Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LibiBamizrach (talk | contribs) at 03:41, 4 October 2010 (→Hounding: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Al-Azhar Mosque‎

Congratulations! — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but it aint much. I really should get around to working on the things Jay asked about on the talk page. nableezy - 21:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, employing the negative-pejorative word 'thanks' on this page, as per numerous RfCs and your own comments therein, is forbidden. You've put yourself into Catch-22. If you reply positively to Malik as above, you deserve a sanction for violating your own principles. If, instead, you reply negatively, Malik should sanction you for a violation of something or other about wiki etiquette. That said, Congr . uh ..get stuffed.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)\

Ill slap myself, dont worry. nableezy - 14:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well! Regarding those things I asked about on the talk page, I had held off from further review partly because I didn't want to overwhelm you with work, and partly because I didn't want to mess up the GA review process. Now that that's over, and the article has achieved GA status, would you like me to continue with my own review, or instead wait until you can address the first issues? I've been very hesitant to try to change much content on my own, partly because I'm not that familiar with the topic, and partly because I don't have the sources you've been using. If you want me to work on the content too, though, I'm willing to try. Jayjg 01:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If you wouldnt mind, just keep going with the review. If you dont feel comfortable changing the content you dont need to, but if you do feel free. I tend to work in bursts on that article, but Ill try to get back to those outstanding issues this weekend. nableezy - 14:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

O.K. This coming week is actually a very busy one for me, so I won't be editing much at all, but I should have much more time the following week. Jayjg 20:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Translation Request

Salam Nableezy, Glad to see you active after all these years. I must say I've been laying pretty low for a while now. Hopefully one day I will get back... As for the translation request, here's my shot at it:

وناشف، من مدينة الطيبة في المثلث الفلسطيني، ويحمل الجنسية الإسرائيلية، وهو غير معروف بدرجة كبيرة في الساحة الفنية الفلسطينية، وتخرج قبل عامين من معهد "بيت تسفي" للفنون المسرحية

Nashef, from the city of Tayibe in the Palestinian Triangle, who holds the Israeli citizenship, and is not very well known in the Palestinian art scene, graduated two years ago from the "Beit Zvi" Institute of Performing Arts. --Fjmustak (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Al-Azhar - Bab Al-Muzayyinin

Hi Nableezy, A while ago you sent me an image of "Bab Al-Muzayyinin" at Al Azhar, with an inscription above. Well I found out what the inscription says:

إن للعلم إزهرا يتساما *** كسماء ما طاولتها سماء

حين وافاه ذو البناء ولولا *** منة الله ما أقيم البناء

رب إن الهدى هداك وآيا *** تك نور تهدي بها من تشاء

مذ تناهي أرّخت باب علوم *** وفخار به يجاب الدعاء

Translating it is another issue :) The source says the calligrapher's name was Al-Baghdadi

Here's the source for the deciphered text: http://www.slideshare.net/agonema/ss-2299128 (page 36, in the middle) --Fjmustak (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Eraser

How are you? Do yourself a favour and read this: Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement --Shuki (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No shit, Sherlock. If I had reverted an edit in article space under WP:BAN you could revert me and take responsibility for the content. What you are doing though is reinstating comments made by a banned user who socked around their ban. Nothing in WP:BAN allows you to do this. In fact, in the irony or ironies, the editor in question actually asked this exact question here and was given the answer that comments made by socks of banned users are, as common practice, struck out. Do you have a reason why the comments made by a user socking around their ban should be permitted to stay? Or do you just like annoying me? nableezy - 01:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I promise you I will take this to AE if you remove the strikeouts one more time. nableezy - 01:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to have a problem reading guidelines, you do understand that in Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement it explicitly says: Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content. You also must understand that taking me to AE means that you are merely going to get banned as well for your repeated edit warring and ignoring the line I just posted. --Shuki (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And if you bothered to try to understand a simple point instead of rushing to protect a member of your "team", a member who has socked repeatedly to harass other editors, you would see why you are wrong here. You are not restoring 'content'. If this were in article space you would be correct, you could absolutely take responsibility for edits made by the banned user. This is not in article space. And the comments have not even been removed. You are doing this for no reason save for trying to piss me off. I understand what taking you to AE means, and we can see what happens if you wish to go that route. nableezy - 16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sad Sack janitorial geezers like myself occasionally slip up. But I feel obliged to fix the earlier looseness of phrasing here, Nableezy, a question of amphibological disturbance in No shit Sherlock.

(a) That can be read as 'Sherlock doesn't tolerate nonsense, cuts to the marrow' and, thus understood, would be vocative with regard to Shuki, denoting him as a man who gets to the nub of Nab's nonsense. This doesn't fit.

(b) 'No shit Sherlock' could challenge Conan Doyle's description of Holmes' 7% solution of cocaine, since 'shit' is traditional druggy jargon refers to hash, heroin or the like. In this case you would be hailing your interlocutor as a hyper-perceptive dogged 'dick' whose acuity in going over the spoors of your criminal behaviour owes nothing to stimulants. Mm. I don't think this is what you mean either.

(c) It could, in certain aged psychoanalytical circles, be taken as referring to an adversary's rather paranoid reading of the traces you leave on the scenes of wiki crimes as rather 'constipated'. But Freud is old hat, and this reading would be 'stretching it' (with no onanistic innuendo intended)

(d) If however one takes into consideration the fact that there is abundant evidence, esp. in your intricate summary history's style of language, that you disregard punctuation, a simple Housmanian emendation, namely, placing a comma after 'no shit', would generate a perfectly acceptable meaning, that of the modern vernacular where 'No shit' is interjective and signals one's 'amazement, incredulity, or derision'. The sense would therefore mean: 'That's unbelievable. You're pulling my leg, Sherlock'.

p.s. This fits best, and I have taken the WP:BOLD policy to heart, and adjusted your text. But, with diffidence, while fearing I may err. The pertinacity of philological exactitudes in my former profession obliges me to observe a slight dyscrasia in (d). For there is an additional nuance in 'no shit', namely 'a sarcastic response used when someone states the obvious'.

Since you doubt the veracity of what your interlocutor wrote, his comment can hardly be 'obvious'.

The local tobacconist closes in 20 minutes, and it is a 19 minute walk there. So my lucubrations, to your relief no doubt, must end here, or else, for want of 'fags' I'll be tempted later this evening to break into a pharmacy and secure a 7% solution myself. Your sincerely, Dr What'son, ret. Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No Nableezy, that is simply your interpretation. Unfortunately for you, putting it in 'first person' does not make it the truth. Frankly, you seem to show you know policy but not actually carry it out. If you did AGF, you would not accuse me of wanting to piss you off, a really silly accusation on a Sunday afternoon. Stellarkid's comments on that page are legitimate and since they are not insulting anyone or controversial, I take responsibility for them. I guess you have the right to strike them, I have the right to restore them. If you cannot accept that, then you can continue to climb the tree you've promised/threatened to climb. --Shuki (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

All right, we'll see what happens. You could instead not to be a dick and leave the comments of a user who socked around their ban first to harass another user and then socked around their ban to again harass another user, and then again socked around their ban to harass me. But if you insist on being that dick then we can see what happens at AE. nableezy - 23:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Bah, leave the tongue twisting attempts to others. At least, they do not look as dumb with the attempt and poetic license factor put in. --Shuki (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont particularly want to decipher what you are saying, but I was not "tongue twisting"; what I wrote was fairly clear. nableezy - 23:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Help

some zionists keep on deleting my contributions at Rawabi and Taybeh pages, and add write ups from their point of view, and moreover they keep on blocking me. please help me--213.6.27.118 (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS for more understanding of what type of sources are required for content here. If you do not provide such sources, anybody, Zionist or not, can and likely will remove your edits. Bye, nableezy - 16:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hounding

Should I now try report you for hounding me? Hypocrisy sucks. LibiBamizrach (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)