Sean.hoyland (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
:Follow-up: I have simply unarchived the last discussion at ANI. [[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 18:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC) |
:Follow-up: I have simply unarchived the last discussion at ANI. [[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 19:02, 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.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk: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, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.208.207.15&diff=397629238 fuck off]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 00:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
|||
==Ledenierhomme ?== |
==Ledenierhomme ?== |
Revision as of 00:55, 20 November 2010
Template:Archive box collapsible
Here I am
So? IronDuke 21:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- You tell me, what exactly should I do? I cant even put a fucking tag on an article without certain editors repeatedly removing it? I spend a substantial amount of time and effort trying to detail specific problems with an article, and some <redacted> is free to just say "no youre wrong and you are not allowed to even say there is a dispute"? What should my reaction to this be? How would ID's ideal world with no AE complaints and no acrimony between users deal with such a situation? Seriously, I cant even put a tag on an article? A tag that wasnt even removed by the author of the article while we are discussing it? nableezy - 21:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Look, I'm not saying it's not frustrating. But running to the cops every time there's even the teeniest dispute does not help. Obviously, that's a message for you and the people who are bringing you and maybe others to AE. And I'm not saying there can't be acrimony. There can, although ideally it's kept to a minimum. For example, when G-Dett was on her game, she could devastate an adversary without stepping over the CIV line (though she did of course step well over it from time to time as well). I'm not saying there have to be exchanges of wikihugs on every article. There can be passion and even raised voices. But it has to be about the best facts (or groups of competing facts) winning out. Not "Ooh, you aren't allowed to edit on Tuesdays, caught you! Banhammer!" I'm not trying to suggest this is an easy process, but everyone -- everyone -- is going to lose if you guys kept trying to resolve content disputes with creaky, inefficient, maddeningly arbitrary wiki legal procedures. IronDuke 22:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well said! ← ZScarpia 11:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- All right, fine, lets say I accept everything you wrote. What should I do in this specific situation? nableezy - 22:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- You alone? Nothing. It's no good you putting down your weapons if others won't, you'll run the risk of being driven off. But maybe if you agreed to stop going to AE, and convinced those who respect you to stop as well, I could convince some who may (or may not, who knows?) respect me to stop as well. IronDuke 22:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Forget AE. With the tags on that specific article, what should I do? nableezy - 22:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- First off, and no disrespect meant, I don't give a foetid pair of dingo's kidneys whether that article is tagged or not. You guys can beat on each other all you want on the talk page of that article. But FFS, it's up for deletion already, isn't it? Can't you just let that play out? And what if you lost this one? What of the tag just couldn't stick? Well, TFB, right? We all win some, we all lose some. It still sticks in my craw that the excresence of an article re Israel and the Apartheid analogy exists. Unfortunately, a very skilled, sophisticated user gamed that into existence, and now it can never be deleted. I lose. Oh well. IronDuke 22:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Id like to discuss that article with you, but another time (actually, I think we did this once upon a time). I dont see how the AfD affects the OR tag, that entire article is OR. If I were to attempt to correct the OR issues they would be reverted. If I attempt to alert readers to the OR issues that is reverted. Assuming that I do care about that article, what should I do? A certain editor comes, and without giving any substantive response to the issues I raised reverts the tag twice in 5 minutes. What exactly should I do at that point? You are giving me a lot of abstract advice, but Id like to focus on this specific issue. Lets say I dont go to AE, what should I do at that point? nableezy - 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if the article is deleted, there's no need to tag it, right? I took a quick look at the talk page, and you are currently !outvoted. So what do you do? Talk more. Start an RfC. Are these awesome, wonderful options? No. Because Wikipedia is an incredibly frustrating place. But putting a tag on an article is not a consolation prize for being unable to achieve consensus for having it the way you want it. I don't say that with a superior tone -- I have been in your shoes. IronDuke 00:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Talk more? I dont know if I can. Stupid shit pisses me off, not much I can do about that now. Too old to change. New subsection for another topic. nableezy - 02:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, so if you don't want to talk, stop talking. Just leave it. Simple, no? IronDuke 00:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Talk more? I dont know if I can. Stupid shit pisses me off, not much I can do about that now. Too old to change. New subsection for another topic. nableezy - 02:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if the article is deleted, there's no need to tag it, right? I took a quick look at the talk page, and you are currently !outvoted. So what do you do? Talk more. Start an RfC. Are these awesome, wonderful options? No. Because Wikipedia is an incredibly frustrating place. But putting a tag on an article is not a consolation prize for being unable to achieve consensus for having it the way you want it. I don't say that with a superior tone -- I have been in your shoes. IronDuke 00:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Id like to discuss that article with you, but another time (actually, I think we did this once upon a time). I dont see how the AfD affects the OR tag, that entire article is OR. If I were to attempt to correct the OR issues they would be reverted. If I attempt to alert readers to the OR issues that is reverted. Assuming that I do care about that article, what should I do? A certain editor comes, and without giving any substantive response to the issues I raised reverts the tag twice in 5 minutes. What exactly should I do at that point? You are giving me a lot of abstract advice, but Id like to focus on this specific issue. Lets say I dont go to AE, what should I do at that point? nableezy - 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- First off, and no disrespect meant, I don't give a foetid pair of dingo's kidneys whether that article is tagged or not. You guys can beat on each other all you want on the talk page of that article. But FFS, it's up for deletion already, isn't it? Can't you just let that play out? And what if you lost this one? What of the tag just couldn't stick? Well, TFB, right? We all win some, we all lose some. It still sticks in my craw that the excresence of an article re Israel and the Apartheid analogy exists. Unfortunately, a very skilled, sophisticated user gamed that into existence, and now it can never be deleted. I lose. Oh well. IronDuke 22:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Forget AE. With the tags on that specific article, what should I do? nableezy - 22:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- You alone? Nothing. It's no good you putting down your weapons if others won't, you'll run the risk of being driven off. But maybe if you agreed to stop going to AE, and convinced those who respect you to stop as well, I could convince some who may (or may not, who knows?) respect me to stop as well. IronDuke 22:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Look, I'm not saying it's not frustrating. But running to the cops every time there's even the teeniest dispute does not help. Obviously, that's a message for you and the people who are bringing you and maybe others to AE. And I'm not saying there can't be acrimony. There can, although ideally it's kept to a minimum. For example, when G-Dett was on her game, she could devastate an adversary without stepping over the CIV line (though she did of course step well over it from time to time as well). I'm not saying there have to be exchanges of wikihugs on every article. There can be passion and even raised voices. But it has to be about the best facts (or groups of competing facts) winning out. Not "Ooh, you aren't allowed to edit on Tuesdays, caught you! Banhammer!" I'm not trying to suggest this is an easy process, but everyone -- everyone -- is going to lose if you guys kept trying to resolve content disputes with creaky, inefficient, maddeningly arbitrary wiki legal procedures. IronDuke 22:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I-A
What about the Israel and the apartheid analogy article bothers you so much? I have my own problems with the article, but not with its existence. Why is it that you feel that such a topic should not exist as an article on Wikipedia? nableezy - 02:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- The versions I have seen have been nakedly anti-Israel -- and so much OR you could build your own little partisan university around it. You want to slap an OR tag on it, you'd get appluase from me. And no serious encyclopedia would ever, ever have such a subject. IronDuke 00:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think the article has been used to include every quote of somebody making that analogy or denying it. I dont think that is what the article should be, but there should certainly be coverage of that viewpoint. But the article on the actual analogy should be based on sources discussing the analogy, not ones using it. You do that you cut out half of the article. But sources that actually cover the analogy are out there, on both sides of the issue. The sources using the analogy should be used in the articles on the topics they say show that Israel practices apartheid. nableezy - 01:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do I hear you volunteering to cut out half the article? Particularly the parts where it becomes a South African history lesson? (Full disclosure: haven't read the article in a long, long time. I may misremember.) 22:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)IronDuke
- Do I hear you agreeing that if the article were based on sources actually covering the analogy as a topic that it should remain as an article? But no, I aint walking into that clusterfuck. I could make some comments on the talk page about what I think about how the article should be written, but I aint trying to edit war with both "sides" here. nableezy - 22:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- You don't, actually. Israel and the Nazi analogy could have many, many sources. But I'm not interested in seeing something like that in an encyclopedia; no reasonable person would, even if it were merely to debunk the notion. IronDuke 04:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- But could it have many quality sources actually discussing such an analogy, not just ones, quality or otherwise, making it? I think that is the difference here, this article could be written entirely from sources discussing the use of this analogy and not including a single source that just makes it. nableezy - 16:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- I generally stay away from that article, but if you make that edit, I will support you. IronDuke 02:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- But could it have many quality sources actually discussing such an analogy, not just ones, quality or otherwise, making it? I think that is the difference here, this article could be written entirely from sources discussing the use of this analogy and not including a single source that just makes it. nableezy - 16:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- You don't, actually. Israel and the Nazi analogy could have many, many sources. But I'm not interested in seeing something like that in an encyclopedia; no reasonable person would, even if it were merely to debunk the notion. IronDuke 04:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do I hear you agreeing that if the article were based on sources actually covering the analogy as a topic that it should remain as an article? But no, I aint walking into that clusterfuck. I could make some comments on the talk page about what I think about how the article should be written, but I aint trying to edit war with both "sides" here. nableezy - 22:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do I hear you volunteering to cut out half the article? Particularly the parts where it becomes a South African history lesson? (Full disclosure: haven't read the article in a long, long time. I may misremember.) 22:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)IronDuke
- I think the article has been used to include every quote of somebody making that analogy or denying it. I dont think that is what the article should be, but there should certainly be coverage of that viewpoint. But the article on the actual analogy should be based on sources discussing the analogy, not ones using it. You do that you cut out half of the article. But sources that actually cover the analogy are out there, on both sides of the issue. The sources using the analogy should be used in the articles on the topics they say show that Israel practices apartheid. nableezy - 01:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
AE
You two have left me with little choice - [1].
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 02:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, that made my day. nableezy - 03:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Blocked 3 hrs for your response to Wookieinheat
You knew it was going too far, you said so when you said it... That's always a "stop what you're doing, go get an uninvolved administrator instead" moment. You chose to go forwards under the circumstances.
You were clearly baited - and Wookieinheat is blocked for 48 hrs for that stunt - but you also crossed the line. Being baited does not give you a free pass in how you respond.
You are blocked from editing for 3 hrs. Next time, please come get an admin at that point instead of getting yourself in trouble. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- seems about right. nableezy - 22:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Brewcrewer quote on your user page
Hi Nableezy, I've removed the Brewcrewer quote from your user page as it's uncollegial. PhilKnight (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hello Phil. I was unaware I was required to be collegial. But could you please tell me what is uncollegial about including that quote? Is it the inclusion of the (sic) following a misspelling? If so I can correct brew's spelling in the quotation. But I would like to include that quote as it is representative of the bullshit that editors regularly deal with in the topic area. Could you imagine that in a dispute about where a place is an editor would say what the sources say about where that place is is an "irrelevant straw man"? I found it unimaginable and verging on being hilarious, so I would like to include it. So, could you please tell me what is uncollegial about including the quote and further why collegiality is a requirement for what appears on a userpage? The inclusion is not a personal attack, it is not uncivil, it does not violate anything in WP:USERPAGE. It is simply showing, accurately, the views of an editor. Why would that not be allowed? nableezy - 16:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've opened a discussion on ANI about my action. PhilKnight (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- I really wish you hadnt done that. All that will happen is that uninvolved users will be drowned out by familiar faces making predictable positions. nableezy - 18:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've opened a discussion on ANI about my action. PhilKnight (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Prior accounts
Excuse me? OmarKhayyam (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- It was a simple question, not much for you to be confused about. But let's try this. Have you used the accounts Ledenierhomme (talk · contribs), AzadZardost (talk · contribs), and InternetIsSeriousBusiness (talk · contribs)? nableezy - 16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- And how incredibly interesting is it that you randomly show up at an obscure article shortly after I edit it. Its like you havent realized a simple point, if you dont want me to report you for socking stop annoying me. Lets see how long until you piss me off to the point that I feel obliged to start a new report at SPI. nableezy - 16:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sweetheart, I edited that article AFTER you commented on my Talk page. Looking over your history, let me give you some advice: you're losing it. Time to devote your life to something that doesn't drive you completely crazy methinks. Kisses. OmarKhayyam (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I know you edited the article after I commented on your talk page. My point however was that it was interesting that the first thing you do after that is going through my contributions to edit an article that I had just edited. I found that very interesting. Would you care to answer my question? Have you used the accounts Ledenierhomme (talk · contribs), AzadZardost (talk · contribs), and InternetIsSeriousBusiness (talk · contribs)? Or do I need to spend the time filing an SPI to get an answer? nableezy - 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nableezy, you have many fans who are scrutinizing each dotted i and crossed t you make and simply many, many people are watching your user contributions. Look at Sol, for such a new editor, it's incredible for him to be at so many new places, but he is not being accused of being a sock every Monday and Thursday. --Shuki (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, look at Sol, and look at what a friend of yours, one who has complained of my asking this question of others, wrote to him on his talk page. Shuki, do you know how many times I have asked this question of other editors? Would you care to hazard a guess as to how many times I was wrong? nableezy - 22:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Super Computer in my Lair of Evil told me my name had been mentioned. There's a quote from noted street poet, ghetto philosopher and sometimes dog show commentator Ice-T that I think speaks to this situation: "This goes out to all you haters out there/Actin like a brother done did somethin wrong/Cause he got his game tight/Dont hate the player, hate the game." Truly, these are pearls of wisdom. Sol (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll hazard a guess: many. No I have not used the accounts Ledenierhomme (talk · contribs) or AzadZardost (talk · contribs). I guess you just must bring out the obsessive compulsiveness in people. You can take some comfort in the fact that at least somewhere, someone - even if it is on the internet - is thinking about you. It's all you baby. Love you! OmarKhayyam (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- All right, SPI it is. Guess we will see if I am wrong. Ill be sure to notify you when the investigation page is created. Bye. nableezy - 22:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- And with this edit you have now pissed me off enough for me to write up the SPI. Ill get to that now. nableezy - 00:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- And whaddya know. nableezy - 00:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll hazard a guess: many. No I have not used the accounts Ledenierhomme (talk · contribs) or AzadZardost (talk · contribs). I guess you just must bring out the obsessive compulsiveness in people. You can take some comfort in the fact that at least somewhere, someone - even if it is on the internet - is thinking about you. It's all you baby. Love you! OmarKhayyam (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nableezy, you have many fans who are scrutinizing each dotted i and crossed t you make and simply many, many people are watching your user contributions. Look at Sol, for such a new editor, it's incredible for him to be at so many new places, but he is not being accused of being a sock every Monday and Thursday. --Shuki (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I know you edited the article after I commented on your talk page. My point however was that it was interesting that the first thing you do after that is going through my contributions to edit an article that I had just edited. I found that very interesting. Would you care to answer my question? Have you used the accounts Ledenierhomme (talk · contribs), AzadZardost (talk · contribs), and InternetIsSeriousBusiness (talk · contribs)? Or do I need to spend the time filing an SPI to get an answer? nableezy - 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sweetheart, I edited that article AFTER you commented on my Talk page. Looking over your history, let me give you some advice: you're losing it. Time to devote your life to something that doesn't drive you completely crazy methinks. Kisses. OmarKhayyam (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
2things
1. Do you have Ziondar or something to sniff out articles and make sure they fit the "correct" view?
2. Per 6D, is it not acceptable as is, if qualification is added (not that people cant click the link and see what it is, but thats a separate issue)? --Metallurgist (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Information
I permit myself to bring your attention about the edits of user:Marokwitz (16 november) who is removing the name 1948 Palestine war from all the articles of wikipedia. What can be done ? Noisetier (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- At some time there are up to 6 modifications per minute. He used a bot to perform this. Is this permitted on wikipedia ? Noisetier (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I wonder why you are slandering me across many user pages without contacting me first. I am not removing the name. This war consisted of two stages, the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine which lasted until May 14 1948, and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War after May 15, 1948. I'm just using the name of more specific campaign where applicable, instead of the broader name, in accordance to the sources. This is a simple matter of providing specific and accurate information. And if you have any problems with my edits, why not contact me? Marokwitz (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- The revert of 500 internal links to the article 1948 Palestine war that you made last night is a pov-pushing. The way you justify you and the way you proceeded are not appropriate. I would add that in Hamas and the Taliban analogy, you collaborated a lot to the development of an Orignal Research. By essence, this is an exemple of pov-pushing.
- You focus too much on the "letter of the right" to cover you. Wikipedia is also based on the 4th pillar (be civil) and such rules as WP:AGF that you just referred to. The is the "letter of the rule" and the "spirit of the rule".
- In importing on wikipedia the israeli-palestinian conflict, you harm the image of Israel and the one of your community. I would advice you to read and think about Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent. That would help you to improve the quality of your collaboration at the project in using simultaneously all our 5 pillars but more above all, that would increase your empathy for all sides of the I-P conflict.
- Is there no article that you could *study* and *develop* on focusing both on reliable sources the content of which you don't like and on reliable sources you have sympathy for ?
- Think about this. Noisetier (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- (see Marokwitz talk page for the follow up)
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 ?
[3] + [4] Sean.hoyland - talk 19:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)