Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:00, 4 December 2010

Template:Archive box collapsible

User page

You were asked not to have other editor's comments on your user page without context in a way to shame them at ANI. If you do not remove the two lines I will take it to AE.Cptnono (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have simply unarchived the last discussion at ANI. Cptnono (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And it looks like it is acceptable. I would have appreciated it if you would have used the full context but you again prove that you are by far the most disruptive editor in the topic area. My only hope is that I can reach that level of disruption without a lengthy topic ban as well. Have fun.Cptnono (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Really, I am the "most disruptive editor in the topic area"? It isnt the editor who says he is "anti" an entire group of people, and then piles on to say that Islam has "historically been problematic"? Have I ever made any comments about your ethnicity or faith? Dont bother answering, just, in the words you recently used, fuck off. nableezy - 00:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ledenierhomme ?

+ Sean.hoyland - talk 19:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cant say I care yet. nableezy - 00:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Starting to care, lets see if that itch goes away. nableezy - 19:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Now I am really interested, Ill see what I can find. nableezy - 00:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

ovah. nableezy - 19:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Note

Hi Nableezy. I see that Jaakobou has seen fit to restore a talk page comment which you had previously removed; at the same time, and without any apparent sense of irony, he accuses you of "disruptive behaviour". Meanwhile, as you may have seen, he has repeatedly (and falsely) accused me, both on Talk:Gideon Levy and on my own talk page, of making personal attacks, making several offensive remarks of his own in the process. Do you think that his behaviour has so far overstepped the line of what is acceptable that a formal complaint is warranted? And if so, where would be the appropriate forum.

With (genuine) respect.--RolandR (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Roland. I think he has indeed stepped over the line, but honestly I think this charade is too funny to report. I have yet to see you make a single personal attack on that page, yet he repeatedly insults you and says you have attacked him? But thats just me, I find humor in stupid shit. If you have a problem with repeatedly being called a dick and a disruption, hard to imagine you wouldnt, Id say the best place to go would be AE. Combine Jaak's repeated insertion of phrasing in a BLP for which there was both no source and consensus on the talk page for not including with his repeated failure to abide by the conduct policies of this website and there should be a lengthy topic ban for this user. nableezy - 15:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Shikabala

Well, the article also has to be written in such a way that it makes the actual notability apparent; the version I saw was horribly written, so I couldn't suss out the intended claim of notability at all. However, looking at the page again I see that there was an older version of the article which was valid, and then got overwritten with a piece of crap in the past couple of days — so I've restored the older version, but left the recent edits in the trash can. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Just so you know, here's the actual text of what the article looked like when I first deleted it:

  shikabala with the egyptian team

Blech, huh? Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Al-Azhar Mosque

Hi Nableezy,

I've finally submitted for FAC an article I've been working on for 5 months. Now that I have that monkey off my back, I'm able to devote much more time to the Al-Azhar Mosque article. I've started doing a close copyedit of the text, and added some useful links, and I'll continue to do that for the next few days. Of course, if there's anything you object to, please feel free to revert it. Is there anything else on which you'd like me to focus? Do some research, look for some sources, summarize or paraphrase a source you already have? I'd like to take your lead on this, because I don't want to overwhelm your efforts, and you obviously know the material much better, but I'm eager to help in any way you'd like. Let's get this thing done! Jayjg 03:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

All right, Ill dedicate myself to working on this. A break from another area is probably called for. I got the material I need to expand the architecture section so Ill work on that for now. Ill try to get the outstanding questions on the talk page answered. Thanks. nableezy - 19:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

But if you have any thoughts on how to organize the architecture section Im all ears. nableezy - 19:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been working my way down from top to bottom (it's easier for me to assimilate the material that way), so I haven't gotten to that section yet. In general, I would suggest working chronologically, but I'll look at the section, mull it over, and give you my thoughts. Jayjg 04:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Having read through the architecture section (though not copyedited it yet), I think the existing organization was fine, except for the "Current status" part, which I moved to the bottom. I think a chronological description of the evolution of the structure will be easiest for the reader to understand. By the way, I like your recent additions in the other areas, they're really helping clarify/complete the material there. Jayjg 00:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Im working through Creswell, he starts with a history and then goes into detail on the architecture. So Ill probably be stepping on your toes with edits to the history section, though I should be done with that in the next few days. Then Ill focus on the architecture section. There are still some outstanding questions on the talk page, Ill try to get to those after I work Creswell into the text. nableezy - 07:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

James G. Lindsay

As you can see I'm in the middle of writing the article. Wait until I'm finished and then if you think it's not important enough, suggest it for deletion. That's common wiki courtesy. Nik Sage (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Common "wiki courtesy" is to not recreate articles that had already been deleted. In fact it is not "wiki courtesy" that says this but rather it is Misplaced Pages policy (G4). You have recreated an article deleted by consensus. If you wish to do that you should be going to DRV. Ill be tagging that as qualifying for CSD G5 shortly. nableezy - 18:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

How could I've known that the article was deleted? I've started to write an article about Lindsay while writing an article about UNRWA's chief John Ging. Ging talked about Lindsay's report in an interview. I've looked for this man and saw that there is no article about him, so I started writing one. I first heard about mr. Lindsay while reading the interview twenty minutes ago. As I was not in the deletion arguement before, you should've deduced that I don't know anything about it and refer me to it through my talk page. That's what I mean by courtesy. Nevertheless, I'm not as proficient as you in wiki procedures so I'll be much obliged if you'll explain what are "DRV. Ill" and "CSD G5". Nik Sage (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You would know after I made my edit, as what you reverted, without comment, had a link to the AfD that resulted in the original page being deleted. DRV is "deletion review", it is the process used to contest the result of an AfD, whether it be keep or delete. You can read about it here. CSD is "categories for speedy deletion", it is a set of rules for what may be deleted without discussion. One of those rules is material that has already been deleted following a deletion discussion. You can read about is here. Finally, to the problem with reading an interview and making an article. Misplaced Pages has rules for what may be acceptable articles. Those rules include demonstrating that the subject is "notable". This requires citations to third party reliable sources. Your "article" is nothing but a collection of quotes from papers written by the subject, that is not a single citation to a reliable third party source is provided. That is not what Misplaced Pages articles, especially biographies of living people, should be made of. nableezy - 18:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks dude. Now I know more about wiki procedures. When I write on Wiki it is usually focused articles and I don't spend much time editing others - hence why I'm not so proficient in these rules. I'm still writing the article, and I'll try to do it by the wiki rules you presented. Give me a chance and then I'll be glad to hear any comments or criticizm. Nik Sage (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to do that you should do it in your userspace. You could for example make the article at User:Nik Sage/Lindsay. Once complete you could post to DRV and ask if people feel your draft should be moved in to article space. What you shouldnt do is revert the redirect, and you really shouldnt revert two different users who restore the redirect. nableezy - 19:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi dude. I've incorporated Lindsay's info inside UNRWA's page, thus expanding the James Lindsay section there. I think it makes UNRWA's page a little cumbersome, what do you think? What do you say about me creating a special page for the report, i.e. Lindsay report or something to that nature, or is it best to leave it as is? BTW, Thanks for all the wiki tips. Nik Sage (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont think that material needs to be given such in-depth coverage at the UNRWA page, it is a single person's opinion about a very large organization. If there are enough third-party sources covering the report an article on it would be fine, but you cant write an article on the report and use the report itself as the source. You need to get secondary sources actually covering the report. nableezy - 17:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Leave and learn. I'll start digging in the web. Nik Sage (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Is criticizm from inside UNRWA of the report, is considered as a secondary soure that covers the report? Nik Sage (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it wouldn't be a third party source so it wouldnt demonstrate notability of the topic. nableezy - 15:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, and based on the discussion in this AE thread, you are hereby admonished for personal attacks and ad hominem comments and are prohibited from commenting on or interacting with Jaakobou (talk · contribs), Gilabrand (talk · contribs) and Cptnono (talk · contribs) anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Please see WP:IBAN for the complete scope of the interaction ban. If you believe that any of those editors named above has violated their ban from interacting with you, you may not react to that alleged violation except by the procedure specified in the AE thread above. T. Canens (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry Nableezy, I was attempting to revert the changes made without discussion. Surely you it is wrong to move a page without discussion? Or am I wrong?--Seric2 (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Your right and I'm still sorry. I have no idea what I was thinking, thank you for pointing it out to me Seric2 (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Gatoclass (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I actually dont think I am allowed to comment on that. What I would like to request though is that it be clarified if third parties can post enforcement of these bans, or if it is restricted to the involved parties. Can two people mutually agree to ignore an interaction ban? Id favor that approach over an appeal. nableezy - 06:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

But to provide my thoughts on an "interaction ban" in general, I suppose it could be useful in certain cases, such as a users repeatedly hounding each other to make disputes, but that isnt what happened here. I said things I probably shouldnt have, so have others. But instead of making up these "interaction bans" in the hopes of making us behave better, you all could just use the already existing tools to make us behave better, ie blocks. If you want to create a more civil topic area, block people for incivility. Even if being uncivil is not a blockable offense, ARBPIA says you can make pretty much anything a blockable offense. So if you want us to behave with greater collegiality, feigned or otherwise, enforce a civility patrol or whatever you people call these things. If I were an "uninvolved admin" and I were looking at this and had the same intentions that the uninvolved admins here have I would do the following. Say that except for actually filing an enforcement request, the named editors are prohibited from commenting about the other editors. That isnt to say that they cannot interact with one another, they just cannot discuss each other. Discussions have to be about content and resolving disputes about the content. Legitimate disputes about content could still be raised in talk pages, and edits to articles can be made without looking to see who initially placed the material in the article. You dont solve anything by stopping us from talking to each other, you do the opposite. I am unable to respond to a comment made by an editor in a discussion about content that I am involved in. I have to instead pretend to be responding to some other person who either agrees or disagrees with the point, or in some cases isnt even discussing it. That strikes me as an absurd "solution" to any problem. nableezy - 07:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop you from commenting on an appeal that concerns you. I can't see anyone sanctioning you for that. Gatoclass (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont know, I asked Tim if I should file a separate appeal or just add to that one the response was that I should file a separate one. nableezy - 14:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it's up to you, I've said my piece on the Cptnono appeal now anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing stops you from commenting there. If you want to appeal your part of the ban rather than just commenting on that appeal, then you should file a separate appeal. T. Canens (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Tim, you are a smart person. This doesnt seem to you to be an incredibly silly way to accomplish the supposed goal of these interaction bans? What do you think will be solved by saying we cannot interact with each other? A topic area with greater civility, and thus more hospitable to new users? Better content dispute resolution? What if both he who cannot be named and I agreed to interact with each other in a courteous, respectful manner. And if we didnt we would be blocked for escalating lengths of time. Do you not think that would satisfy the goals of this interaction ban, as well as allowing for legitimate content discussions to be carried out? But one last thing. I was given an interaction ban with a user who called me a "disgrace to Misplaced Pages". Besides that person not liking me, why was I given any type of ban for that? What have I done to deserve such a ban? Why wasnt that user just blocked for a personal attack, an attack that was neither provoked nor returned. nableezy - 16:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and on your talk page you answered an either/or question with "yes". nableezy - 16:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly okay to answer "am I ... or does it ...?" with "you are", if that is what you are referring to. T. Canens (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

One sided interaction bans often turn out to be disastrous, and in this particular case I don't want to take chances. It is hard for us to police every single discussion you and Cptnono may have, and as to civility (courtesy, whatever) paroles, I'll just quote Coren - "We have a long history of civility paroles to have been able to determine without a doubt that they just do not work." (See here). You may notice that I proposed replacing this set of bans with a different sanction in my most recent comment at Cptnono's appeal. T. Canens (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

ok. I think that restriction would be fine. But also consider adding a restriction on some of the parties involved from commenting on AE threads that do not concern them. nableezy - 01:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

AE--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you stand it?

Quite frankly I don't understand how you keep level headed when having to deal with a bunch of slimy, hypocritical, scheming, thugs on a daily basis (I am not, of course, talking about Wiki editors here as I am obliged to "assume good faith" and observe standards of civility) Prunesqualer (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Level headed" is not a description that is often applied to me. nableezy - 17:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

Per this AE thread, and under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, you are hereby topic banned from all articles, discussions, and other content within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, for four months. You may appeal this topic ban by the procedure provided for in WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions. T. Canens (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)