Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:45, 12 September 2009

User:Nableezy/Header Template:Archive box collapsible

Hamas

Thank you; I just want you to know I noticed. -- Avi (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Take care Avi, nableezy - 21:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

UNSC 242

Nableezy, you gave no reason for undoing my reversion. What is your thinking? /SMB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve157 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be an overview of the rest of the text, you took out a portion of that overview (that the resolution "refers to the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"). That was my thinking. nableezy - 14:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

But the resolution also talks about a lot of other things. The question is one of balance, why is there a need to summarise just that additional phrase? /SMB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve157 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Because that phrase backs up one of the foundations of post-war international law. What is the issue of balance here? Is there anything to suggest that there is something contradicting that phrase in the resolution? Why should it not be included? nableezy - 15:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you think that phrase actually means, both generally and in this resolution? /SMB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve157 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would it matter what I think, either generally or in this resolution? This conversation should really be on the talk page of the article though. nableezy - 16:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It matters for two reasons. First because you asked me if there is anything contradicting this phrase. How can I answer that if I don't know what you think it means? Second, you have justified your edit that this phrase must be highlighted before all others (It is the very first quote from the resolution's text) because 'it backs up one of the foundations of post-war international law.' Yet you also say it doesn't matter what the phrase means, i.e. whether it is important or not and whether does need to be highlighted there or not.

If you want to move the discussion let me know where to continue. If you don't want to give me a reason for your edit, can I undo it? /SMB 87.194.236.72 (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.236.72 (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I did you give reasons and I did not say it does not matter what the text means. I said it does not matter what I think the text means. nableezy - 18:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy. We are going around in cirlces. Am I right in thinking that you want the phrase highlighted because you think 'it backs up one of the foundations of post-war international law.'? Yes or No? /SMBSteve157 (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere between yes and no. That is a reason, it is not the only reason. But why is it you want to remove it? nableezy - 18:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I gave my reason and you made no reference to it before you made your edit. I also pointed to further discussion on the discussion page. You have made no reference to them either. I am more than happy to debate these issues and expand on the reasons. So if you want to question me why don't you revert your own edit which was made without any reason and then challenge my reversion. I will be happy to debate as much as you wish, time permitting.Steve157 (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

See here and here. The phrase "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" is one of the most important aspects of the resolution. "As Lord Caradon, the principal author of resolution 242 (1967) has stated, "the overriding principle" of resolution 242 is the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and this means Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian and other Arab lands must take place to the pre-June 1967 borders, subject to minor variations to be determined, preferably, by an impartial boundary commission." This is not some random set of words thrown together, this is one of the most important aspects of the resolution and should be included in the lead. nableezy - 20:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. You pointed me at two very long documents, but no particular section. I am pretty familiar with S/PV.1382. I know the Caradon quote you referenced is not in it. Where is it from?

Also which I don't think S/PV.1382 supports your argument. Take a look at the comments of Mr Tomeh of Syria who took the view that the resolution as drafted was highly ambiguous, while Caradon took the view that the wording was clear:

11. While there is a mention of the withdrawal of Israel forces, this reference is almost nullified by the absence of any time limit or any modus operandi for ensuring this withdrawal. No clearer proof could be given to illustrate the ambiguity of this withdrawal than its description by Israel-Zionist sources. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency's Daily News Bulletin of 20 November describes it in these words:

"Israelis are known to have indicated unofficially that Israel 'could live' with the British formula. The draft does not spell out Israel's withdrawal as to timing, nor does it say that the withdrawal is to be to the pre-June 5 armistice lines."

12. Moreover, this mention of withdrawal is made subject to a score of concessions to be imposed on the Arab countries, thus coupling it with conditions amounting to the liquidation of the whole Palestine question, a question which is basically and primarily the product of colonialism in the area. All of this is done purposely with a view to ignoring the will and rights of the Palestine Arab people. Even in the very mandate entrusted to the special representative-to-be, the call for withdrawal of the Israel occupying forces is not provided for. He is merely asked to: "proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution" .

I agree that the inadmissibility phrase is important. The problem is I suspect we interprete it entirely differently. You interpret it to mean that Israel must withdraw to June 4th lines because it carn't gain territory by war, but I am pretty clear that that is an incorrect interpretation of what is a principle that came into being by replacing the older principle of the 'right of conquest'. The right of conquest in effect said that what you won in battle became legally yours as part of the peace settlement that the victor imposed on the vanquished. What the inadmissibility phrase does is negate that by saying you carn't use the argument that I won this by war to justify a legal claim to keep what you won. Any such claim will be 'inadmissible'. Of course if you have some other legal claim then you may be able to keep all or some of what you won. So as far as 242 is concerned the first question is what are the boundaries that Israel has a legal right to claim. In 1967 there were no such boundaries. No Arab state recognised the June 4th boundaries which were merely armistice lines where fighting stopped in 1949. So what 242 says as far as I can see is that Israel must withdraw, but only to secure and recognised boundaries reached by negotiation as part of a peace agreement. That is the only interpretation that makes sense of every single word of the resolution, rather than just some selected phrases. That is also the interpretation under which Egypt made peace with Israel. Note that the wording I was trying to revert to didn't spell that out. It just quoted the core operative paragraph in quite a neutral way.

So the reason I want this phrase removed is to keep the summary of the resolution as neutral as possible. The reason you want to keep it in, it seems to me, is to favour a particular POV about how the resolution should be interpreted.Steve157 (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont say that the inadmissibility phrase means Israel must withdraw from the territories it occupied (I think the part where it says withdraw from territories occupied means that), I think it is the basis for saying that the annexation of E. Jerusalem is illegal as is the imposing Israeli civil law over the Golan. It isnt that Israel cannot occupy these lands, it is that these lands cannot become a part of Israel. The Caradon quote is referenced in the first link, and you can see it mentioned here as well as any number of other places (the link I provided cites it to Lord Caradon, Goldberg, El-Zayyat and Eban, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, (Georgetown University, 1981), p. 1 at 13. As to your last point, neutrality does not mean diminishing one POV in favor of another. Those who drafted the resolution have said that this line was an "overriding principle" of the resolution. You determining that it is being interpreted improperly is not justification to remove it from the lead. One of the foundations of post-war international law is laid out in that line. That you apparently dislike the consequences of that foundation as applied to this case is not all that important. If you wish to continue this discussion I ask you make no more inferences as to my "POV". nableezy - 22:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I regret that the assumptions I made about your position were incorrect. But if you withold your position it becomes rather hard to avoid making some assumptions. My mistake. Still it doesn't alter any of the issues or the fact that you have just made an incorrect assumption about my position which I had not witheld and sought to make clear. I do not, as you suggest, dislike the application of this phrase to 242, indeed I welcome it. I just think it has to be applied in context, not highlighted out of context.

I note you still haven't said how you interpret the phrase you insist on highlighting. How do you interpret it to mean that Israel could never have legal title to East Jerusalem or the Golan? If that were true Israel could never have legal title to any of the land inside the June 4th boundaries either, as they were all conquered by war in 1948/9 or 1967 and under Israeli law. Is that your interpretation and your position? If so why did Egypt make peace with Israel under 242 instead of claiming that under 242 it had no right to exist? If not your interpretation doesn't seem to be consistent.

Returning to the question of undoing my reversion without giving any reason. The reference you now provide doesn't support your claim that the inadmissibility phrase is an "overriding principle" at all. It says that its inclusion was necessary for agreement. That doesn't mean that everything else wasn't equally or even more necessary for agreement. In fact Caradon specifically states just before the resolution is passed that the resolution is a balanced whole which must considered as a whole and as it stands. So you still don't have an argument for highlighting this one phrase above all else. If anything your new reference favours my position as it highlights Land for Peace, i.e. the withdrawal and peace within secure boundaries phrases that were already there. It also suggests that my position isn't just an alternative POV but the core principle according to your own preferred reference.

Nor is your new argument about Israeli annexations a reason for highlighting one phrase above all others as 242 doesn't directly address either the pre-existing annexation by Jordan or those you mention by Israel.

Also where do you get this "foundation of post-war international law" concept? Are you meaning post World War 1 or some other war? Are you saying that until 242 this principle didn't exist?

How about outlining all the reasons you had in mind for making your edit without giving any reason, so we can reach a conclusion.Steve157 (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The armistice agreements following the 48 war set borders, albeit not defined as permanent. It isnt that Israel could never have E. Jerusalem or Golan, only that they could not acquire them through armed conflict; it would take a treaty ceding the territory to Israel. And the lead is not highlighting this one phrase over all others, it also highlights "withdraw from territories", "termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty ... their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force". The last reference was provided only to further support that Caradon said "the overriding principle" in reference to the phrase in question. But it is clear that neither of use are going to convince the other so I would advise you to take this to the article talk page and see what others have to say. Oh and "post-war" = post-WWII. And the idea existed since then, this affirmed it. Finally, I withhold my position because it does not matter what I think the resolution means, all that matters is what the sources say it means. What I think is not important to the conversation. nableezy - 02:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Press TV

Hi Nableezy; I'm not sure if the templates are still needed since your clean-up. Feel free to remove them if you think the article reads as neutral. Thanks, 99.149.84.135 (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think

this may have something to do with User:LoverOfTheRussianQueen (aka User:NoCal100, among others both past and present). Check out Avi's last comment there. I was wondering how LOTRQ got blocked without a report having been filed. Maybe? Anyway, hope you're doing good. Happy editing. Tiamut 20:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Naw, that was Swedish IPs. LOTRQ got blocked apparently because a checkuser decided to look, just as the other NoCal socks had been blocked. None of the users in Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of NoCal100 had a case page opened, the first to go was User:Hadashot Livkarim. There is no way it was from the Fipplet case, the time ranges dont match to somebody in Sweden. nableezy - 21:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't follow IP talk myself and have never been good at tracing/investigating these type of things. It was the comment that got me thinking it. Anyway, its not important. Tiamut 21:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I love it. One day soon, I hope you will come to visit us in balandna for some tea under the olive trees. Until then, happy editing Nableezy. Tiamut 08:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to hear your thoughts

about if you think the category "Egyptians of Syrian descent" should be in the three articles posted here: WP EGYPT On the basis that Tamer Hosnys mother was Syrian , Soad Hosnys grandfather was Syrian and Anwar Wagdi was of Syrian descent --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

sorry but this aint at the top of my list. maybe will look at it. nableezy - 21:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey nableezy, you are a good editor and I would really appreciate your input and views, only one sentence if you support the category in those articles or not. Thank you in advance.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I might take a look, but I really dont care about this. Though you could help yourself by finding sources that specifically say X was of Syrian descent or ancestry or whatever. nableezy - 22:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

As you can see above I have already provided sources showing Syrian descent, and mother and grandfather was Syrian, only one have answered and you contribute a lot to wikiepdia so I would really appreciate it if you could post your view about this.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Please accept my apology! I read "mfs" as an abbreviation for a slang term about carnal relations, especially after I read your talk page ("civility does not exist here"). Sorry! What is "mfa" for? Kaisershatner (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Abbas

I removed it because I believe it will confuse a casual reader more than heighten their understanding of the article. I know the PNA is an organisation and Palestine would be the state but for nearly all intents and purposes, the PNA functions as the government. The article should certainly cover the vote in detail but having two titles that do the same thing in the infobox will look disjointed. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

3rr

3rr AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

your life. nableezy - 06:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And the result: No vio. Agada admonished for failing to use the talk page for meaningful discussion. Please do. nableezy - 08:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Kfr

Actually the word can be read as referring to Christians at 5:72 (kafara). Like so much in books like the Tanakh, Gospels and Qur'an, much is obscure, and much not clear unless read with commentaries. One more reason for being very strict about what sources are reliable for what in editing in these areas. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I luckily have access to my fathers library for today, so I am looking in one of the many volumes he has of tafsir to see what they would have to say about the issue. Will try to get some info written down and translated today. nableezy - 19:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

State of Palestine

I've been researching and thinking about the issue all day, and I'd like to hear your reaction to a compromise suggestion that just might possibly work, saving us from an RfC shit show. I would suggest it to Tiamat too, but she doesn't seem to be in a state of mind where she would listen to anything I say. The suggestion is to change the name of the article to Palestinian statehood (this was hypothetically suggested in the original AfD by user:Jfdwolff, an admin); then Proposals for a Palestinian state could be merged into it. That way, all arguments and facts relating the existence or absence of a Palestinian state, as well as the processes that are leading to/have led to its creation can be presented without the title pre-deciding that the state is "merely" a proposal, as Proposals for a Palestinian state does; at the same time, we avoid the article being a fork of Palestinian National Authority. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I really dont think that would be appropriate. The PNA and the state of Palestine are two different things and lumping them together would confuse more than enlighten. The PNA is an interim government set up under the Oslo accords, the state declared its independence in 1988 well before even the idea of the PNA existed. In my opinion just the fact that 100+ other countries recognize the state of Palestine and its existence means it is notable enough for its own article. State and country are two different things and as far as I can tell nobody is calling the state of Palestine a country. Feel free to bring this up on the talk page, but I personally would be opposed to it. What I think we really need is to have a discussion just about whether or not the AfD applies to this article. You see I asked Avi to comment (I dont think it is canvassing to pick somebody that is not expected to have the same views, and I really was just asking him as an admin what he thinks about the AfD applying), if there are other people you feel would be good to ask about that question please do. I dont like how that conversation is going with petty remarks being tossed about that ignore the point of the discussion, and an RfC probably wouldnt be much better. But if we do start the RfC the way I think it would be the least contentious would be to have it specifically on whether or not the AfD applies to this article. Depending on that answer we would go on to different venues to argue about the actual existence of the article; if it does not apply then if people wished an AfD would be in order, if it does then either RfD or DRV (not sure about that). So to sum up this disjointed mess above I think we need to focus on the procedure aspect first then deal with all fighting about the actual content of the article and whether or not it should be there. nableezy - 18:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That type of RfC would be fine with me, but whoever requests it should make it as explicit as possible that it's a procedural question, since obviously people will be tempted to say what they think about the article in general. I can't make the request, of course; you saw the hysterical reaction when I tried to distinguish between the two issues. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hysterical reactions aside, I think the procedural question is rather moot at this point. As Avi pointed out in his comment, the article is significantly different now. Redirects can always be boldly recreated. Should someone believe the article in its current state should not exist, a new AfD is required. People could also try editing the article to have it reflect the POVs they feel are missing. It needs work. Its a vast subject. Tiamut 00:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI

I wasn't trying to suggest that the "fringe" theories were true, it was more that the initial findings had been questioned -- with multiple theories of greater and lesser credibility jockeying to fill the void. Wasn't at all trying to lead to any conclusions. Sorry if you felt put off. IronDuke 02:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

all good. nableezy - 03:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

International Law and the Gaza War

Tell me, did you make any changes or moved it exactly as it was? --Sceptic from Ashdod 05:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

exactly as it was text wise, only changes were in the code and the first sentence. I had to bring a bunch of refs in that were just used but defined in the original section but besides that it is exactly the same. nableezy - 05:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

i wonder what happened to this sentence: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_War&diff=prev&oldid=311413981. i don't recall it was challenged. --Sceptic from Ashdod 07:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

it was indeed challenged. And truthfully I agree with that challenge. A random lady suing the EU doesnt really merit mention unless something comes of it in my opinion. But give me a second and Ill give you a diff of exactly what changed between my taking it out of the gaza war article and splitting it into the intl law article. nableezy - 07:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

and here is a diff of all the changes I made in the split. nableezy - 07:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

missed the Sean's challenge. put today an awkward misleading sentence. am i getting too old for this? --Sceptic from Ashdod 14:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

At least I can blame it on the ganga, whats your excuse? nableezy - 06:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are not getting too old for this. I saw your use of the word 'imression' yesterday which as far as I'm concerned is a very nice word despite not existing yet. I suggest you use it more until it gets into the dictionary. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

didn't you notice another derivative - 'impretion'? i think of filing a patent on this one. --Sceptic from Ashdod 07:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Then what was I supposed to do?

Start a fourth round of mediation that will be reverted by him because he doesn't like the outcome? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked you several times to please make a comment about the categories, I know you have been following the Asmahan shit and you haven't made one post to help. Al ameer is tired of this crap, let him be. If you want to do something to help you can do that but the arbitration, I really hope it will get accepted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You should have said something before but I don't see how this arbitration will stop you from getting involved and helping out.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Not necessarily. Only when a free-use image can be "reasonably be found or created" do we remove the fair-use version. For living people for whom it would not be reasonable to create/find a fair use image (people incarcerated for life, people in countries which have religious/social taboos against pictures of people, etc.) we may continue to use the fair-use image, provided that fair use is accurately claimed and an appropriate rationale given. -- Avi (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If that were the image to illustrate Marc, I would say that it would need to be replaced. However, it is being used to illustrate the connection with Nazi memorabilia, and that, I do not think, can have a fair-use image be "reasonably found". Unless someone can specifically ask him to pose in that shirt :) -- Avi (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks..

..for the support over at AN/EW. I wouldn't have bothered if I were you, well I didn't, but it's appreciated nonetheless. It's quite enlightening to watch how these kind of issues propagate via the usual sources in the web/media, find their way into open arms of wiki editors and how the de facto logistical support of those editors works via distraction etc services provided by editors sympathetic to the cause. Fascinating and disturbing. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If those had not been BLP reverts I wouldnt have said a word but taking you to a noticeboard because you reverted "OMG HEZ A NAZI!!!" sourced to a blog if at all more than 3 times was little rich for me to take quietly. nableezy - 05:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The irony is that Garlasco almost certainly doesn't give a fuck about any of this. He should get the 'Captain undiplomatic - funniest guy at HRW' award. Some of the things he says in interviews are top quality comedy one liners. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your message

Is TARC going to be warned he started this edit war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannim1 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Tarc didnt start an edit war, you put something in that was reverted. What you need to do at that point is go to the talk page and show why it should be in, not just continue to revert. And Tarc has been here a while, no reminders, or warnings, are needed. nableezy - 20:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

nableezy I wonder if you decided to be civil or it is my mistake?

Nableezy, with all my respect I can master I don’t understand your sudden sensitivity. If you are a transformed person and suddenly decided to become civil, I am pleasantly surprised and will respect you sudden decision. I believe everybody has a chance for the new beginning. I respect your decision to become civil. I personally believe it is good for you and Misplaced Pages community. I hope part of the decision to become civil and respectful of others will be removal of your banner and promotional materials about marijuana and the quote on the right upper position of your respectable talk page.

So far I didn’t have the pleasure to visit your talk page here ], however your constant complains (not supported by facts I might say) that you feel threatened has alarmed me. I realized I really don’t know you and therefore couldn’t appreciate your concerns fully. Since you didn’t tell me specifically the nature of your complains I took up the liberty to go to your talk page myself in order to understand what is the problem. I can assure you my impression of you is based directly on your kindly descriptions of yourself and not from any prejudice on my part. So what do I know about nobelsy? Well…

As I learned a couple of minutes ago browsing your talk page:

1) You are an Egyptian Muslim ( most likely not a Copt) living in Chicago and proud of both facts tremendously to the point of putting both flags on your page. ( BTW I can not form my opinion if you are an American. You are probably not since there is no American flag. So if you are an American I am sorry- you chose Egyptian flag and not American flag to represent your identity. Most likely you are not an American citizen but Egyptian national ( since there is no American flag on your talk page.)

2)You are likely to be a serious pot ( marijuana) user to the point of putting a link to the marijuana page. You also choose a quote that says that “they” lie about marijuana and you support the idea that pot smoking doesn’t make you unmotivated ( I agree with you on that. You are very motivated and it definitely doesn’t slow you down a bit-on the opposite). You support the idea that when you are high ( on pot) you can do everything you are normally do ( I am sure I don’t know what you normally do but I don’t disagree with you- I just don’t know) and it is not “worth the fucxxxing effort”( I assume the chosen word represents your commitment incivility which is pretty much consistent.

3) I also know that you are not accept civility on your talk page. You invite anybody who has something uncivil to say to you-to say it, and challenge him/or her to “personal attack” you. You even threaten to “hurl large collections of insults” at the visitor. You warn the public that you will get back to them and give back “even better insults”

I am happy to realize that you decided to be civil from now on. I am sorry that I haven’t noticed it previously.

If there any mistakes of misconceptions or I didn’t get all the points you tried to communicate, please let me know, especially where you felt that I hart your feelings. Once you kindly show it to me I can look at it and take a necessary measures.

Respectfully --Rm125 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)