Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) →You have been reported here: comment |
|||
Line 140: | Line 140: | ||
:Hi nableezy. I think you know that a comment like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AState_of_Palestine&action=historysubmit&diff=346494647&oldid=346479961 this] is inappropriate. Please strike it, and don't make similar comments in the future. Thank you. — [[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] <sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 08:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC) |
:Hi nableezy. I think you know that a comment like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AState_of_Palestine&action=historysubmit&diff=346494647&oldid=346479961 this] is inappropriate. Please strike it, and don't make similar comments in the future. Thank you. — [[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] <sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 08:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
::I'm afraid that would be too little too late. I won't regard it as an apology. [[User:Drork|DrorK]] ([[User talk:Drork|talk]]) 10:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:20, 27 February 2010
Template:Archive box collapsible
Infrastructure
You make a decent point. If you want to change it from "infrastructure" back to "govt buildings," I won't oppose. Please note however, that many Hamas "government" buildings housed weapons and munitions, as I'm sure you are aware. Best Regards--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- In connection with your revert, why go into such detail in the Lead when such matters are generally addressed in prose. Please consider my argument and consider self-revert or partial self-revert. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think that for the lead, it's sufficient to say that civilian targets were hit without going into detail for either side. Details in connection with this matter should be left in the prose. That's just my humble opinion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies. Please do what you feel is necessary to restore balance. I leave it to your capable hands. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Is this better?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies. Please do what you feel is necessary to restore balance. I leave it to your capable hands. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think that for the lead, it's sufficient to say that civilian targets were hit without going into detail for either side. Details in connection with this matter should be left in the prose. That's just my humble opinion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't ascertain how the organization meets WP:ORG. Perhaps you should try requesting input from Wikipedia:Peer review. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good enough not to be speedied though, thats enough for now. nableezy - 15:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Al-Marsad
I have translated your article, Al-Marsad, into Spanish and posted it on Spanish Wikipedia. For the most part its an exact translation, save for a few words that are different in Spanish. Also Spanish Wiki does not have all the categories and templates that En Wiki does, but thats pretty much due to it being a smaller project. Regards --nsaum75¡שיחת! 17:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Cool, a Spanish article built off of one English, one French, and one Dutch source. nableezy - 18:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
dr
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nableezy regarding personal attacks and illegitimate reverts. The discussion is about the topic File:Blue Line. Thank you. --DrorK (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Aw! F***it!
There I was, sneaking back from retirement, apparently for the encyclopedia's good, but only to have a proper round number to formally exit on, and find I've overshot the mark by 2, meaning another 998 edits are required to fit my mathematically dramatic exit! Can one revert back history to get to 14,000?Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I got you, but we have to delete the steiner talk page. nableezy - 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, that wont help. Right now you are at 13,953 live edits and 53 deleted edits. The counter you are looking at includes the deleted ones. I think you just have to keep going to 15,000 now. Sorry. nableezy - 16:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey
I’m glad to see that you’ve decided to take your shoes off and stay a while. Maybe I’m being presumptive but it has been a while since you had a User Page. If you are, I’m happy for you. To be honest, I think I’m going to stay away from IP stuff at least for a while. I had dipped my toe into it just at the Gaza War article but I put my whole foot in at talk:Israel. Between that and Gaza War being as bad as ever I think I’ve come to realize that the IP problem is just unworkable. I think it is solvable but as long as these editors are just left to work it out among themselves, they never will. Apart from one or two decent editors, I think most of them really don’t care about writing an article that is reflective of multiple viewpoints or including anything they don’t strongly believe themselves. It’s a shame.
I’ve enjoyed working with you and some of the other editors as well. That’s probably the only thing that kept me around this long and the only thing that makes me think I might eventually come back. I hope you keep it up though. I’d have said you were one of the good few just to be polite but I happen to believe it too.
I’ll probably be back but I’m just fed up for now. And how can I waste time on that when there’s Olympic curling just outside my door? I see the US is down 2-0 to Switzerland in the second end. But they have the hammer of course. Very exciting. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is not solvable. Especially when the people who should be doing the editing in the area (the ones with no emotional attachment) cant deal with the bullshit. But I do understand, it aint worth it. It aint worth it for me either though. What the fuck is a curling though? Did you know the one thing I look forward to in the Winter Olympics (the hockey, much to my shame) is only on cable out here? All these dudely pretenda-sports on all the time, but hockey is not top dog. Shameful, deeply shameful. nableezy - 00:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, get stuffed, both of you. Winter isn't for sport. It's for moods and icy viewing and meditations on mortality, esp. after one viewed Nodar Kumaritashvili's tragic death. The evanescence of youth, amid the snows makes one think of
Loveliest of trees, the cherry now
- Is hung with bloom along the bough,
- And stands about the woodland ride
- Wearing white for Eastertide.
Now, of my threescore years and ten,
- Twenty will not come again,
- And take from seventy springs a score,
- It only leaves me fifty more.
And since to look at things in bloom
- Fifty springs are little room,
- About the woodlands I will go
- To see the cherry hung with snow.
You're both right of course. But keeping an eye on one or two pages, or reading in the meanwhile Finkelstein's new book, just out, on that topic, is well-invested tuppence if, in the future, one does return. Best wishes to you both. Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Civility
Hi nableezy, It's important to remain civil when dealing with other editors, even in edit summaries. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that was the only thing that came into my head as a proper response. Next time Ill leave the summary blank. nableezy - 23:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea. If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
primary/secondary source
lost u somewhere. just out of curiosity - ok, Goldstone report is secondary sourse. then what? it is not transformed somehow to RS, isn't it? the same about Cordesman report, right? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- We can go to the RS/N for both of them. But I think for the information in each they are a reliable source, for the judgments in them they are primary sources that should be attributed. But we can work that out at the RS/N. nableezy - 16:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- wait a second, so if Cordesman says that say Israel delivered 500 t of humanitarian aid daily, you take this for granted? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- I dont, Wikipedia does. nableezy - 16:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but I still disagree. As long as Cordesman's or Goldstone's qualification as RSs is not established, the figures they reproduce cannot be stated as fact but requires attribution, either to their source (if sourced) or to them directly. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I dont, Wikipedia does. nableezy - 16:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- wait a second, so if Cordesman says that say Israel delivered 500 t of humanitarian aid daily, you take this for granted? --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
link
what do you think about this article. [1] thanks in advance. Cryptonio (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I dont know, what would you use it for? nableezy - 17:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- well, there is a shortage of info, in english at least, to input about Pales military actions during the war. we could agree that it was very 'limited'(absent rockets) and that the section should rather be a short one? narrative: shock and awe had a great deal of effect and it really then became survival(more discreet than usual)? Cryptonio (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I dont know, do what you want. Im only picking a few things in that article to waste my time on, this aint one of them. Sorry. nableezy - 21:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- well, there is a shortage of info, in english at least, to input about Pales military actions during the war. we could agree that it was very 'limited'(absent rockets) and that the section should rather be a short one? narrative: shock and awe had a great deal of effect and it really then became survival(more discreet than usual)? Cryptonio (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, could this article help with compliance? Cryptonio (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Compliance with what? nableezy - 21:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- well the article seems a bit anecdotal, editorial even. does it read to you like any other press release? Cryptonio (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Amira Hass is a reporter, a damn good one at that, and this is a news article, not an editorial. nableezy - 21:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- well the article seems a bit anecdotal, editorial even. does it read to you like any other press release? Cryptonio (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'll quote you on that. thanks Cryptonio (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Rather surprising article from Amira, I expected worse. However, I think it should be treated with extreme caution, as many descriptions there are just reflections of the witnesses. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, she is reporting what others have said, she isnt saying it is true. nableezy - 16:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Rather surprising article from Amira, I expected worse. However, I think it should be treated with extreme caution, as many descriptions there are just reflections of the witnesses. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'll quote you on that. thanks Cryptonio (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Omar Sharif
Hi Nableezy. I was actually not checking your contributions this time but you came up twice on my watchlist. I didn't want to chime in at the noticeboards since it boarders on wikistalking and I don't want to come across as trying to influence a discussion that I'm not part of. So my two cents: Wikipedia:Verifiability is important as you pointed out. However, you may be ignoring Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources. Although a transcript would be appreciated for Template:Cite episode I am under the impression that it is not a necessity. If Arab Cowboy (that part was stalkerish) or Cleo need to give more details so the reader can track it down (email, phone call, movie rental, extra extra googling, or whatever) it should be considered. It is also a BLP which requires even more caution. If the guy can be verified as not saying it is so then it really needs to be spelled out in the article ("x has been reported. Dude says y"Cptnono (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am not ignoring that. There has to be a physical record that about this interview, something being shown on TV once is not enough, especially given the number of sources that contradict this supposed interview. And, since you brought it up, the policy says Verifiability, in this context, means that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source. That is not possible by just saying Sharif said something on TV once. nableezy - 07:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Arabic font
Hey Nableezy. I was wondering if you could do me a big favour. The computer I'm working on doesn't have Arabic font and I am starting a new article on Mujir al-Din al-'Ulaymi and would like to have his name in Arabic characters. His full name is 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad al-'Ulaymi, but he was commonly called Mujir al-Din, Mujir al-Din al-'Ulaymi, or Mujir al-Din al-Hanbali. Can you help me out? Thanks. Tiamuttalk 18:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I also forget to ask you if you could send me a copy of this article [2] since you have JSTOR access (if the offer to punk articles from you still stands that is) :) Tiamuttalk 18:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- sent, when I get home will get the Arabic for you. nableezy - 19:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Shukran jazeelan, sadiqi. Tiamuttalk 19:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- عيناي nableezy - 19:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Tislim toumak. What do you think about adding al-Hanbali to his name (both in English and Arabic)? I'm not sure how to address his name. A lot of the initial sources I saw simply called him Mujir al-Din (without al-'Ulaymi or al-Hanbali). I then noticed some calling him Mujir al-Din al-'Ulaymi, and others replacing al-'Ulaymi with al-Hanbali. If in Arabic they use both, maybe we should use both here too. The reason I didn't go with simply Mujir al-Din is that there seem to others too and I wanted to disambiguate him from others (should they ever have wiki articles of their own one day).
- Another favour to ask though ... could you add his name in Arabic in the "Name and background" section after his full name? Shukran ikteer ya akhi. Tiamuttalk 22:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I dont know, Ill look around, but at first glance it seems that al-Hanbali is more of a title than part of the name. nableezy - 23:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- عيناي nableezy - 19:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Shukran jazeelan, sadiqi. Tiamuttalk 19:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
pan-arabism, the Lanternix-mix
What that article is missing is the line "He has the hindquarters, legs, and horns of a goat, in the same manner as a faun." from the Pan article. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- hahaha. thank you, thank you very much. nableezy - 04:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You have been reported here
Please make your comments in the aforementioned page. DrorK (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi nableezy. I think you know that a comment like this is inappropriate. Please strike it, and don't make similar comments in the future. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 08:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)