| Revision as of 03:27, 7 November 2024 view sourceChess (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,267 edits →Use of the term "massacre": ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:11, 12 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,310,720 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Nableezy/Archive 58) (bot | ||
| (38 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == advice for article creation == | |||
| == Administrator Noticeboard Notice (October 2024) == | |||
| hi i’d love to speak to you about creating an article please. it’s on a controversial conflict so this is why i’d like to get it right. thanks ] (]) 17:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice-->'''The ]''' (] 04:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Just a note, I am not accusing you of anything. The AN/I notice is that a media article has accused you of violating Misplaced Pages guidelines, and this media article was mentioned at AN/I. '''The ]''' (] 04:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Cool? ''']''' - 04:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed decision of ] posted == | |||
| ==Notice of noticeboard discussion== | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:AN-notice--> <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 17:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Nableezy, in the open ] arbitration case, a ] which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the ]. For a guide to the proposed decision, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 21:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == accusations == | |||
| Your repeated accusations of tendentious, disruptive, and gaming are incivil. A veteran editor should know that "the wrong version" is not gaming, it's standard rules of engagement. I started an RFC at the behest of the admin you summoned who confirmed my interpretation was reasonable. Please desist in your ]. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :They are only aspersions if they are unsupported by evidence. I cited the evidence. The admin actually said "in this circumstance there is clearly no consensus to include at this time". Yes, you are gaming, yes it is disruptive. Anything else? ''']''' - 19:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, the admin said, "start an RFC." Are you not aware of the long-time Misplaced Pages norm and procedure that an RFC means the status quo remains? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Literally anybody can ] that he said {{tq|That said, in this circumstance there is clearly no consensus to include at this time. Someone should just start an rfc about the sentence in the lede of this article.}} If you are going to distort the record even now there really is nothing to speak to you about. Kindly take your leave from this page. Thank you. ''']''' - 19:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion == | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of an ] decision. <!--Template:AE-notice--> Thank you. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Request to make edit == | |||
| Nableezy, I am requesting your permission, under your vested authority of being my mentor, to make an edit on the ] article, under the section "Names." The edit which I wish to make is as follows: | |||
| :The ] called it ''St. Stephen's Gate'' (in Latin, ''Porta Sancti Stephani''), highlighting its proximity to the site of martyrdom of ], marked since the time of ] by a ] which lies outside the city walls.<ref>{{cite book |last=Wilson |first=C. |author-link=Charles William Wilson |title=Jerusalem, the Holy City (Yerushalayim, ha-ʻIr ha-Ḳedoshah)|translator=Eli Schiller |year=1988|publisher=Ariʼel |location=Jerusalem |page=45 |language=he |oclc=19202469 }}</ref> The only editorial change that I'm making here is that I'm adding the words "...which lies outside the city walls." I am also noting its source.{{reflist-talk}} - ] (]) 13:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Totally fine, hope you’re doing well David. ''']''' - 13:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, here we are doing well, in spite of our many challenges, most recently from Iran. Spent at least one-half hour on October 1, 2024 in a bomb shelter with other people from my village, they and their kids and their pets.13:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 13:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hope you and yours stay safe David, take care. ''']''' - 14:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == My draft for a AN appeal == | |||
| Nableezy and ], this is for your information. I am preparing a draft for an AN appeal to my limited Topic ban. So far, here is the draft: | |||
| <br>I, {{IP|Davidbena}}, after successfully appealing my AE Topic ban on 16 May 2023, was appointed a mentor to counsel and assist me in my edits in the ARBPIA area (see ). After editing under this capacity for more than a year, I wish now to appeal my long-standing limited topic ban that was made some years earlier (which you can see ). Having the liimited ban lifted will enable me to return to editing in the ARBPIA area without limitations. | |||
| For a record of my past offenses, here is a list of former discussions which ended in either a block or a topic-ban: | |||
| # "frivolous ANI report" | |||
| # (topic ban) | |||
| #: topic ban lifted | |||
| # (new topic ban). | |||
| #: appeal to rescind the ban was unsuccessful | |||
| # (placed under narrow topic ban) | |||
| # (one-month block for canvassing) | |||
| # (broad topic ban), which ban was lifted on 16 May 2023 (as shown ) when I was assigned a mentor in the ARBPIA area, but leaving in place my narrow topic ban. | |||
| I am fully aware that my history of punitive measures taken against me by the community was started by my own short-sightedness in being quick to jump to judgment against my fellow co-editors in the ARBPIA area, whom I accused at first of "stalking". These accusations, as they later came to show, were proven inaccurate. I have since worked with the same editors on improving a number of articles in the ARBPIA area. Moreover, I am now fully aware that ''all edits'' made by the general consensus of ''all editors'', especially of those holding different political views and who belong to different political spectrums, contribute to the overall uncensored preservation of history and of general knowledge. This is my honest view. I have worked in the past year with Misplaced Pages editor ] who has opened my eyes to this realization, even though we hold different political views. I assure my fellow Misplaced Pages editors and those here arbitrating this case that I will continue to consult the views of others before posting a controversial edit in the ARBPIA area.] (]) 16:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Wholeheartedly support an appeal, and I cant imagine any of us in the topic area would oppose it. I'm not certain this is the ideal statement, I can try to give some ideas, but tbh it's almost 80 degrees today for me at the end of October and so I'm going golfing, so it would have to wait a bit for me to work through some thoughts later. Hopefully I can shoot the temperature like I do when it's 100. ''']''' - 16:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :First, I think it be wise to list all the discussions and bans, you dont want people to say oh he's not being forthright. So each of the discussions Joe Roe listed ] along with the ban from the Fram report ] and then finally the appeal that resulted in the mentorship.<p>Next, I think the thing you really need to commit to is not questioning other's motives during discussions. If you recall the initial ban, it was imposed because of a report you files against Huldra and myself in which you were certain that our opposition to some edit was coming from some nefarious motive. A commitment to discuss content and not personalities would, I think, go a long way in addressing the cause for the initial ban. Other than that I think the message above reads as honest and I would hope that other editors agree. ''']''' - 15:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::]; I think Nab's advice here is good; start with making a link to all former discussions which ended in a topic-ban etc. You could do that on a subpage; and Nab(?) and I could add if you are missing any. | |||
| ::As for lifting the topic-ban itself; honestly, I am on the fence about how I would vote. I ''would like'' to vote for lifting it, but I haven't forgotten what happened last time I did so ("with some trepidation"). As I have told you before; when you edit 20th & 21th century stuff, you have had a tendency to "loose your cool". IMO; editing such areas needs you to step 10000 miles back from the subject. And I am unsure if you are able to do that. (I sincerely hope time will prove me wrong!) | |||
| ::Also; what Nab says about "personalising" conflict; it really shouldn't matter if anyone is a Jew, a Palestinian, an Arab or an Eskimo, or who you are married to, or even what level of education you have. | |||
| ::Cheers, ] (]) 21:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks, {{ping|Huldra}}. I will take your advice. I have since learned that every person who contributes anything in this world, especially on Misplaced Pages, is on a special mission sent by God. It doesn't matter who we are, or what religion or ethnicity we belong to. In Israeli/Palestinian issues, it is all one continuous history, interlocked. That is my honest view. I appreciate your work in the Palestinian issues, just as I appreciate my own work in Israeli history, both old and new. Everything has its place. I have learnt on Misplaced Pages to appreciate other views and to be more open to them, even when I disagree. I will not force my own view upon others. That much I can assure you.] (]) 21:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Davidbena}} I hope you can also edit with those of us who don't believe in a God! (I am an agnostic (in my brain)/atheist (in my heart));/ cheers, ] (]) 22:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Of course, I can! Perhaps I can also convince you that God exists and is everywhere (smile).] (]) 22:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Well, then you would be doing a better job than my dear aunts (who tried the same and failed), ] (]) 22:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Hahaha] (]) 22:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''For your information''', my appeal to rescind the limited topic ban has been posted to AN, which you can access ] (]) 01:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you == | |||
| Thanks for all the work you've been doing to identify and eliminate LTA sock accounts. ] (]) 21:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for October 31 == | |||
| An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]. | |||
| (].) --] (]) 07:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Gaza City == | |||
| Images of war-inflicted damage are not suitable for city infoboxes. Again, cf. ], ], ], ] etc. infoboxes: these are all cities that are heavily damaged by Russian artillery and airstrikes but we only use pre-war images in the respective infoboxes. ] ] 14:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@] That seems to be personal opinion, an opinion the talk page rejected previously. You need to revert your revert as well as learn that your personal attack of an edit summary is unacceptable. ''']''' - 14:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Question about possible 1RR violation == | |||
| Hey @], I'm checking to see with you if this is indeed a 1RR violation as it's from the same user you notified of this a while back. | |||
| They highly contentious POV-pushing content, this content was then , then they reverted it , and then they also reverted shortly thereafter. | |||
| This seems like a pretty clear 1RR violation but I'm not sure. ] (]) 01:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Consecutive reverts with no intervening edits by another user are a single revert. ''']''' - 01:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see, thanks for the clarification. ] (]) 01:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion == | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of an ] decision. The thread is ''']'''. <!--Template:AE-notice--> Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == Use of the term "massacre" == | |||
| I agree with you that there is a double standard with the use of the term "massacre" in article titles. I have written ] (abbreviated as MOS:PIA) to resolve that specific issue, and I want to work with you on getting this implemented. A rules-based approach will benefit the topic area by allowing us to make arguments based on a common understanding of the rules. Writing those rules into a guideline will make it easier to achieve consensus in the future. | |||
| Ideally, we would collaborate on a policy banning the term "massacre" from titles and then co-sponsor a proposal to adopt this policy at ]. In the future, when editors feel like there is a double standard across multiple articles, those issues can be brought up at the talk page of the MOS instead of fighting over precedents at every article or noticeboard or going to ]. If a standard or rule is a guideline, closers can implement ] more easily and admins can deal with editors blatantly disregarding the standards. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 00:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think banning except in the case of an actual common name, and name meaning an actual name of an even, not just a description of it, is the correct answer here. There are things like the the Hebron massacre or the Qana massacre that are so widely known by those names they should be titled that. Then there are things that are described in a number of ways, sometimes overwhelmingly but sometimes not, that don’t themselves have a name but rather a descriptive title. I think for descriptive titles it should be no massacre in titles. That would also make it so basically everything in the last year besides probably Reim and the Flour massacre would be titled massacre. Things that have a name should use that name. Things that we describe should have a less emotive title. ''']''' - 00:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::And no SFR, arguing that while we do not have such a rule that we should follow the precedent of our existing move requests is not a WP:POINT violation, it is recognizing the world we live in is not the world we would like it to be. POINT requires disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point, and that isn’t disrupting a thing. ''']''' - 00:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::What are some guidelines we can give for what constitutes a "common name" beyond what's at ]? I can agree in principle to that exception. I would add that a name should be used ''beyond'' just Arab or Israeli sources. So, the sources used to establish a common name should reflect a broad perspective. | |||
| ::Additionally, it'd be better to use historical examples with broad agreement in the guideline rather than ones from the present conflict, given that both explain the point effectively. So, the ] or ] are good examples (especially as they're called such by both Arab and Israeli sources), but I wouldn't include the Reim or Flour massacres because there's still activity on trying to move them. The ] is also a good example, but I would like to keep the number of examples in the guideline evenly balanced between both sides. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 01:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've updated the draft taking into account your feedback. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:11, 12 January 2025
advice for article creation
hi i’d love to speak to you about creating an article please. it’s on a controversial conflict so this is why i’d like to get it right. thanks Eatlandlords (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Proposed decision of Palestine-Israel articles 5 posted
Hi Nableezy, in the open Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)