Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:15, 31 December 2012

Template:Archive box collapsible

RfArb: Jerusalem

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Jerusalem and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- tariqabjotu 20:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well thank you. I see you took the time to post several diffs from me, but I find the use of this one in the sentence Throughout, there have been threats of bringing people to WP:AE or WP:RfC/U or ArbCom for the alleged "blocking" and ownership to be particularly demonstrative of why I dont like wasting time dealing with you. You just dont pay attention. Not once have I threatened to take anybody to AE or RFC/U for blocking or ownership, nor is there a threat to take anybody anywhere in any part of that comment. But thanks for another example of why it is an entirely futile endeavor to have a discussion with you. nableezy - 21:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You have no idea what "assume good faith" means, do you? Sheesh. -- tariqabjotu 22:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You got some balls. You wont answer a yes or no question for fear of entrapment, but I have no idea what "assume good faith" means. nableezy - 05:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And you missed AnkhMorpork (talk · contribs). nableezy - 21:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy,

Keep cool ;-). All this is particularly upsetting but it is not worth quarreling. ;-) Pluto2012 (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A hypocrite is something that is hard for me not to call out. But Ill try. nableezy - 19:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I am convinced that too many people are bad faith (hypocrite) in this discussion. BUT that is just a personnal feeling. There may be also misunderstanding and even more evil, people could be convinced of their mind and that the other one is biaised (and vice versa) because they are themselves brain-washed by what they hear everyday.

But all in all, this doesn't deserve becoming upset.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you have restored vandalism

that sock reverted .Correct me if I wrong.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected. nableezy - 19:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Palestinian_people#unexplained_edits_and_reverts

Evildoer187 (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Helpful editions should stay, sock or not

--190.17.236.221 (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Didnt you say you were going to stop socking? I could have sworn I saw one of your accounts or IPs write Ok Shrike. I'll do it. I won't edit for six months. nableezy - 03:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you insist in keeping wrong edits and pure vandalism? Do you want to ruin Misplaced Pages's image? And I promised that to Shrike IF he restore the sourced content in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article. If you do that, I swear you won't see me for a whole year, mate. I swear it for my son.--190.17.236.221 (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Click here please. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Settler_colonialism#Source

Evildoer187 (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning

Stop hounding me Ankh.Morpork 21:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If you remove a speedy nomination again I will ask that you be blocked. And you got some balls to say I hound you. nableezy - 21:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Question

Is it a BLP violation for you to write that a BLP rants for the WaPO, looks like one to me so could you remove it please. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No. nableezy - 23:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Colonialism

We could use your help here. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Colonialism#Israel

Evildoer187 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 January 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ma'an news - RSN

You might be interested in this discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Ma.27an_News Ankh.Morpork 17:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask you a question

Bear in mind. I am Irish, I have no dog in the PI crap at all. I like actual historical facts, which is on wiki I tend to deal with that kinda shite. But I have to ask you, do you really thing a newswire such as Maan is suitable for the articles you want to use it on? And before you ask, no the JP should not be used on that article either. Do you not think using western sources only would prove beneficial? Your choice Nab. I ask you to work on this and look for neutral sources, what say you? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you see what it is being used for? To answer your question, I dont think any newspapers should be used, and the idea that it should only be Western newspapers is even worse than allowing all of them. But in my ideal world, only books published by top quality academic presses and peer-reviewed journals would be used, so no articles on anything that happened in say the last year, including that one. But that isnt the world I live in, the one I live in has people trying to use Israeli sources and remove Palestinian sources. You think thats right? nableezy - 18:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Nab, it just happened, we will not be writing about in either books or journals for a year at least. But I know what you are saying, and I do feel for you and your people, mine went through much the same after all. Look, I respect you in how you feel, I felt the same 30 years ago. But to try and lower the conflict here on Wiki, what would you think is the best way forward? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If you think I dont know the consequences of restricting the sources, I do. No more articles about what just happened. nableezy - 19:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

And do you think its a bad thing?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If I did would I support it? nableezy - 19:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

How no? All newspapers carry the same stories after all. Chirst the Guardian carrys such stories all the time. Do you not look at western press at all? Google the guy who got killed, the mentally unstable one a few weeks ago, all the press carried it. You do not trust the west, and I do not blame you, but the press is free and will print what the hell they want, you must know this. Look, I am off out as it is new years eve and have a date Have a good one yourself, and please bear in mind, I am neutral in all of this, should you have issues with an edit let me know and I will happily look it over. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but youre not "neutral" in this. And I didnt say I dont "trust" the West. nableezy - 19:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

'the press is free and will print what the hell they want.' The first proposition is dubious. What presses 'set fit to print' is often a calculated judgement on and compromise over,(a) what the owners prefer, (b) what advertisers on them won't object to, and (c) what the readership that buys the paper would prefer to read. As one sees at critical moments, in The Times of London, or The New York Times, reportage can be devastatingly skewed (Iraq War 2003). This goes for the mainstream press. The second proposition has nothing to do with either comprehensiveness or accuracy of reportage, but rather 'who cares. I like it, I want the readership to think this way'. The Murdoch press is a prime, and notorious example. It's an old book, but one I commend for New Year reading, one written by Walter Lippmann, i.e. hisPublic Opinion 1921 (freely downloadable), a trenchantly eloquent treatise on ther 'pseudo-environment' in which we are constrained to live by exposure to mass media.

'analysis of the nature of news and of the economic basis of journalism seems to show that the newspapers necessarily and inevitably reflect, and therefore, in greater or lesser measure, intensify, the defective organization of public opinion.'

This is what a great humane, liberal newspaperman could write about what really occurs in the mass media. At the time, that was a centrist admission of how much bullshit is flogged to a gullible public to 'manufacture consent' at whatever price to the facts. His position is held today by Noam Chomsky, whom Lippmann's moderate, liberal, bien-pensant heirs regard as a dangerous man. In short, the classical moderate realist view of how information is cut and tailored to produce a social mindset is now only retained by those whom modern day centrists call extremists. End of New Year Lecture, except for noting that 'Darkness Shines' is an allusion to the mystical treatise of Dionysus the Areopagite. Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

ARBPIA / Discretionary Sanctions warning

(this is being made equally to Nableezy, Baseball Bugs, and Tkuvho)

Recent comments on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which you participated in, degenerated into mutually combative personal attacks among at least the three of you. Several way nastyness over several days, including noticeboard (ANI, etc) arguments has enused.

This is not acceptable behavior. All of you are editors with long experiences here and in good standing; usually you behave much better.

This message is a formal warning that the Discrectionary Sanctions (formerly ARBPIA sanctions) are in force for this topic area and if the disruption continues, further sanctions, including temporary topic or article bans or blocks per policy may be used to separate the combatants.

Error: The code letters for the affected topic area in this contentious topics alert are not declared. topic= is missing; please check the documentation and try again.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)