Blocks
Hi. I see it got you too. Horrible times, with repercussions on Wiki, too. Thanks again for showing understanding when I was in the dock. Wiki is not such an important stage, but it can still sometimes sting.
If you can be bothered with this, and I'd fully understand if you'd ignore it: I was trying to figure out some Hebrew text concerning plants dumped onto a page and Gilabrand seemed like the perfect person to ask. Now I see she's banned indefinitely. Hard to believe, she does belong to a certain generation and its mainstream Zionist convictions, but she's equally Wiki-active and harmless, with tonnes of useful factual contributions. What unexpected crime did she commit? Do you know if anything can be done about it? Wiki militancy has reached painful proportions, cancelling useful contributors is seriously harming the project. Thanks.
May peace for all those who wish it come sooner than it looks. Arminden (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Gila was blocked for topic ban violations, and I thought that block was quite over the top and said so. Her appeal didn’t go over as well as I had hoped it would, with some part of it due to apparent copyright violations in her work over the years. I thought she was a very good editor and regretted the tiffs we had with each other very much, and I wish the ban had been appealed much earlier so that this block wouldn’t have happened. I don’t think there’s anything that can be done at this point, she’s either going to be blocked for the topic ban violations or the copyright violations. Sorry, wish I had better news for you on that front. Or any front to be honest. Take care Arminden. nableezy - 12:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Chicago City Council
Can't keep them Chicagoans down Selfstudier (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Undone revision: New Historians
@Nableezy: Please provide a rationale for reverting my edit to the article New Historians. The article on Palestinian refugees linked to states that refugees "fled or were expelled", meaning not all were expelled. If necessary, I can find a notable reference. (I've come across an estimate from Benny Morris before that 10-15% of the Palestinians were expelled by Israeli forces.) Thanks. Dotyoyo (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Expelled applies to those not allowed to return, so expelled by itself would work, but you can change to chased out to fled if you want. To pretend like it only applies to "some" of them is however a complete bogus assertion. nableezy - 17:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Please refrain from blindly reverting edits while the RfC is now ongoing
@NableezyAs the source is most likely to be considered Gunrel, please make an actual argument for inclusion instead of blindly reverting; ironically enough, per FAIT FortunateSons (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, that is not how this works, all your edits based on it being deprecated are invalid and I am going through them to restore them. You dont get to create a new status quo based on an invalid rationale, sorry. nableezy - 15:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- And you are not supposed to blindly revert edits, particularly those with additional backing and a likely unreliable source without an actual argument, particularly those that pre-date my knowledge of the noticeboard. Otherwise, I will have to remove all of those covered by Gunrel if the RfC closes as such, which is most likely as of now and covers most of my edits. I have not begun making changes based on Gunrel, and neither should you.
- An exception can be made for the one I responded to at the talk page, because while your argument was not sufficient, it may be aboutself (founder about their org in EI) and therefore actually acceptable insofar as you agree with my assessment. FortunateSons (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I am entitled to revert edits whose basis is not policy compliant, and your removals of a source as deprecated that is not deprecated is not policy compliant. Again, no. And I will challenge individual removals where I think the source is fine if it remains GUNREL, which it already was. But, again, the answer to your request is no. If that does not satisfy you then you can raise the issue somewhere else, but I have answered your request here and see no reason for further discussion about things that should be discussed on article talk pages. If you think the source is unusable in some instance you are welcome to make an argument for that. On the article talk page, not here. nableezy - 15:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- You are allowed to make edits based on that, but you are not permitted to make edits by directly going through my edit history, particularly considering WP:Hounding (I revoked my waiver of that a while ago, just fyi), of which you made me aware after finding one place to edit through your edit history.
- I don’t mind you looking specifically for citations that are acceptable with Gunrel and unacceptable by a depreciated source, but I don’t believe this to be the case here. If that is what you believe to be doing, I would appreciate an argument beyond „no longer depreciated“ that you can add to your reverts.
- And just to clarify, my removals were certainly policy compliant before you opened the discussion, and most likely after (before you asked me to stop).
- If you prefer not to stop without a dispute resolution measure, I would politely ask you to inform me of that and have the same courtesy I paid you, to pause your actions during such an action if I choose to open it. FortunateSons (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, no part of that is true. WP:HOUNDING
Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.
(and no, you found several places, but I dont really feel like going in to all that either). You are well aware that I saw your removals across a range of pages without going through your contributions, and if you would like to report HOUNDING then feel free to do so. I dont really care what you believe, your edits removed a source as deprecated and that source is not deprecated. And in case you missed it the first time, EI was already listed as generally unreliable. So a close with that status changes nothing. And you need to justify the removals with something other than claim that is not true. If you continue to insist on badgering me here I am going to ask you to stop editing this page. If you think some of my reinsertions are improper feel free to raise it on a talk page. But for this topic there is nothing else to discuss on this user talk page. Please stop. nableezy - 15:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, no part of that is true. WP:HOUNDING
- I am entitled to revert edits whose basis is not policy compliant, and your removals of a source as deprecated that is not deprecated is not policy compliant. Again, no. And I will challenge individual removals where I think the source is fine if it remains GUNREL, which it already was. But, again, the answer to your request is no. If that does not satisfy you then you can raise the issue somewhere else, but I have answered your request here and see no reason for further discussion about things that should be discussed on article talk pages. If you think the source is unusable in some instance you are welcome to make an argument for that. On the article talk page, not here. nableezy - 15:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)