→Friendly side note: new section Tag: New topic |
|||
Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
I am not objecting so please take this in the best possible way, but some old line Wikipedians would object to clerking a discussion one's closely involved in. I thought you might want to hear that from a friendly person who isn't going to bring you to drama over it. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<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%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 20:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC) |
I am not objecting so please take this in the best possible way, but some old line Wikipedians would object to clerking a discussion one's closely involved in. I thought you might want to hear that from a friendly person who isn't going to bring you to drama over it. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<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%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 20:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
:Yeah I asked in the thread below me, he said yes. I guess I should have waited for the other participant and asked you as well. But its making a mess of it, but fair enough Ill stay away from tidying up. And if somebody reverts it thats fine too. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 20:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)</small> |
Revision as of 20:10, 25 October 2023
Suggested edit
Nableezy, hi. I wish to add the following edit to the article Temple Mount, in the section entitled, "Opinions of contemporary rabbis concerning entry to the site." The proper place for insertion of the edit, in my opinion, is after the sentence which reads: "Rabbinical consensus in the post-1967 period, held that it is forbidden for Jews to enter any part of the Temple Mount, and in January 2005 a declaration was signed confirming the 1967 decision."
(suggested edit) The late Chief Rabbi of Israel, Ovadia Yosef, prohibited any Jew from ascending the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, because of its extreme sanctity. [1] (End Quote)
References
- ^ Yalqut Yosef (Mo’adim – Hil. Chol ha-Mo’ed §4), edited by Rabbi Ovadia’s son, Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef; Responsa Yabia’ Omer (vol. 5, responsum no. 15, letter bet, and in responsum no. 26); Yechaveh Da’at, part 1, responsum no. 25
Davidbena (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Think you have to stay away from this one David, I think it may be technically ok but so many parts of that are on the edge. Ovadia Yosef itself is in ARBPIA, the prohibition on entering has been a repeated hot point in discussions on the future of the Temple Mount and how committed to upholding the status quo the Israeli government is which again would be in the topic area, the very year 1967 is part of the topic area because of the 67 war and Israel's subsequent occupation, both in the topic area. Sorry, nableezy - 20:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- That said it may technically be ok, but I think youd be on shaky ground at AE if somebody raised it and I think you are better off staying a bit further from the edge here. But ultimately its up to you. nableezy - 20:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Okay. I'll stay away from it. Thanks for the solid advice.Davidbena (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
are you ok?
I realize I don't actually know where you live, but I guess I thought maybe you were from Nablus, due to your name, and possibly your family? If so (or even if not!), I just wanted to drop you a line and hope you and yours are well. IronDuke 19:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nah no Nablus association, just an Egyptian boy from the Midwest. But I hope the same for you and yours, and hope everybody you care about is staying safe wherever they are. Have friends who have family in harms way, as I imagine you might too. Take care ID, good to see your name more than once a decade now too. nableezy - 20:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed! I hope you don't mind, I went ahead and kind of spot-reverted your last five edits. Not even sure what the substance of your edits even was, just felt like it for old time's sake. IronDuke 20:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Your method of signing posts
I'm sorry to bother you with something so minor, but your unique method of signing posts often causes mild formatting issues on mobile. I'm not sure if there's a particular reason you sign the way you do but just so you're aware in case you're not married to doing it that way. XeCyranium (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Can you explain further? nableezy - 23:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Essentially normally text strings are placed within the limits of the page and get broken up into different lines, so the page remains the same width and text stays "zoomed in" as it were. But on talk pages and the like your bordered signature doesn't get split up if it's too long to be displayed in one line so the whole page gets widened and all the text is subsequently "zoomed out". It's especially noticeable after a few indentations, where your signature can extend very far outside the normal page ranges. XeCyranium (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, but if I dont do non-breaking spaces then the box gets split between lines. If there is some way of maintaining the single line for the signature Id be happy to adjust it. nableezy - 02:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'm not proficient enough to know if there is a way. That's fair though if you'd like to keep it as is! XeCyranium (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, but if I dont do non-breaking spaces then the box gets split between lines. If there is some way of maintaining the single line for the signature Id be happy to adjust it. nableezy - 02:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Essentially normally text strings are placed within the limits of the page and get broken up into different lines, so the page remains the same width and text stays "zoomed in" as it were. But on talk pages and the like your bordered signature doesn't get split up if it's too long to be displayed in one line so the whole page gets widened and all the text is subsequently "zoomed out". It's especially noticeable after a few indentations, where your signature can extend very far outside the normal page ranges. XeCyranium (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Scientelensia
Hi,
Just to let you know that I have updated my statement on the arbitration board. Thanks for your support in a difficult and stressful situation. Scientelensia (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Edit
@Nableezy:, with your permission, I would like to add a sentence to the article al-Ahli Arab Hospital, in the section "History," immediately following the words, "Southern Baptist Church." The additional edit, with your permission, will read as follows: "known then as the Baptist Hospital (Arabic: المستشفى المعمداني)." (End Quote).
BTW, there is currently no ARBPIA tag on this article.Davidbena (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- that’s fine David hope you’re well. nableezy - 23:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm well, but sad at what is happening here.Davidbena (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
DoneDavidbena (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for letting me know, so I had a chance to self-revert [1], just in case, even though I disagree than my edits were reverts. My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Israeli occupation of the West Bank
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Israeli occupation of the West Bank you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SurferSquall -- SurferSquall (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi Nableezy,
You seem to have made two reverts within 24 hours at this article:
Please self-revert the most recent. BilledMammal (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
RFC extended confirmed
Please stop adding {{RFC extended confirmed}}
to discussions, it causes breakage of the RfC listings. I have found three instances so far:
- On 17 October 2023, this addition triggered this edit with consequent damage at WP:RFC/HIST and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted
- On 24 October 2023, this addition and this addition triggered this edit and this edit, with consequent damage at WP:RFC/POL and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted
Thankyou for your co-operation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- ok, is there some method of informing users that doesn’t break the rfc listing? The notavote template does the same? nableezy - 19:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- The
{{not a vote}}
tag doesn't call in Legobot. It's fine to use in an RfC, but should not be inside the RfC statement; and if used before the{{rfc}}
tag, won't be seen by anybody following the link from the RfC listings or from FRS notices. It's best used at the start of the discussion/survey, as here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)- So if the
{{RFC extended confirmed}}
removes the parts on determining if you are extended confirmed would that work? nableezy - 22:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)- No. It is the presence of the tag itself that is the problem. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ok well then the template is useless and might as well be deleted (I modified it from the RM one), and if you have any suggestions on how to notify people that some RFCs have higher requirements for participation than most others be very helpful to hear. nableezy - 22:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, so you created a fork of Template:RM extended confirmed without giving attribution, which is contrary to WP:CWW. There was no need to create another template: you could have used
{{RM extended confirmed|a-i|other=RfC}}
. I suggest that you tag Template:RFC extended confirmed with{{db-author}}
. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)- Sorry, didnt consider the attribution but yes. But from what I can tell if I do
{{RM extended confirmed|a-i|other=RfC}}
in the RFC that will have the same result as this in disrupting the RfC listings? nableezy - 23:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)- It's nothing to do with the code inside the template. The template name was the problem. Apart from that, it's rarely a good idea to create a new template if an existing template already does a similar job. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ok got it, so I can add
{{RM extended confirmed|a-i|other=RfC}}
to each of the RFCs that I added the other one to without issue? nableezy - 23:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC) - Oh, I see you did that, ty. Sorry about the screwup. nableezy - 23:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ok got it, so I can add
- It's nothing to do with the code inside the template. The template name was the problem. Apart from that, it's rarely a good idea to create a new template if an existing template already does a similar job. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, didnt consider the attribution but yes. But from what I can tell if I do
- Ah, so you created a fork of Template:RM extended confirmed without giving attribution, which is contrary to WP:CWW. There was no need to create another template: you could have used
- Ok well then the template is useless and might as well be deleted (I modified it from the RM one), and if you have any suggestions on how to notify people that some RFCs have higher requirements for participation than most others be very helpful to hear. nableezy - 22:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- No. It is the presence of the tag itself that is the problem. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- So if the
- The
Just reaching out and being polite
Greetings - I noted your revert on the Rafael article - I comprehend folks can get a tad passionate about some of these subjects.
Many of them are a tad hyperbolic - and I get this - claims of how great a thing is etc.
I deleted a lot of these PUFFERY claims - as did you I think, kind of looking for support to keep these articles NPOV - and not hyperbolic -
I am totally objective regarding this and related topics - ABSOLUTELY no agenda - the materials are of interest. BeingObjective (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have no clue what you’re talking about tbh. nableezy - 19:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Lol - okay - apologies. BeingObjective (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Hospital explosion
Hey Nableezy, please would you consider taking a step back from that talk page, at least for a day or two? I feel (as an uninvolved admin) that you're bludgeoning the process and that several of your posts are combative in nature and address issues with editor conduct rather than article content. You are more than welcome to bring conduct complaints to AE. When things are as out of control as they are at the minute, I'd rather see lots of complaints about minor misconduct that can be handled with a warning or a slap on the wrist than have people hold off and present big complaints that take days to get admins to agree on. I considered blocking you from the page but I know you have the encyclopaedia's best interests at heart, which is why I'm asking you to be more mindful of the heat:light ratio. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Harry, with all due respect I feel like you are taking an editors view, uninformed in my view, as fact. I am not the only one to have taken issue with the FTN notification, an uninvolved admin had to change the heading, another editor called it blatant canvassing, and so did another one. As far as bludgeoning, I disagree that bringing more and more sources and arguing about policy is bludgeoning. I am not simply responding to every person who disagrees with me and badgering them, I am addressing the substance of their comments with sources. Yes, things are hot, but I am arguing my position in good faith and based on our policies. In fact, other users who have done the same have thanked me for remaining calm and discussing civilly, and I have productively engaged with any editor who discusses the content of the article. Yes, I respond when people are misrepresenting the edit, by for example claiming we are citing a tweet when we are citing the New York Times and three other reliable sources, or when they post a non-neutral message at a noticeboard that violates WP:INAPPNOTE. Yes, I get upset at the never ending stream of attempts to silence Palestinian and Arab views in articles covering something that has so far resulted in some 2,000+ Palestinian children being killed. You, an uninvolved admin who I certainly respect, are entitled to sanction me as you see fit, but I dont think voluntarily stepping away from an article in which every single comment and edit I have made has been well sourced and argued on the basis of our policies to be the best idea. But I do not think I have, as you say I have, been combative in nature and address issues with editor conduct rather than article content. I have consistently been addressing article content. Yes, I added a bit about what I find to be the GAME playing and tendentious editing in the sequence that led us to where we are now, and if you want I can remove that bit from my RFC !vote. But I do not agree with the characterization of my edits by you here in sum, and certainly not with the claims made by Alicbiades979 of "abuse". nableezy - 16:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- I removed the one bit of my RFC !vote that was not about the substance of the issue. Thats the only thing I think I have done that is out of order on that talk page. nableezy - 16:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Your signature appears on that talk page and at FTN more times than anyone else's, by a fair margin. There are plenty of eyes on the article; it's not necessary for one editor to dominate the discussion. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm not saying that Neutrality wasn't out of order. I'm (mostly) just asking you to consider whether a comment helps the heat:light ratio before you post it, and if you want to complain about someone's conduct, do it at AE or on a user talk page, not an article talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I will do that. nableezy - 16:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Your signature appears on that talk page and at FTN more times than anyone else's, by a fair margin. There are plenty of eyes on the article; it's not necessary for one editor to dominate the discussion. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm not saying that Neutrality wasn't out of order. I'm (mostly) just asking you to consider whether a comment helps the heat:light ratio before you post it, and if you want to complain about someone's conduct, do it at AE or on a user talk page, not an article talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Friendly side note
I am not objecting so please take this in the best possible way, but some old line Wikipedians would object to clerking a discussion one's closely involved in. I thought you might want to hear that from a friendly person who isn't going to bring you to drama over it. Andre🚐 20:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah I asked in the thread below me, he said yes. I guess I should have waited for the other participant and asked you as well. But its making a mess of it, but fair enough Ill stay away from tidying up. And if somebody reverts it thats fine too. nableezy - 20:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)