Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nableezy (talk | contribs) at 18:04, 15 October 2021 (→1RR x 17). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

October 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Category:Israeli_regional_councils_in_the_West_Bank&diff=1048539646&oldid=1048539550 (adding ] to Category:Israeli regional councils in the West Bank), did not appear to be constructive. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. TerraCyprus (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Cute. nableezy - 15:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm TerraCyprus. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to User talk:TerraCyprus. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Misplaced Pages strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. TerraCyprus (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Even cuter. nableezy - 15:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Reversion crossed with your edit

Sorry, my reversion crossed with your edit. But as I wrote, this is for Nishidani to decide, in particular whether he wants to add the off topic aside in the first place now that it comes up. Sesquivalent (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You can assume he wants something he wrote posted on the talk page. If you have a problem with where he put it, and oh by the way thats a result of you reindenting each part of your comment so that it looks like a new one, then move it. nableezy - 14:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not object to one user splitting another's comments at a natural breaking point, as was the case here, when that keeps the discussion more focused. Here the content of the acceptably placed insertion had the opposite effect, sidetracking the discussion by using another's comments as nothing but a stage for off topic asides. My edit summary for the revert reflected this distinction. It's not clear to me why you had to intervene rather than seeing if Nish would take the message, or for that matter why you are policing the meta and metameta aspects of the thread on his behalf (with no contribution to the object level edit discussion on the article) but it's water under the bridge at this point. Sesquivalent (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

What you think is off-topic is a personal opinion, and one you may not enforce on others. Read WP:TPO, especially the Your idea of what is off topic may differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution. Kindly do not remove others comments. Thanks in advance. I also am addressing the actual topic on the page, that being a user thinking they are qualified to challenge a reliable source with ruminations that might be described in any number of ways, but Ill go with not in keeping with our policies on reliable sources and verifiability. You challenged a source, were given a quote, and continued challenging it as though you were a qualified reliable source. Hint, you are not. As far as why you removed it, thats cute, but what you said was not that, what you said was it should not be inserted while splitting. It isnt splitting anything, and then you remove it again. Huh. At least you thought better of doing that again, cus hint, the talk page is covered by the 1RR too. nableezy - 20:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Look, serious wiki editing is painstaking. I could reply infinitely on an infinite number of small points in any thread. I generally shut up, and try to stick strictly to the gravamen. That remark directly under your remark was just a reminder of a broader context few know about. If you indented separately a double post and I interleaved it to your dissatisfaction, the simple thing was to shift it under the second, without even notifying me. Solved. No working other editor's workpages, sensible, quick, efficient, so people can be focused on what counts. (To me it counts in a discussion on Israeli Arab education in the 60s, the comparative figures to note what we only learnt a few months back: that Israel appears to have thought undereducated Arabs were a net plus). That's it. No thread on this please.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

My interest in discussion decreases exponentially in the number of meta levels. But your comment on the edit summary is pretty interesting, since I am not personally aware of a level of pedantry and hermeneutics sufficient to differentiate the statements. My above explanation of my position, and the first sentence of the edit summary, both parse to the proposition "NOT (split AND OffTopicAside)". The second sentence of the edit summary says "IF (OffTopicAside) then NOT (split)", in grammatical English. All three statements are logically equivalent, unless you are somehow parsing these finer than a truth table. I think this is the first time in my long experience on the Internet in which it actually became necessary to parse down to explicit propositional logic to explain something, and the first time somebody is so determined to invent a distinction that ordinary logic becomes insufficient. (Or you could just be wrong.) Sesquivalent (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Uh, your edit summary very clearly says that if it did not split your comment then it would not be removed. So I made it so that it did not split your comment. Other than that, I really dont have a whole lot of interest in pretty much anything else written here. nableezy - 15:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Sure giving Barnstar of Diplomacy may be considered ironic by some, but I wanted to thank you for your contribution in the Talk:Israel for representing those who do not even have an Internet access at times. LostCitrationHunter (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Well this is certainly the least deserved barnstar in Misplaced Pages history, but I appreciate the sentiment. nableezy - 15:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy would merit several barnstars, but a barnstar for 'diplomacy' comes close to defamation of character.:) Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If you count the act of deleting a comment before pressing save page as it would violate any number of policies then maybe I qualify? nableezy - 15:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Ya got me by the short and curlies there. That's stealth diplomacy by an unsung hero indeed. There's shuttle diplomacy but I think you'll have to settle for the barnstar of (self-) shut up diplomacy.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Broken 1RR

You restored Selfstudier bit about illegality of settlements please revert yourself--Shrike (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

No I did not. Selfstudier added material to the lead. I added it to the body. Pay attention, you removed it from the body, and falsely claimed it was added to the lead. And refused to justify your initial removal to begin with. You should be sanctioned for serial tendentious editing. nableezy - 18:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter where you added the text. I also already explained on talk page before that its WP:UNDUE. --Shrike (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

No you did not, and yes it does matter. The material I initially added was not a revert. And if you want to take it to AE I would love to ask that the abuse of ONUS be looked at and editors who continuously edit tendentiously, such as your good self, be banned from the topic area. nableezy - 18:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You're tangentially involved in an ANI discussion

I wanted to notify you that you're tangentially involved in an issue I've raised at ANI in this discussion. Thanks! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

E1

Currently E1 (Jerusalem) with a bunch of redirects.

You had some conversation back in 2013, it's not in Jerusalem, or even East Jerusalem, should be E1 (West Bank)?(It's most often referred to as just E1 (need disambiguation) or E1 plan)? Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Made a move request. nableezy - 14:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Would you say that "fellow traveler" is a commonly used expression? (US spelling) Selfstudier (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Not especially common or uncommon Id say. nableezy - 15:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

1RR x 17

You broke the 1RR ARBPIA restriction in 17 or so articles in the past hour. Please self revert. Free1Soul (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Um, I reverted you and only you. Once. nableezy - 17:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

But of course, if you can tell me which edits I reverted in my initial edits, Id be happy to self-revert. But as far as I am aware, those are all edits, not reverts. nableezy - 17:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

In each article you made two reverts, the first being of the editor(s) who added the map to begin with and the second being my challenge of your change. Removing a map undos the action of the editor who added the map - it is a revert, not just an edit. Self revert. Free1Soul (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

No I dont believe that to be true, modifying an edit from years ago has never been taken as a revert, and in several cases the map was added by an IP who was disallowed from doing so in the first place. Can you point to any edit I reverted in my initial edit? If you want to report it feel free, but I will certainly be raising the blatant WP:HOUNDING done by you. nableezy - 17:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ill self revert for now, but will be raising this elsewhere. nableezy - 17:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Well maybe case by case, will look to see if I can even find an edit that needs to be reverted. nableezy - 17:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Have not found a single article where a map was added within the last year, making all of those edits. If any admin says those are reverts I will gladly self-revert. But reverting due to an editor hounding me across a range of articles is not one of the things I plan on doing. nableezy - 18:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)