot for that canal, you know

The user is Toothie, I would give odds on that. nableezy - 15:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

what I say? nableezy - 02:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather than removing it, have you considered adding a line like that to every other article about an ethnic group, religion, political movement, NGO, corporation and Disney film replacing the words 'Pan-Arabism ' and 'Middle East' of course. It would even things out. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, but I do sometime wonder how some of these people would react if I did the same thing to certain pages. nableezy - 19:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground

Hey, thanks for the message. I disagree that anything is petty: if he's bringing me up in his rant and attacking me because he's upset that he got blocked, I'm going to respond to his comments. Now that he has been blocked from commenting on his talk page, there won't be any reason for further comments. I responded to everything that I needed to. Breein1007 (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your concern about how I look... but even if he is pissed and got blocked, if he's going to say things specifically about me in his rant, I'm going to respond. Maybe I'm too hard-headed, whatever. You're right, he has every right to request that I stay off his talk page (as you have done in the past too). However, if he is talking about me on his talk page, that serves as an invitation for me to join the conversation. Anyway, it's over now. Breein1007 (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Al ‘Al

Hi nableezy. I don't know whether one village or the other is the main topic. That's something editors should probably discuss among themselves on the article's Talk page. I undid the page move because it was one of several POINTy page moves that Ani medjool made. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Behave!

Note to Nableezy, Stop following me around wikihound ([2][3]) and spam on my page, I don't know who you are, nor do I care, or what your little game is.

Beyruthi (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. nableezy - 01:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Markook#Merge.3F

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Markook#Merge.3F. nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 07:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

3RR Violation on Mahmoud Abbas

• Please stop the edit war you seem to be involved in at Mahmoud Abbas. You are already in violation of the 3RR guideline. Please be advised that any further reverts will result in an official report of 3RR violation report. On another note, please stop Wikihounding Wikipedia users such as Beyrouthi and myself. Thank you. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 01:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop violation WP:BLP. Also stop filling Wikipedia up with bogus nonsense. That would be lovely. nableezy - 01:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been reported for 3RR violation on the article Mahmoud Abbas. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 01:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked for a period of 48 hour from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.  Sandstein  14:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

See AN3 for a detailed rationale. As also described there, in enforcement of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, you are made subject to a one revert per page per day restriction with respect to all pages or content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for the next three months. Obvious vandalism and BLP violations are excepted from this restriction.  Sandstein  14:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. nableezy - 15:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Your question

To reply to your question posed per e-mail, we need to consider WP:EW#Exceptions to 3RR, which lists the exceptions to 3RR. It says that "Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)" is exempt. Now, in the example you give, removing the text "and was acquitted of those charges" might violate the WP:NPOV requirement of WP:BLP if e.g. the acquittal is not made clear elsewhere in the article and if the fact of the acquittal is undisputed by other reliable sources. If so, restoring the text "and was acquitted of those charges" would be necessary to maintain WP:BLP compliance and would not violate 3RR. However, there are some big caveats:

• The policy also notes: "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. ... However, even such actions may sometimes be controversial or considered edit warring. If you are claiming an exemption it is a good idea to make sure that there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains and justifies the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert; remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Instead, engage in dispute resolution, and in particular, ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war/3RR noticeboard." In other words, you invoke the BLP exemption at your own risk entirely. If you decide to resolve a perceived BLP problem by edit warring, and an administrator concludes that it was not a BLP problem after all, you may still be blocked. This applies even more so in cases where the perceived BLP violation is a matter of editorial judgment, especially where WP:NPOV is concerned. In such cases administrators may decide that the BLP violation is not clear enough and that the disagreement about sources, NPOV etc. needs to be resolved through normal editorial discussion.
• The exception is to 3RR only, not to the policy prohibiting edit warring in general. This is because reverting is only an emergency measure to prevent an immediate BLP violation, but can not be an adequate way to address persistent BLP violations or vandalism, because of the disruption generated by the edit-warring itself. In other words, if the problem persists significantly beyond the third revert, you must request administrator intervention and/or wait for other editors to take action instead of continuing to revert an unlimited number of times.  Sandstein  06:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for taking that out Nableezy. I appreciate it. Stellarkid (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

no problem, and though the last few comments may not reflect, I will try to start anew with you. Chag Pesach Sameach. nableezy - 04:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

al-Muizz

feel free to report me if you feel like it. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 04:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I might. nableezy - 04:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please take into consideration my warning here. You are both lucky; I was rather close to blocking both of you.  Sandstein  20:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to know the problem with the way this site works? The content doesnt matter. Look at the content and the sourcing here. Look at how the text is presented. The only real source making any mention of this "event" clearly says that this is a "legend", yet currently our article says, as fact, that al-Muizz converted and abdicated to his son. Of the 20 sources I have read over the last few days discussing the life of al-Muizz, not one of them says this. But the content doesnt matter here. And even if you are only dealing with "behavior", Lanternix made 5 reverts in a few hours, I made 2. Yet "both warned" is how you respond. Congratulations, you have allowed one more "encyclopedia" article to contain bullshit. Considering the state of many other articles that might not actually make the slightest difference though. nableezy - 21:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mount Peres

Hi Nableezy! The current name of the mountain is Mount Peres. I am not making changes to the article until the RfC is concluded, after which it will hopefully be moved to Mount Peres per talk. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to change it to Peres (פֶּרֶס‎). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

April 1

Ashley Kennedy, known proverbially as ack-ack, will be back today. Might be worth considering making an AN/I complaint preemptively against him before he gets in a word. I'd do it myself but don't know if there are precedents, but there must be a rule he can be cited for as infringing in the silent interim, i.e., 'preparing edits off-line over a span of a year, for wiki pages, during a period in which he was under suspension'. Sounds like premeditated assault to me.Nishidani (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Bout time. nableezy - 15:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd take the vandalism/disrupting the project route. He tried passing off material as fact to Western Wall that was clearly a satirical article and complete nonsense. I think we can build a case. Breein1007 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, Nishidani's comment was "clearly satirical". nableezy - 17:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that this one went over your head. Oh well, Breein1007 (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If that was also meant to be satire then yes I missed it. Forgive me, I just dont know you well enough to know when you are joking, if you were in fact joking. nableezy - 18:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007, stop messing about and go and help deal with user Inspect All Information at Ramat Shlomo messing up the neutrality. He's making us look bad. sensible-ish vs hmmm. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007, I tried breaking the ice a few times (here included) by attempting to step into a lite discussion as well, but it did not work or was received well either. Anyway, back on the lighter side, ack-ack coming back is a good thing to WP. --Shuki (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked you a question on your talk page. Would you like to answer it? nableezy - 21:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

hi

hi. thanks for fixing my small-text-tag error in the Palestinian freedom of movement AfD so rapidly. --Soman (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

no problem. Take care, nableezy - 21:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Imaginary violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS, WP:NPLT

You do understand that this and this is perceived to violate WP policies WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS, WP:NPLT? Please let me know how you want to resolve this properly. --Shuki (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it a legal threat? And how is it harassment? I was preparing an arbitration enforcement request and asked if you would rather I not file that and try to resolve the content issue. You have yet to answer the question. Please do. nableezy - 22:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

See [Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nableezy]. I don't have to answer your questions on my talk page or respond to threats or blackmail. If you have issues, the article talk page is the most visible location for all to join in. --Shuki (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Threats or blackmail? Interesting. nableezy - 02:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, let me thank you. I now know that I shouldnt even attempt to be cordial with you, I should do what you do; email random people and ask them to support a ban of an opposing editor. Next time I'll just post it straight to AE. nableezy - 02:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you guys try an RfC first? IronDuke 02:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I was willing to do so, that is why I had not filed the AE request. Though if I had I am pretty sure Shuki would have been topic-banned or at least placed on a revert restriction. nableezy - 02:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

So why didn't you file it if you are so sure of yourself? --Shuki (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Because I am trying not to use these tactics. But if you are unwilling to even attempt to work out the issues you dont leave me a choice. I could still file it, would you like me to? nableezy - 14:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

SPI report result

You have delayed me writing 'oh for fuck's sake' in an edit summary for 1 week. This is probably a good thing. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit curious about the grammar here. Is "for fuck's sake" equivalent to "for the sake of fuck"? Should it be "for fucks sake"? Wheres Nishidani when you need him? nableezy - 22:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, me too. I've always thought it was 'for fuck sake'. Being unsure I simply copied it from the last proposition in Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Historically, 'for fuck's sake' was a delicate euphemism introduced to avoid offending religious sensibilities that might take exception to the blasphemous abuse of the Lord's name in the formulaic exclamation: 'for Christ's sake'. Grammatically in such expressions the possessive noun preceding 'sake' can drop the 's'.

Semantically, 'sake' in the template idiom here more or less means 'out of due consideration for', (thus, 'for Christ's sake' is an adjuration begging one's interlocutor to refrain from saying or doing something out of respect for Our Lord). Since however 'fuck' is an act (or vulgarly 'the ejaculate' of an act), not a person or quality (for Chrissake, for goodness's sake, etc), the semantics don't carry over, in fact a certain dissonance is created. One can hardly mean 'with due regard to a fuck, sir' in any remonstrative sense. Indeed, it sounds like something straight out of the foul mouth of Moll Flanders or Fielding's Pamela.

Since I am bedridden with bronchitis, and this much already has me gasping for oxygen . . .barpsffsssssrrrrrrrrrrrrrtglobslkjgh*?! Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sickest man, my meaning and yours. For the sake of fuck, get well soon. nableezy - 15:40, 9 April 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. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That is so very sweet of you. Thank you. nableezy - 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be rude, I just wanted an opinion on it - I hope you understand. I just don't want some Israeli user to come flying out of the woodwork and demanding a block, and toning down your userpage is a good way to avoid that. No hard feelings intended :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

None taken, but you could have raised the issue here before going to ANI. nableezy - 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for how much this has kicked up - I just wanted opinions on it, not an MFD! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

All good, this has been quite entertaining so I suppose I should say thank you. nableezy - 14:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

An Attempt at Resolution

Okay, so as I have mentioned I've put your green line information back in the lead of the Ramat Shlomo article. As far as the announcements in regards to the Biden visit, it does seem to be worthy of being in the lead, as that's probably why most people will search for this page. However, if you don't like the way I've written anything here, or want to rephrase something, you will avoid an edit war if you expand on what's already been written. I honestly do not want to get wrapped up in a revert war, which will ultimately make both of us look bad. Thanks and good editing. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't apologize

You will risk a ban over your personal unprovoked attacks. Amoruso (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Which "personal unprovoked attacks"? What apology?   pablo_hablo. 19:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The same questions that I want to ask.     ←   ZScarpia   19:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy accused me of uploading a certain image and said I was lying about it, without any provocation, and clearly making this claim up. At talk:Israel. that kind of behavior can't be tolerated by an experienced user. Amoruso (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The image was moved from en.wp to commons with the note that it was originally uploaded by Amoruso. The version of the map was modified from the original which clearly labeled the Golan as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Amoruso changed that to say that the Golan is within Israel. nableezy - 19:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The log also shows Amoruso being the original uploader. nableezy - 19:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that asking you for an apology after calling you a POV pusher is a bit cheeky.     ←   ZScarpia   19:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That's RIGHT, the ORIGINAL photo, UNMODIFIED, was uploaded by me. You obviously realized this... wow this is further amazing attempt to attack someone thinking they won't check the history themselves. i've seen a lot. this is something else. Amoruso (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

So you uploaded the file that says it was Syrian territory and said "Israeli-occupied" under "Golan Heights"? If that is the case I apologize. I cant check the history of the file on en.wp, it was deleted when it was moved to commons. All I can see is Liftarn uploading the modified map to commons and writing that you were the original uploader to en.wp. nableezy - 20:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

you can see here - it was Dp Robertson who made these changes. In the original Liftarn file you can see that the version was modified on en.wikipedia before commons. I accept your apology, I just react very strongly when someone accuses me of lying. btw, the map doesn't say it's syrian territory. it's why it's in a different color. it's more on the left but still. Amoruso (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The CIA map has the word "Syria" imposed over the territory. The color is different to show the UNDOF zone and the area under occupation. And Dp Robertson modified the map that had been modified to have Israel placed over the Golan, not the original that had Syria over the Golan. nableezy - 20:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

He's the one who made the changes. I just changed the same color version to this version. and no, Syria is written on the border, because parts of the Golan are in syria. it doesn't imply that the golan is syria. but if your interpretation is different that's your issue. Amoruso (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It does imply the Golan is in Syria. See where it places the label for Israel. It has Syria over both the Golan and the rest of Syria. And there are a ton of sources saying the US regards the Golan as Syrian territory held by Israel under occupation. nableezy - 20:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

like I said, if that's the interpretation you prefer, fine. But the image objectively doesn't imply that. it's why it's a good image as opposed to the one with same colors. The Golan is not in Syria. It's in Israel. I know, because I just returned from a wonderful inside-Israeli vacation there and there wasn't any occupation either. It's a regular place inside Israel. So the farther we go from what external influenced organs say about the situation and the closer we get to what the facts on the ground are the better IMO. Sometimes users get confused thinking it's an international political law debate, but this is an encylopedia and it's supposed to be informative and helpful. One day I hope we get even closer to what the reality is. Anyway, I'm disappointed by the post-apology insinuations. Amoruso (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Where you think the Golan is does not matter to me. The Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. There are countless high quality references that say that flat out. It is not an "interpretation" that the map identifies the Golan as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. The word Syria is placed over the Golan, which also explicitly says "Israeli-occupied". The US government has explicitly and repeatedly said that the Golan is Syrian territory held by Israel under belligerent occupation; hell, the Israeli Supreme Court has said the same.^{I may be mistaken on this, cant find the case right now} Can you even provide a real source disputing that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel? In fact, one of the reasons why the Israeli government continues to occupy the Shebaa Farms is because they argue that it is Syrian territory and not Lebanese territory so they were not obligated to withdraw from that area when ending its occupation of southern Lebanon. nableezy - 23:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The word syria is only placed slightly over the Golan (and part of the Golan really is in Syria. The rest is in Israel). You are making several false statements. The Golan is Israeli under Israeli binding law so the Supreme Court never said that there's an occupation in the Golan. That is just nonsense. In fact, it repeatedly said the opposite, and the Golan Heights has one of those famous ruling regarding that the Druze citizens should be forced to get citizenship identity cards. Also, the official stance of Israel is that the Shebba farms are in Israel because they're part of the Golan. You see a lot of statements of individuals, but the rule of the law is the parliament which has only one law (actually two), that determine that the Golan Heights is Israeli land (the other law makes it more difficult to change this law in the future) is Israeli land.. it's really quite simple. Also, the U.S. makes different statements. The Bush administration was against any giving of Golan portions to Assad's regime. Amoruso (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Multiple noes. Under even the Bush administration, the State Department submitted to Congress a brief on Israeli-US relations which said the following: "Although the United States considers the Golan Heights to be occupied territory subject to negotiation and Israeli withdrawal, it sympathized with the Israeli concern that Syrian control of the Heights prior to 1967 provided Syria with a tactical and strategic advantage used to threaten Israel’s security. The Begin and Shamir governments rejected any withdrawal from Golan; on December 14, 1981, the Knesset passed legislation applying Israeli “law, jurisdiction, and administration” to the Golan Heights, in effect, annexing the territory. The United States disagreed with the Israeli move as a violation of international law (Article 47 of the Geneva Convention which forbids acquisition of territory by force, and U.N. Security Council Resolution 242)"^[4] And Israel never actually annexed the Golan, the law avoids using that word with several commentators remarking that was intentional. The usual objection of Israel in calling the occupied territories "occupied", that the territories did not belong to a state prior to its occupation, does not apply to the Golan. Can you provide a singe serious source that dispute the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel? And if part of the Golan is in Israel (and I am not talking about the sliver of land east of the Tiberias), why then does the map not include the word Israel over any of the Golan? You can pretend that map is not saying that the Golan is not in Israel, but the anybody can see you are incorrect. The fact that it calls the territory "Israeli occupied" itself means that it is outside of Israel, as the word occupied, by definition, means territory controlled by a state outside of the boundaries of that state. nableezy - 00:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of continuing this discussion here. You seem to make things up - like the Israeli Supreme Court saying that Israel has a belligerent occupation of the Golan Heights, where the exact opposite is true. Annexation? you mean the quote by Begin that it's not annexation? Nice one. We're not talking about that. We're talking about Israeli law. When Israeli law applies in the Golan Heights there's no occupation. It's a very basic concept of international law. It's why under international law parts of the West Bank really are under occupation and THIS is what the Israeli Supreme Court recognized. You seem to be confused on many matters. "anybody can see" is another funny statement. Syria and Israel are in one color, The Golan Heights is another. This makes it a disputed territory like it should be, the slight Syria's words to the left is because Syria used to control the area and controls the Quentra area (undisputed). I seem to be repeating myself here. Like you said yourself, Bush administration didn't want Israel to withdraw from the Golan and opinions vary. Both a letter from President Ford in 1975 and a letter from president Bush in 2004 confirm that Israel might not have to withdraw from the entire area. You seem not to understand what occupation means. It means subjugating local population to a different legal regime. It has political connotations too (the opposite of "liberation") but legally there's no occupation. And realistically too, this is just a political term coined by Syria (which enjoy automatic support in any UN forum). Numerous maps on the web by the way show the Golan to be in Israel (including a slideshow by National Geographic) and you can read the old discussions at the Golan Heights archives. Frankly, I'm not interested in this at this point. There is a lot of room for correction and expansion and one day I'll get to it. For example, the legal nature of the land being in Israel is actually stronger in the Golan heights (and in east jerusalem) than most other areas in Israel. This is because the specifics of the laws, explained here for example [5]. The article Golan Heights used to contain many references to this same idea embodied for example here [6] and it's supported by prof. Yehuda Blum, Daniel Ben Uliel from the University of Haifa, Uzi Ornan, and Yoram Dinshtein. The article though and not only this one aren't in a good shape. They seem to imply that because it's "occupied" (and the term is used sparingly), Israel has no legitimate stance. And the opposite is true: Both the UN (in the discussions surrounding resolution 242) and Judge Higgins of the ICJ and others acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel's presence in the territories pending full peace agreements, and furthermore Israel doesn't have to withdraw from the entire territories. This information was featured a lot in articles and it's featured less today because of vandalism - I hope one day to track it down and reinstate information. Amoruso (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont really see the point either. I said above I may be mistaken about the Supreme Court. My comment on "annexation" is that the law does not actually say "annexation". And Israel applying its civilian law to the Golan does not mean that the Golan is no longer occupied, it means that Israel violated the fourth Geneva Convention which stipulates that the laws prior to the occupying force took control should remain in force, with certain exceptions. The words "disputed territory" dont mean anything, the status of the Golan is "occupied territory". And I am not talking about "maps on the web", the map I am talking about is from the CIA. And I did not say that Bush did not want Israel to withdraw, you said that. What Israeli law says about the status of the Golan does not determine the status of the Golan. You seem to think that if Israel says something it must be, but that is simply not true. The view that Israel occupies the Golan is accepted by nearly every single state in the world. Time and again UNGA resolutions calling on Israel to withdraw from the "occupied Syrian Golan" pass with 1 country voting against (guess which one) and a handful abstaining (in 06 the abstentions were Cameroon, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States; every other member state excepting Israel supported the resolution). But it is you who does not understand what "occupied territory" means and what the implications of those words are. But Im done trying to explain a simply point. So I'll just repeat it and hope it sinks in. The Golan Heights is recognized by nearly every country in the world as being Syrian territory held by Israel under belligerent occupation. This view is supported by hundreds of scholarly sources. It is a super-majority view. I realize that some people find this distasteful or that it somehow injures some national priede, but there is almost no dispute about this fact in real sources. The Golan Heights is Syrian territory under Israeli occupation. Bye. nableezy - 01:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You were mistaken about the image I uploaded, you were mistaken about the Israeli supreme court (and Israeli law which is super relevant here), what makes you think you're not mistaken about anything else. Please refer me to Security council resolutions telling Israel to withdraw from the Golan? I'm not aware of them. As for GA resolutions, which ones? GA resolutions have automatic majorities by the Islamic/Arab countries - and they vote in blocs. They have no legal authority at all - it's completely political or worse. According to the UN charter, they're recommendations. Resolution 242 is the only (arguably too) binding resolution and it calls for Israel to withdraw from territories (not all) pending full and secure peace treaty, not a moment before. Amoruso (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I didnt say SC resolutions, I said GA resolutions, and the one I spoke of above passed 161-1 (with ever member of the EU voting for, I was not aware those states were Arab or "Islamic"). Not because of some Arab majority. But I thought you were leaving. Please stop wasting my time, I have given sources on both the Israel page and the Golan page which make clear that the overwhelming majority of states consider the Golan Syrian territory occupied by Israel, including the US and the member states of the EU. And I am not actually sure that you did not upload the map with the words Israeli occupied removed and the word Israel placed over the Golan. nableezy - 01:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not Islamic yet, anyway. Breein1007 (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

ok. stranger danger, the moslems are taking over. nableezy - 02:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You're either naive or something else, but an automatic majority in the UN means that other countries vote together with the Islamic and Arabic countries because of of regional blocs and 'tit for tat' voting. Maybe you should go once to Manhattan, have coffee at the nearby Aroma Espresso Bar first to clear your head, and see how the UN works, and what it means. GA resolutions = meaningless, by every legal scholar in the world. It's popular and political and ridiculous, but not legal. And you can't even apologize. Oh well. Breein1007 is correct as well... Amoruso (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll go with "something else". Bye. nableezy - 04:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, cheers mate. Amoruso (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

O, nableezy will apologize
O, if not, the eagles will come and pull out his eyes.
Pull out his eyes,
Apologize,
Apologize,
Pull out his eyes.
Apologize,
Pull out his eyes,
Pull out his eyes,
Apologize. (With apologies to James Joyce) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but if you wanted to put your shiny sysop bit to use, could you check the original image uploaded here on en.wp? Does it have "Syria" placed over the Golan or "Israel" and does it say "Israeli occupied" under "Golan Heights"? nableezy - 20:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Commons version seems to match the original, at the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection, as you describe it. Here's a 1992 map of the same region. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Signature

Hey There, I was wondering on your signature, how do you get the background of the box to be a neutral color and blend in with any background? My code makes the box background white, so if {{archive}} is used, you can clearly see the white, unlike yours where it blends in. How do you do that? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont set a background, you could just remove the background-color:White;. See below for how it would look:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

current

NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

no background

NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

background set in the small tag

NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would do that or make it so the whole thing was white like the last sig above. nableezy - 01:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You rock! Thanks! I will use the second one in the example as my sig. Thanks for your help. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, nableezy - 02:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)