User talk:Nableezy

You've been mentioned in this article, just so you know. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. nableezy - 11:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reverting my edit. I have no way of proving this, obviously, but right after I posted I was like oh shoot this is part of IP- and I went to revert (after taking time to copy the text bc I'll be EC soon), but you already had. Just going to ping @Kashmiri and @ScottishFinnishRadish before anyone gets excited. JoeJShmo^💌 13:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will also tag @Selfstudier and @Callanecc. Will also tag @ScottishFinnishRadish again as I'm not sure if he's seen this. Also @Nableezy I would appreciate if you edited your comment at Arb to include a link to this page. JoeJShmo^💌 13:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it three minutes later, dont think there is any definition of "right after" that means "several minutes later". You are free to add this to your section at AE though. nableezy - 14:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did add it, just would appreciate it if you would edit your comment too. It took a few minutes because I wanted to copy the text too, and on the phone I edit with it's difficult to do that without going into the source editor and copying there, so I had to do that and scroll to the bottom to copy, and that's besides the fact that the editor took a while to load due to the long discussion (and weak service). As I said, I can't give proof, but that's what happened. JoeJShmo^💌 14:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they rushed to EC, which I see as gaming, then made those edits. I've posted to Redtailed wawk. Doug Weller talk 10:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this.[1] Doug Weller talk 10:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah idk why it was just a you’re banned from what you are already banned from until the time you would not be banned from it is over. But I never claimed to understand how this place works. nableezy - 10:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also User talk:Red-tailed hawk#topic ban Doug Weller talk 11:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topic banned for 6 months and 1000 edits. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You stated perceptively a few weeks back (at AE i think) that the standard caricature of 2 POVs, pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian, was skewed, in so far as the latter position was confusing (a) support for the bozos of the Palestinian Authority with (b) support for International Law. I think this is the view entertained by most of the latter so-identified editors, but technically, other than the issue of settlements, there was no legal ground for taking so many of the systematic abuses as 'factual': they were at best POVs represented in the work of major human rights organizations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B'tselem etc. With the ICJ's advisory opinion yesterday, the claimed subjectivity of this POV has suffered a decided setback. It is now formally a matter of international law that what AI,HRW, and B'tselem are 'claiming' is, factually, a direct reflection of the legal lay of the land, which all nations in the world are under an obligation to underwrite and act in accordance with. So what you suggested is now endorsed as the reality of that inferno.

Of course nothing will change substantially, but at least clarity has been obtained in terms of the legality of what has been, for 57 years, dismissed or sidelined as just one partisan, indeed 'radical left' perspective. It's somewhat amusing to note that for 12 hours the New York Times (it's 6.30 a.m. here) has stubbornly relegated news of the decision to the online back pages, way way below its updated report on the Houthi drone strike in Tel Aviv. Idem with the Washington Post. Nishidani (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didnt change much in the wall article, idk how much it'll change in these either. nableezy - 11:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is qualitatively different from 2004. That applied exclusively to Israel. This ruling creates a broad range of legal problems, hypothetically, for all states unless they rigorously monitor their trade and other relations to ensure that they themselves do not, directly or indirectly, run foul of the international legal picture as now clarified. I.e. importing anything from settler industries in Palestinian territory or supplying weapons that are used against Palestinians in the Territory. It also makes recognition of the State of Palestine far easier, because that can no longer be spun as antisemitic, or 'political'. It finally renders the absurdly stupid but influential Working definition of antisemitism, with its energetically programmatic attempt to conflate criticism of Israel/anti-Zionism with antisemitism, dead on its feet. Of course, nothing will change the situation in I/P land. Miracles went out of date some millennia ago.Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. By saying demonstrable omissions of data that is inconvenient to the desired outcome you are accusing my of POV pushing; of excluding data because it isn't aligned with a specific POV. You have no evidence for this, and there is considerable evidence against it. Please strike that personal attack. BilledMammal (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The demonstrable omissions are the ones that Vice Regent demonstrated. That they are inconvenient to the claim that the math supports you isn’t an attack on your motives or claiming you purposely excluded it. It just means that the math changes away from the position you have been arguing when those demonstrated omissions are included. nableezy - 15:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also, WP:DTTR. Oh and WP:BLUDGEON while you’re reading. Could have swore that like 30 comments ago you said you were stepping back from that discussion. nableezy - 15:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You told me to omit syndicated content, and accused me of POV pushing for including it (for example, saying I cannot believe that anybody can argue about it in good faith)

I then omitted the syndicated content, and again you accused me of POV pushing, this time for excluding it.

This is disruptive and uncivil, and does not help the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I told you not to count it ten times lol, not omit it entirely. I also showed a non wire service article that was omitted. I really don’t find conversing with you to be an enjoyable use of my time, so I’d rather avoid it if possible. Now obviously that is not possible in a lot of places but it *is* possible here. So kindly take your leave from this page. Thank you. nableezy - 15:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So kindly take your leave from this page.

If I have understood correctly, that is a ban from your talk page. This means that I will need to escalate any conduct concerns rather than being able to discuss them here. I would rather be able to address minor conduct concerns without all that drama, so please correct me if I have misunderstood. BilledMammal (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think this is you avoiding drama? Not a ban from this page, yet, but certainly a request that this thread end here. If you feel you’d like to escalate this issue then do that. nableezy - 16:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is an attempt to, yes. I did exactly what you asked of me, and you accused me of POV pushing for doing so; coming to your talk page, rather than escalating it or discussing it in the RfC, is the way to address it with a minimum of drama.

But instead of striking it, you instead continue to make allegations that I am deliberately omitting articles because they are inconvenient to the desired outcome, even though you have already been informed that the specific article you raised was excluded because it was published two months before the start of the reviewed period. BilledMammal (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just said I made no comment on deliberate or motive. The desired outcome is the one you have been arguing for. Articles that do not support it are not included in your count. This is 2 plus 2 equals 4 minus 1 that’s 3, quick maths, territory. Putting words in my mouth so that you have some sort of complaint isn’t exactly something I want to continue dealing with, so I repeat my request that you stop badgering me about it. BLUDGEON applies here just as much as it does at NPOVN. nableezy - 16:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

demonstrable omissions of data that is inconvenient to the desired outcome is you saying that I deliberately excluded data to strengthen the argument for my desired position.

I'm asking you to strike these accusations. If you want to argue that my sample isn't representative, then do so - but you can and should do it without personalizing it. This is particularly the case because two of the articles omitted that you presented as evidence of your accusations were omitted because you demanded that they be.

I will leave this discussion now, but if you still don't see why your comments were uncivil and personal attacks I hope a friendly talk page watcher will be willing to comment and help you understand. BilledMammal (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As fiendly talk page watcher, I'll dob in my two hemitetartemoria, to avoid any more drachma, um, drama here. There's simply nothing there BM, and from great experience, I would note that templating experienced editors, and claiming successively over time that an editor is making personal accusations when the evidence is less than thin, but a highly subjective construal of language that can be read otherwise, usually functions as an alert that an AE case is being meditated, and that the page notice in question will form part of the evidence. This is either flimsy or frivolous, and I would suggest that editors of great experience show it by doing the appropriate reading of sources rather than combing comments minutely to elicit AGF evidence. It's not collegial. Were I to have adopted that temptation, I would have made scores of complaints and wasted my time, better spent on focused article redaction.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve said repeatedly that I make no comment as to the motivation for omitting such material. If you continue to misconstrue my words and intent in writing them even after I have explicitly disclaimed any meaning other than intended then I cannot help you further. I will again clarify I make no comment on your motives or intent. nableezy - 22:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Nableezy's thinking, in his own terms, 'what's that prick doing trying to piss in my pocket as if I were wet behind the ears. The bloody incontinence, um, incompetence of old age.'Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right that there was a consensus over the wording in settlement articles , "illegal, blah, blah...Israel disputes this." If so, do you have a link to it, please? Selfstudier (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Legality of Israeli settlements Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tks v much. Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]