Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:25, 12 April 2010

Template:Archive box collapsible

thanks

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

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

al-Muizz

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

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

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

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

Re: Mount Peres

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

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

April 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qalunya

Hi Nab; I see that an Arabic wp version has been linked to Qalunya, and it has some new (and old) photos uploaded on that page. They don´t seem to be over at commons? ..I would love to see them there, if possible. Could you help me? (Hope you understand Arabic: I don´t even know the letters...) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ill check to see which ones can be moved to commons. nableezy - 20:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Any of them in particular or try to get all of them? nableezy - 20:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As many as possible! I´ll make a commonscat..Huldra (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Qalunya

All right, most of those images should qualify as PD but I need to check to see what has to be done to actually move them. nableezy - 21:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. There is no hurry; there is already a picture in the article for now. I hope to expand it later, and then it would be very nice to have. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

SPI report result

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sickest man, my meaning and yours. For the sake of fuck, get well soon. nableezy - 15:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Your userpage

Well, the discussion appears to have been terminated. So I guess the page stands. I do not believe this needs a WP:MFD, and while I can understand others being unhappy with it, I think it needs to be let be. Dlohcierekim 21:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I really dont see how anybody could find a problem with supporting the right to resist against aggression or occupation. If anything people should be complaining about the portion of a song on the page. nableezy - 22:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I do take offense to the lyrics of that song. But it would be much more difficult to get uninvolved people to notice and understand the violent undertones of those Arabic lyrics than it is to notice an English commentary. If admins decided to make you remove the violent lyrics (or you yourself did the right thing), I would be happy. But is it worth it for me to start a fight to try to censor someone who I think supports something disgusting and inhuman? Not really. That's not why I'm on Misplaced Pages. Breein1007 (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to provide a translation for anybody who asks. Nobody has yet. You may think whatever you like about me, that doesnt really bother me. nableezy - 00:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

See my comment on Dreadstar's talk in response to his comment on my talk about my comment here. Apparently, others feel as strongly about the soapboxing they perceive on your userpage as you feel about the need to have it. As a neutral observer, I think it's a hair short of "too far." I think it would be better if you could find a way to dial it down a notch or two. I'm not trying to pick a fight here. I do understand where you are coming from, but I honestly believe it's causing anger and resentment-- which you cannot understand it causing-- that could be avoided. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What would you have me tone down? That userbox is the only thing on the page that is my own personal opinion. nableezy - 22:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you're going to make every possible user happy. You might want to remove the Userbox and the three quoted paragraphs. That they are not your words are exactly the point. They serve to inform other users about you-- the purpose of a user page, oh yes. But they go beyond that. They give the appearance of using your userpage as a WP:SOAPBOXto "resist against aggression or occupation." That is probably how people see it as being divisive and soapy. The WP:AN/I discussion is reopened. Dlohcierekim 22:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:UP specifically allows for favorite quotes (at least it did, cant find that line now). And if somebody can explain why supporting the right to "resist against aggression or occupation" is "divisive" I might be inclined to remove it. But until somebody can say that being opposed to a war crime is divisive and say why that is so I wont. nableezy - 22:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nab, I know you've probably been waiting for me to weigh in here, sorry for the delay... In seriousness, aside from any SOAP or offensiveness concerns, I would make a different argument. Looking at your userpage, and knowing nothing else about you, I would assume you were a rigid POV warrior who would never compromise, and that you were using WP merely to further your political beliefs. My own actual experience of you, however, is quite different. (Well, somewhat different.) I don't see userpages as having really any utility whatever, but if they did, and if I had one, I think I'd use it to make clear to other people I am here to collaborate, not dominate. Yours may give the wrong impression. IronDuke 23:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Finally, I no longer must hold my breath waiting to be graced by your presence. I realize what my userpage shows about my views, but I dont think it says anything about my editing. If somebody wants to make those assumptions about me they are free to do so, but what I write on my userpage is not indicative of what I write in the mainspace. But for the userbox specifically, could you please explain what in it is "objectionable"? I realize the colors may draw some implications, but even then I dont see it as any worse than a userbox saying somebody supports Yisrael Beiteinu or Shas. nableezy - 23:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Well, first off, I'd cheerfully disallow all political userboxes, unless they indicated some sort of personal expertise. Why do I care or need to know if someone supports Shas? Secondly, one of the reasons often given in support of userboxes is "Now we'll know their POV and be able to act accordingly." In essence, an excuse to ignore AGF. Is that how you want to be treated? Finally, you link to the Hizbollah discussion as you indicate a (presumably conditional) support of violence action. Surely you can see, even if you did not mean to give offense, that a reasonable person (an Israeli who had lost someone to a Hizbollah attack, a Lebanese who felt her country was no longer her own) could feel offended by that? IronDuke 23:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose. Would you like me to remove the link to the ANI archive? nableezy - 23:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It'd be a good start, sure. Maybe change the color to something a little less evocative, too? IronDuke 23:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont think the alternative would be any more popular. nableezy - 00:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Give it a shot. What would it hurt? IronDuke 01:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I didnt tell you what the alternative was. I dont plan on doing anything with this right now, though Ill kick some ideas around and see if I can figure out how to code an alternative that I would find acceptable, forget what yall think is acceptable. But this whole thing has been highly entertaining; an admin saying truly inane things like comparing others to Neville Chamberlain for appeasing the Nazis, which I suppose means me. I have a soft spot for dumb shit, and I think this whole thing qualifies. nableezy - 01:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was ignoring that and hoping for something anodyne. AS for "yall," well, I'm not talking about unacceptable, I'm just making a suggestion. It isn't meant as a pile-on, or even a criticism. Sorry if it came off that way. IronDuke 01:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It didnt. But you see this shit? Muthafuckas. Somebody on digg had the greatest comment, something about Camel introducing a new Camel Kosher Blend. nableezy - 01:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been free-basing bacon for years. Glad to see it's catching on. IronDuke 01:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Are Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas paramilitary organizations deemed by much of the civilized world as terrorists... whose ideology calls for the obliteration of another state by force... like Hizbullah? Honestly I don't know why I'm even letting myself get tangled in this waste of time. You and I both know that I won't change your mind, so sorry... I'll just be leaving now. Breein1007 (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

6 countries is not "much of the civilized world". But bye, and feel welcome if you would like to waste more of your time. nableezy - 23:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This is too funny. Nableezy put that userbox there specifically to annoy another user. He said so himself. That userbox was created specifically to annoy other users, it even explains why in the text. There's no question about it being divisive, it's divisive on purpose. Both the userbox and the page. The only question left is is it ok to have deliberately divisive stuff on your userpage, and apparently the answer is yes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed funny. Made only more so by your misconceptions. I had that userbox on my userpage a long time ago, in fact it is still on a subpage that I had transcluded on the user page. You wouldnt be able to see this, I have since deleted my userpage, but a sysop would be able to see that I had that on my userpage years ago. And asserting that it is "clearly divisive" does not make it so. Tell me, do you support war crimes? Is it divisive to say that I dont? nableezy - 23:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

While I'm sure you feel really clever with this "war crimes" thing, the userbox itself is pretty clear about its being in support of Hizbollah.

Are you saying you didn't add it to your page recently because a user (I believe it was cptnono) brought it up in a discussion about one of your wikifriends? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I am not saying that. After seeing another user harassed over this box I put it up here on this talk page. I later took it down. Later, that same user reminded me in a not so subtle way that he is "watching me" so I thought Id give him something to look at and put it up on the userpage. And even if I were to say that I support Hizbullah's right to resist against a war crime that would be objectionable how? The userbox does not say that it supports any action carried out under the banner of resistance against such crimes, but it does say that there is a right to resist against those crimes. It does not say that indiscriminate attacks on civilians fall under that right. The implications that you make from this is similar to me saying that a user saying they support the right of Israel to defend itself is equivalent to that user saying they support barbarous acts of raping and murdering unarmed civilians. Pay attention, because this is important; the way I think is not that simple. nableezy - 00:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

To help you understand a bit clearer, the issues is not about your right to support the right to "resist against aggression or occupation" but rather that you support the 'right' to violently "resist against aggression or occupation" and then you claim that it can mean all people (though you refer to Hezbollah). And since you edit mainly in the I-P conflict, it would seem you support violence from both sides - Palestinians resisting Israelis and Israelis resisting Palestinians. --Shuki (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Trust me on this, I dont need any help. Yes, I support the right to violently resist against aggression or occupation. And yes, if Israel were to be occupied by a foreign power or be the subject of aggression I would say Israel has a right to violently resist against such actions. That isnt the case though, so the equivalence that you are drawing is inaccurate. nableezy - 00:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Shuki, this is complicated stuff. Generally, he supports everyone's right to violently resist aggression. Specifically, he supports Hizbollah doing it but not Israel doing it. Israel is always the aggressor. Pretty complex, eh? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that. nableezy - 12:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

<- Middle East Small Talks To Focus On Getting Israel, Palestine To Discuss Weather Sean.hoyland - talk 11:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

About something on your userpage which has nothing to do with diplomacy or its absence

...so are you a fellow Chicagoan? GJC 04:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For life. nableezy - 04:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. An old college roomie repeatedly asks me, from her perch in Los Angeles, "why on earth do you people stay there with all that snow and ice and rain and wind and everything??" Well, aside from the pleasant fact that our homes are HIGHLY unlikely to fall into the sea, there's also a stunning lack of Famous People to annoy us in line at the Starbucks or disrupt our streets by crossing them. (Well, I mean, there is Oprah...but she only closes down major thoroughfares on special occasions.) Anyhow....hello, neighbor! GJC 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

But it does get cold as fuck. I remember as a shorty there were three straight days where it was -70 or below with the wind chill. Still, I like a place that isnt confused about what season it is, when its football season you know by weather, same with basketball and baseball. nableezy - 18:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're thinking of that hypothermic nightmare in Jan 1994 (or even the one in Dec 1983) I'm going to go slink off into a corner and be old for a while. If you're thinking of anything before, say, 1970 or so, then I'll continue to pretend I'm a young whippersnapper instead of nearly-40. Regardless of WHICH cold snap you're referring to, I think I'll just be grateful for central heating and the eventuality of Spring--well, except for last year, which was just odd. GJC 18:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

94, sorry. I wasn't that young; I knew enough to understand that the three days off in the winter meant three more days of school in the summer. A few years ago in Cairo it got down to the high 30s, and nobody there has heating. Many more years back I was in Alexandria in the winter and the weather was in the high 50s. I took a nap in shorts and a t-shirt, I woke up sweating as my grandmother had piled on top of me three comforters thinking that I was freezing. nableezy - 18:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The first point of the second star represents the virtues of religion. Clear WP:SOAP violation. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the points on all the stars represent the egregious ways in which Da Mare has butchered the innocent English language. Clear violation of WP:SHUTUPRICHIE. GJC 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

An Attempt at Resolution

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

If you don't apologize

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your Signature

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

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

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

current

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

no background

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

background set in the small tag

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

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

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

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

Bir Salim

Bir Salim does not have any picture...however, I noticed that the Pal.rem site (link in the article) had several old ones (of orange-groves), from the Matson-collection. And that makes sense, as Khalidi, p370 writes that general Allenby had a military headquarter in the village after WWI...and Matson/American Colony usually photographed things of British/American interest.

Now, my question is, can we take the old pictures directly from the Pal.rem-site? I think it was done for one of the Dayr al-Shaykh-pictures, which was then nominated for deletion, but kept. See here.

Anyway, I am not that strong on these technical issues...can I leave this job to you? I really love seeing pictures in articles, hint, hint! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ill take a look, but work is kinda crazy until Wednesday. But Ill see what I can do, and I havent forgotten about Qalunya. nableezy - 03:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! There is no hurry; I don´t think I will get around to expanding Bir Salim any time soon, I´m afraid, cheers, Huldra (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Drork

My talk page is off your limits. You may not leave messages there, let alone threats. You mafia-like behavior is not appreciated, at least not by me. DrorK (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

ok, your life, but one more time and I will be asking that you be topic-banned. Every single edit you have made since coming back has been a personal attack. Including the above. I dont really care what you say here, and if you even made an effort to try to address the content I wouldnt mind the attacks as much, but you have done nothing but that since you came back. Grow the fuck up. nableezy - 17:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)