Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:50, 2 November 2010

Template:Archive box collapsible

PNG location map

Can you teach me how to create a PNG location map? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Whats the map? nableezy - 02:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Two maps, one of Syria and one zoomed in at southwestern Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean give me a link to the actual maps. nableezy - 18:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

both can be created from this one. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The full Syria map already has a location map template, Template:Location map Syria. To make it you need to know the coordinates of each of the edges. If you just need a basic map it is pretty easy after that. If you want to do something more slick, like have a larger map on the left and the zoomed in portion on the right like the maps Ynhockey has made (eg Template:Location map Israel golan) you need to do some added math to get the numbers to work correctly. Make the maps you want and I will see if I can help make them location maps. But you gave a link to an svg file. You should keep the maps you make from it as svg. There is a free svg editor called Inkscape. It isnt the easiest thing to learn to use but it is relatively simple. nableezy - 20:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

When I rightclick on this I cant copy it: , so I used the printscreen button, but then I have to manually cut out the image, I cant find that button in Incscape. I have managed to create one in Paint but its a PNG file instead of the original svg, is it alright? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Right click on the link and press save file or save target. The file should be saved as an svg file. Then use Inkscape to open the file. nableezy - 13:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In inkscape, how do I cut out a specific part of an image? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Im not sure, sorry. You can save the svg as a png and modify that if it is easier for you. nableezy - 15:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Im done: , can you make this the Golan location map? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ill try. Do you have any idea what the coordinates are for the north, south, east, west boundaries for the golan side of the map? nableezy - 18:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know any of the measurements. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the two sides might not be of the same size. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

They dont need to be, I just need to find the coordinates for the right half. I can calculate how that translates to the coordinates we will use in the template. nableezy - 19:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Zero says on his talkpage: "West=35.4975 East=36.1015 South=32.6252 North=33.4520. Give or take an inch." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, Template:Location map Golan now uses the map you made. nableezy - 14:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I still suck the dummy

I've learnt thanks to some Dr Spocky lessons from your disesteemed selfhood, to wipe meself and change nappies when it comes to this template technology, but still find myself in the 'suck-the-dummy' stage on some of the finer points. I wonder if you could crawl out a dem der trenches, cut through the salients under heavyweather gunfire from maraunding socks, and fix the mess I've made over the dual authored Hope and Holston templating? It's a warzone there as well, at Edward De Vere, but there's a lull for the mo', so I can promise you the shibboleth and safepassage towards quick and untroublesome sapper duties for this sad sap. Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeez! Greased lightening! Get stuffed!Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Think thats all of them. Let me know if I missed something. nableezy - 15:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Just curious, why the P in Sulayman Pasha al-Azm (سليمان باشا العظم‎) ? I ask because I happened across something about someone living in سليمان باشا in Cairo =(google translate-speak "a vital region of the cultural aspect, and full of cinemas, theaters") and it caught my eye. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It was an Ottoman title, so it kept their pronunciation. The pronunciation that I have heard is somewhere in between basha and pasha. These titles were no longer used in Egypt after Nasser. We also stopped wearing those little red hats, though I do have a picture of my grandfather wearing one and from what I know about him he was not the happiest man when they went out of style. nableezy - 15:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Those hats would have been banned in Europe eventually anyway for being too red or something. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about this Im not so sure. I know I have heard it sound more like, but never exactly like, a p, but Ive also heard it with the normal b. Ive heard "Ibrahim Pasha" with the p-like pronunciation when I asked "who is that?" (if somebody was that close and wanted to take a picture why on earth would they not walk around and get a lil closer??? Id do something about it next time I go, but its a hassle bringing a camera with you when you go out to downtown Cairo, and I dont care enough about this place to actually do it), but Ive also heard it with the normal b when people are using it in jest, which is really the only time I hear it used. nableezy - 05:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Much better. Now I dont even need to pretend that there is no decent picture of that statue. nableezy - 05:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This says it was pasha in the 1640s in Turkish, bash earlier and was bashaw in English in the 1530s. I'm curious what happened between 1530 - 1640 to change the b to p. That first photo is marvelous. Might add it to the Road traffic safety article. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman Turkish language made no distinction between the bilabials /b/ and /p/(unvoiced) though the further you go back the voiced /b/ was apparently how it was heard by Western travellers. Thus at a raw guess pāshā/bāshā, (from the word for 'head'(bāsh, in Eastern Turkish dialects, pāsh ) cf. Arabic rais: رئيس Arabic/Hebrew rosh: ראש‎) came into Latin through the medieval Latin form of the word bassa. With the intensification of Ottoman-Western contacts, esp. after the excommunication of Elizabeth by Pope Pius V (1570), trade between England and Ottoman merchants underwent an extraordinary boom, and by 1620, England had outmanoeuvered both Venice and France as the leading trading power with the Ottoman empire. This involved quite an intensive investment by London trading houses at that time in encouraging their traders in the Levant to master the relevant languages. Heightened familiarity therefore, by about the 1640s, a few decades later, would have effected a sea-change, or rather a b to p change in the transcription of the title. Just guessing.Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds very blausible. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Napleasy would concur.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My father, an immigrant, came home one night and said one of his co-workers seemed upset with him. He said "I dont know why Baul is so upset ..." I asked if the co-worker was bald (he was) and then explained to him that the name was Paul and that his pronunciation sounded more like "bald" then "paul". nableezy - 14:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully his surname was Pollocks. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Megaidler

I think he was unfairly blocked. I really don't believe that he socked and I don't think that he had a reason to do so given that his account was in good standing. What is the best course of action in this case?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You can reverse the decision by either hoping that MuZemike agrees to run a CU (and it comes back clean) or by raising it at WP:AN or by asking another CU. I dont know what the connection between Golan heights is our and Stellarkid is, that one actually surprise me, but unless Stellarkid was doing somewhat complicated things, things I doubt the user knows how to do, then if what Megaidler wrote about his or her location is true, which can be established by CU, then there is no chance the two are the same. You can either wait for MuZemike to respond (you really should do that either way), post to AN (where if you come across as strong as you have on MuZemike's talk page most people will ignore you), or you can ask another CU to take a look. nableezy - 05:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I should add though that I think your old friend has once again graced us with his presence with a new, different, account, which is one of the reasons I doubt Megaidler is the same. nableezy - 05:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ty--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing restriction

Due to an ongoing dispute, you are restricted to 1RR for the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, until the end of December. PhilKnight (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. nableezy - 17:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to let the rest of us know what Nableezy did wrong recently, may I ask Phil or Nableezy to explain this? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This was the result of a report made at AN3. nableezy - 21:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, I shouldn't have said you made "numerous complaints" -- I was thinking of all the talk page arguments the two of you were having, and spoke incorrectly. I think it was wise of you to remove your message from Chesdovi's page, by the way. Looie496 (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a few things

• First I wanted to thank you on your help on the User:Megaidler situation. He has been unblocked.

• Second, I wanted to let you know that what happened to both you and Chesdovi sucked. Neither of you should have been sanctioned. Please also note that, in keeping with my word, I scrupulously avoided using your name during the controversy.

• Third, I do not wish to gain any advantage over you during your 1R restriction and I will attempt to voluntarily restrain myself to 1R in articles that you and I have disagreement, for the duration of your restriction.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment, but that isnt necessary. Im a big boy, if I get a sanction I can deal with it. I dont really mind having a 1RR. But if I could make one request from you; could you please tell me if this edit was acceptable to you and if so could you say so on the talk page. Like I said there, I dont want to add the views of a bunch of other states to the lead, but if users refuse to remove the US views Ill start doing so. nableezy - 18:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look over the weekend when I have a bit more time.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I had a look. Just for clarification, do you object to insertion of the US reaction just in the lead, or does your objection extend to US reaction anywhere in the body text.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A sentence in the body, along with other reactions, is fine with me. But the lead of the article? I honestly cant believe there was this much opposition to removing it. nableezy - 06:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I can live with its removal from the Lead so long as it’s somewhere in the body text. How many pro Goldstone approvals do you intend to add? The reason why I ask is that most of the non-aligned usually stack up against Israel whereas Canada, Australia and some European countries generally are supportive of the Israeli position. What I’m getting at is that we could potentially be looking at long lists, which would look silly. So can we just remove it from the lead and place it somewhere in the body text and leave it at that? PS I'm beginning to envy Chesdovi--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Id probably remove the Congressional resolution and keep Obama in the body, adding the EUP vote. nableezy - 03:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Re. your reverted edit in the Gaza War intro (dropping mention of Obama and congress). Judging from the above, Jiujitsuguy now seems to accept your position. My last contribution to the talk page discussion (2 days ago) was a fairly detailed defence of your edit, and has not been challenged or rebutted. Your position is also supported by Bjmullan, and Sean.hoyland. Is this enough "consensus" to warrant reinstating your edit? Prunesqualer (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont know, I suppose. That doesnt answer what happens when a twit of a user decides it isnt acceptable according to their own special consensus. nableezy - 14:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Prunesqualer. This was a dialogue that I was having with Nab and not you. I have no regard for you as an editor in this topic area in light of this edit that you made and blatant disregard for an WP:ARBPIA warning that you received less than 24hrs before your block. At this stage, there is consensus for nothing. Sadly, such is the current situation that prevails in the I-A area.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If the two of you have something to discuss you can use one of your talk pages. Here, as always, you are free to insult me but not each other. But Jiu, I thought you were all right with removing it from the lead? This latest comment seems to contradict that. nableezy - 20:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Just let me think about it for just a bit longer (wiki ain't going anywhere) and sorry for the exchange with Prunesqualer.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. nableezy - 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As you are aware, the Israel-Arab area is rife with endless bickering and recriminations by partisans from both sides. To the uninvolved outsider, both sides must look insane. Arguments over seemingly unimportant words and phrases carry on and on with no end in sight. It is quite frankly, exhausting. Back to the specific edit in question, obviously in principle, I would oppose the removal of US reaction from the Lead. However, to break the impasse, not just in this article but in the wider Israel-Arab topic area, I won’t object to the removal and I’ll even do it myself. My expectation is that this small step will demonstrate some good-will that will hopefully be reciprocated in other articles by partisans from the “other side.”--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A proper response to this will take more time and energy than I have to spend right now. Ill get back to it. nableezy - 19:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Please see this but my offer above still stands. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Seen and responded to. I still have to respond to the above, Ill do that today. nableezy - 15:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you care to participate in this discussion

Template:World_Heritage_Sites_in_Israel asad (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is doing great

Thanks for the good wishes. I've missed you too. Been lurking around now and then ... I stalk your contribs, reading the discussions - better than TV if you are looking for entertainment heavy on absurdity. :)

Don't have much time for virtual things these days. I'll try to pop in more often. Just reading over articles reveals much work to be done but its hard to do with all the squabbling. Eats up too many hours and I need those for other more beautiful things. Take care of you, Tiamut 18:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Salutations Nableezy. Just letting you know that I left a comment here that mentions you... I didn't want it to get lost among your watch-listed items etc. Regards --nsaum75 07:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but if you dont mind Id like to discuss this here instead of there. Is there a reliable source that says a UNESCO World Heritage Site named "Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls" is in Israel? nableezy - 15:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about Cptnono answering your question

Look, I don't care if Cptnono answers your question or chooses to ignore them. The discussion isn't an us vs. them argument, it's an attempt to compromise, to come to an agreement on what we can include. And it's not written in stone. You wrote that "the problem here is people seem to think that the 'consensus building process' is more important than getting the content to be accurate and well sourced." If you're implying that that's my thought, then you're dead wrong. The current proposal is neither inaccurate, nor is it poorly sourced. Do you agree with that? I'm not saying that adding under "international law" isn't better, or more accurate, but the current proposal is not inaccurate. So your harping on Cptnono doesn't come across as someone arguing that the proposal's content isn't "accurate and well sourced", it comes across as someone arguing just for the sake of arguing, because they don't like the other editor, or because they're not getting their way. You argument doesn't come across as someone trying to improve the proposal, it comes across as someone trying to prove a point in an "I'm better than you" sort of way. That's not a way to win friends, but it's a good way to ensure than others will vote against you just because you're you (I'm sure you've experienced that before on here).

All I would ask is that you please consider being more constructive in your approach. You can achieve more being nice than being abrasive when working with others. I think you probably have some great ideas, and you could probably come up with a better proposal than the current one. So why not write up a counter-proposal? I would have no problem supporting a better proposal. ← George 20:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I care if he answers the questions, that is why I asked them. "Compromise" is something you do when there are multiple valid positions. You dont compromise with stupidity just for the sake of compromise. Im not here to win friends, Im here to get things done. I dont care if you are anybody else likes me. What some random person on the internet thinks about "nableezy" is really not something I plan on thinking about.

You asked if I agree with the statement that "the current proposal is neither inaccurate, nor is it poorly sourced". No, I dont agree with it. Its inaccuracy lies in its ambiguity. Nobody disputes that under Israeli law settlements are legal. The international community and countless scholars however say that Israeli law does not apply, what applies in the Palestinian and Syrian territories held under occupation is the GCIV which allows Israel to make changes to existing law in very limited circumstance (military necessity). This is why settlements were not a huge topic prior to the Begin government, even though more than a few were established before 78. The ones that were established were placed in positions of military importance and the view among the world was that these are temporary and militarily necessary establishments. When Likud came to power settlements began sprouting up all over and the view became that this was a simply colonial enterprise with no military necessity and as such could not be justified under the military necessity clauses of GCIV. By just saying "considered illegal by the international community" you have an ambiguous, and as such an inaccurate, sentence. It is under international law that the settlements are illegal. That is what the sentence should say.

Why not write up a counter-proposal? Probably because I think this is a waste of time, no matter what happens there will be users like brewcrewer who say that that project page cannot force their consensus on articles and will instead force us to have this same argument at each settlement page. Other reasons may lead to my being blocked if I were to share them. nableezy - 21:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!" ← George 21:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasnt really a fan of Team America, but thanks for sharing. Id rather you keep the conversation serious. nableezy - 22:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, on a more serious note:

• It's less disruptive if you ask him that question on his talk page the second, third, and fourth time. Asking him in the middle of the discussion is totally fair, repeating the question ad infinitum is disruptive.
• I don't consider either proposed version "stupid".
• You don't need friends, but enemies make it nearly impossible to get anything done.
• I don't think it's that ambiguous, though I can see your point. I thought it was pretty clear that the international community would weigh in on international law, because it doesn't ever weigh in on national law. I have no idea how editors can read that sentence as a comment on Israeli law, but that would explain why Shuki keeps bringing it up.
• So you think the discussion is a waste of time, yet choose to partake in it. I'm going to assume that you partake for reasons other than disruption. Brewcrewer is entitled to their opinion, but having consensus project support for the addition of a particular sentence is better than trying to add it without. I've gone ahead and made the proposal myself. ← George 22:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• What is disruptive is refusing to answer simple questions about a position that has been repeated without anything to back it up. Asking somebody to explain themselves, even repeatedly if the person is not, cannot be "disruptive".
• I do consider one of those versions stupid. It is almost meaningless.
• ok?
• Of course its a waste of time, everything here is a waste of time. Any conversation where uninformed people are able to force their ignorance to take precedence over actual sources is a waste of time. I bet you that a certain Sherlockian user still hasnt read more than 2 of the citations I provided on that page.

nableezy - 23:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

ARBPIA notifications

These notifications need to be done by an uninvolved administrator, not just any user.

Can you provide diffs to justify it for that user, and if it's warranted I or another admin can re-notify appropriately with all the correct paperwork as it were?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not true and nothing in WP:ARBPIA supports that the notifications are to be given by uninvolved admins. The decision only says that a user must be notified prior to being sanctioned. In fact, Jaakobou (talk · contribs) has made more than a few notifications. But here is an edit in which the user inserts material which blatantly misrepresents the sources cited and has edit warred to include it. nableezy - 21:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read the template for the warning: Template:Palestine-Israel enforcement

Last line reads:

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.

I will review the edit given and the edit history. Thanks for providing that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Sandstein, the notice need not be given by an administrator, or even an uninvolved editor. See User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/October#HupHollandHup. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The template was not created by the decision and is not binding; the decision says that a user must be notified, not that they must be notified by an uninvolved admin. I am of the opinion that it should be an uninvolved admin, but this user annoyed me enough that Id rather get the notice out of the way without asking somebody else to do it. nableezy - 23:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

1RR

Good morning. You made somewhat of a decent rewrite at Israeli settler violence but would you like to revert your recent edit or should we go to 1RR? --Shuki (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I only made one revert. The first one was an edit. You are of course free to revert or report if you feel I have made more than one, but that would be odd considering you said it was at least "somewhat of a decent rewrite". nableezy - 16:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thinking of Christmas

This might just be the thing.:)Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Naw, aint that bad. Half the shit going on isnt really serious to me. We'll just call it an "experiment". Sort of "I wonder what will happen when I do the same thing they do?" nableezy - 19:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and get your pagan holiday celebrating ass outta here. nableezy - 19:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me out?

I am kind of new to this, and lost as where to go from now? The proponents of keeping it or changing it to "of Israel" are clearly not accepting that the they bear the burden of proof from UNESCO. So what happens next? -Template:World_Heritage_Sites_in_Israel- --asad (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What happens next? I dont know, maybe you learning that there isnt a point to making a reasoned argument on this website? That the emotions of nationalists trump the sources nearly every time? nableezy - 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

So all contributions to the discourse are entirely futile? I was just browsing Misplaced Pages one day, and say Jerusalem there and was like "That's not right". I am not an idealistic person, I have lived in Palestine long enough to erase that illusion. But the point now, is that the lack of evidence to support Jerusalem on the list is entirely overwhelming. I would think, with such a structure as Misplaced Pages, maybe things like moderation can be used?? Is it worthless? I am already being accused of being a sleeper account on my page. I'll take that as a compliment. --asad (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont want to discourage you but I also dont want to lie to you. You may be able to get some things accomplished, but for the most part yes, all contributions to the discourse are entirely futile. Once upon a time I was able to get the Jerusalem article, when saying that it is largest city in Israel, to include the phrase "if including occupied East Jerusalem". The word "occupied" has been removed by some IPs and now named accounts will summarily revert its reinsertion. Once upon a time the Gaza War article included an alternate name (Gaza Massacre) that was sourced to 3 reliable sources that explicitly said "known in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre". That phrase has since been eliminated, thanks in large part to several sockpuppets of a banned user and another person that I would like to accurately describe but I am quite sure he would run to admins asking that I be banned if I were to do so. It is almost impossible to get simple things done, like describing Israeli settlements as "Israeli settlements" and not "Israeli villages". The obstinance of a dedicated few, and the ignorance of quite a few more, will make it impossible for such things to be done. We cant even get an article on an Israeli settlement to include in the lead that the settlement is illegal under international law despite several sources saying that that specific settlement is illegal under international law. Simple things like this cant be done when people can disregard the sources and demand their views, without sources, be included as The Truth™. So as much as I would like to tell you that this is a worthwhile endeavor I cannot in good faith ask that you waste any more of your time here. Hell, Im trying to figure a way to quit wasting my own time here. Problem is this place has the addictive quality of crack. nableezy - 00:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is a certain satisfaction to not getting a response when you ask for a source. And you know it is fun to ruffle the feathers of the people with clear agendas. But right now, I would like to give you a big Thank you. I have trolled your posts for a bit of time now, and I must say, there are numerous times where your responses to the stupidity that been has thrown at you has literally made me laugh out loud. I am starting to get the taste of how incredibly fun it is to prove people wrong with facts, and your posts have allowed me to spend dozens of minutes reading your responses to the subject matter. If it worth anything, despite the obvious pessimism you have, you have made a fan out of me. -asad (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The satisfaction of knowing that a response hasnt been given, and wont be given, is only that, satisfaction. The template isnt going to change as a result of it, "consensus", which for too many admins means how many me toos show up for one side, demands that the template not reflect sources. But I cant lie, it can be fun. I laughed when writing many of those responses. Thanks, and cheers. nableezy - 02:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are flies attracted to shit?

It is the words "Israeli occupation" that has probably awoken the buzzing green menace. I was afraid that the slightest rustle in this article would restart the war, and, alas, I was proven right. Well, here we go again. Gird your loins. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to remove that I wont object. But I, as usual, think I am right about that. nableezy - 18:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I agree with you that it is better. We'll just try to weather the storm. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If it werent for the fact that all of this is just a merry-go-round with us having to go past the same point over and over I wouldnt mind as much. But its as if he thinks nobody will notice that the same crap that had been tried in the past is being tried again. Sorry for the ruckus at your talk page, I just had to laugh at that. Next time Ill do it quietly on my own talk page though. But, if you dont mind my asking, what does the first part of that phrase mean? Brew has piqued my curiosity. nableezy - 19:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Who..

..is this ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

damn yo, how jedi do you think I am? Someone who should be blocked with or without an SPI as a clear sockpuppet? Who has went around reverting at 4 articles, comprising nearly all of their edits? Someone we shouldnt have to waste the time figuring out who it is before they are blocked? nableezy - 03:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to guess a certain user fond of putting countries/nationalities in their sock-puppets' names and accusing ZScarpia of violating BLP. But I'm still new to this turf war and the options are limitless. If not, my apologies, dear Sally. Sol (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

hmmm..if only WP worked like that. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Would be nice wouldn't it? You just declare someone to be worthy of a block, and then block him. Would sure make it easy to deal with the likes of you. Shanghai Sally (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be nice. I suppose we will just have to wait a bit until you are blocked. In the meantime, go away. nableezy - 04:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked? what for? for daring to disagree with you and fellow POV-pushers? Shanghai Sally (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think "go away" is clear. Please dont try my patience. nableezy - 04:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Righteous indignation. Always funny. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Editing advice

Nableezy, I think you should focus your efforts on the centralized discussion, which currently involves a number of other editors with established track records of helping to resolve disputes. Until you establish a working compromise, I don't see the point in trying to thrash it out on an article by article basis. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate the advice, and I dont want you to read this the wrong way, but there isnt a point to that discussion. There isnt any compromise to be had here, one set of users is insisting that articles not include relevant, reliably sourced, and noteworthy material. If the policies of this website mean anything, anything at all, those users should be banned. Jaakobou, Shuki, and others have repeatedly removed any material that documents the illegality of specific settlements, including material sourced to books and journals published by Syracuse University Press, California University Press, Oxford University Press ... . No compromise is to be had with such people, with them it is only a far-right expansionist POV that is allowed on pages they patrol. That discussion is pointless, users will say things like that project page cannot force their consensus on articles. For an example as to why that discussion is pointless, see the amount of headaches that are still had with Judea/Samaria. Users still say that a place is "in Samaria" or "in Shomron" despite WP:WESTBANK (and yes I know you have taken action on this before, but it isnt as if these edits have stopped. see for example this were the removal of the phrase "the hills of Samaria" is called vandalism). All of these "discussions" serve only one purpose. To waste people's time. Unless there is some binding method of content dispute resolution in which "votes" dont trump sources there isnt a point in having these "centralized discussion". nableezy - 18:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

How was the process which created the WP:WESTBANK naming convention different than the current process? PhilKnight (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It was more structured, and the way it started was more focused on the content and the sources. You can see how it began here. That was moved to its own page (the archive is now here). The process started during the arbitration case, so editors that have since had the good fortune of being topic-banned by arbcom show up in the initial discussions. But the main difference is that it involved users who were well informed on both the subject and the policies of Misplaced Pages. There werent any pissing matches about who made more reverts or if this user or that user is a Bad Man™. It started with a proposal which was discussed and modified several times. Then a poll was conducted to see which clauses had support. It had somebody who for some odd reason had the respect of both "sides" (Coppertwig) who was able to focus the discussion on the issue. It had users reading the sources and making informed comments. It had people involved that I have never seen editing in the topic area (that is it had "community" input, not just the usual partisans). And most importantly, it had backing by arbcom that this would become some sort of naming convention and there would be some weight attached to it. There was a general acceptance that this would lead to a solution, regardless of what the actual solution was. We dont have that here. We dont have a user that is respected by most involved taking control of the process, we dont have users willing to educate themselves on the topic before voicing their opinion, we dont have any semblance of an agreement that what comes out of that discussion will be binding in any way. nableezy - 19:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply

Yeah, I've seen the lists. I understand how it can be cathartic to write those things but it kind of reminds me of the guys who blame hurricanes on gay sex.

But the Leafs went 4-0 to start the season so the Canadian media had more important things to talk about and we've all moved on.

Anyway, I hope you have a Happy Election Day. Though I don't think Santa is going to bring you what you wished for. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Election? What is this "election" that you speak of? I think I have a greater chance of sled-jacking Santa than seeing an election with a real choice. nableezy - 20:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

AE

You have been reported to AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)