I pretty much keep my prior stance that the RFC should be closed with no census as with the canvassing there is no way to determine a consensus. However for some reason a case one way or another is still being built. I notice you say the following: When did you stop beating your wife? I'm not exactly sure how to classify such a statement. Personal attack? Casting aspersions? Though it's not really for me to classify anyway. I would lean more towards suggesting that you avoid such comments. However I doubt you'd listen. I'm sure you have a reason for making such a comment, Something that would at least add context. As it stands the comments looks purposeless and uncivil. Perhaps you would consider in the future, if it's necessary to make such comments, that you could add something contextual if those comments are meant to be more than purposeless and uncivil.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Look at the comment immediately preceding mine. Jaak was attempting to use a loaded question, so I responded with the same. nableezy - 05:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Nableezy, a page which created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nableezy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Nableezy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy, I thought you'd be interested in having a look at this regarding your email of behavioural evidence at the outstanding investigation here, take care. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, just got busy and never actually got around to putting the email together. Ill try to get to it in the next few days. nableezy - 23:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A proposal that doesn't seem unnecessarily unreasonable has been made and I just wanted you to check it out and take it into consideration. [1] The link they provide doesn't work but I think there maybe some other alternative link that can be used. Anyway its up to you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Moot it seems. nableezy - 23:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd none the less consider it. Your opponents feel that this shows support for Hezbollah due to it being in he link address. You and the original creator have a different logic and do not seem to offer any actual support to Hezbollah. This all seems on and off again since 2012. I note that this whole thing is seemingly tendentious and may not help. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any prior accounts on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homemade Pencils (talk • contribs) 21:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

here:)Nishidani (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

fuckin nocal nableezy - 20:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

And, apparently, still no appreciation of why an editor who happened to be a black American (and Jewish) might not like being addressed as 'sonny-BOY', and illustrate his offence by calling him, in return, a 'JewBOY'.     ←   ZScarpia   19:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nableezy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I didnt know pointing out you dont read what you cite would get you this excited. nableezy - 23:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I intend to open a user review regarding you, based on your hostility and bad faith accusations in my direction lately. I will inform you when I open the discussion. Debresser (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

lol OK, didn't know quoting your own words was a bad faith accusation, but by all means feel free. nableezy - 06:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if Permstrump is not a sock : [2]. (S)he arrived just after the new ARBPIA (3 months ago), never focused on the topics of Judaism or Israel but was asked for a vote! on the pov-ed article RfD and arrived in the article Anti-Judaism with strange comments regarding a source I have just put in... What is your mind ? Pluto2012 (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm out of the country for the week but I can look when I get back. nableezy - 06:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy, can you please give your opinion on the censorship issue on Talk:Yisrael Katz (politician born 1955)? 2A02:C7D:3FDE:D400:34AC:583A:B24A:5AF3 (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CaseeArt ^Talk 07:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Your clarification request has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (May 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to bring to your attention that a DS notice must be the DS template for it to be official and formal. You can see here for more information: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts. Thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Those arent discretionary sanctions notices, they are informing people of a general prohibition which needs no notice to be enforced as far as I know. I just like making sure people know if they are doing something wrong before they get reported for it. nableezy - 16:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Right, but the DS notice does that. If a person you put your notice on continues to edit, they can't be reported because they were never properly notified of sanctions. The DS Notice just informs them of the sanctions and if they continue editing, you can report to AE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I dont think you quite got the distinction here, but dont worry about it so much. nableezy - 16:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I get the distinction, but you need to place the notice, not your notice. What happens if the person keeps editing in the IP area? I assume you're going to want to report that person. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok fine, Ill explain this to you. Discretionary sanctions means that that Arbitration Committee authorizes uninvolved adminstrators to impose sanctions on pages or users in a topic area at their discretion. The 500/30 rule is not a discretionary sanction, it is a general prohibition which may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Nobody needs to be notified of discretionary sanctions to be sanctioned for violating the general prohibition. But like I said, dont worry about it so much. nableezy - 16:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy, you posted on Talk:Alison_Weir_(activist) about claims being made about living persons. I'm very concerned about claims being made about numerous persons on Talk:If_Americans_Knew, but I believe I should not edit the article because it is about Israel/Palestine and I have fewer that 500 edits. Could you check out my concerns, which I go into in detail on the talk page, here? I'm trying to figure out where I should go from here to request that more balance be brought to this section. Thank you!SM-Mara (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is more balanced this way on further reading and re-reading. Regards Irondome (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The first signs of a rift between Hezbollah and the Syrian regime, which have been cooperating over the past five years in the Syrian civil war, reportedly began emerging amid heavy fighting against rebel factions in Aleppo. According to the Syrian news site, Syrian Mirror, heavy clashes broke out between the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad and Hezbollah fighters early Thursday morning in two villages in Aleppo's southern suburbs. The fighting between the parties escalated to such an extent that the Syrian Air Force carried out three airstrikes against Hezbollah fighters, which resulted in the killing and injuring of dozens of militants, according to the report.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Controversy-over-military-strategy-reportedly-ignites-fight-between-Assad-forces-and-Hezbollah-456905 (Zionist source, but to each his own.... I mean... well, a Zionist source).

If it is indeed true and factual, the coming months may be interesting, wont' they?. --Edelseider (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Im sorry, but why is it you think Im interested in a discussion on this? You do realize the userbox on my page isnt about Hezbollah, its about censorship on Wikipedia right? nableezy - 11:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Nab, I just wanted to ask you that when you tell users they are not allowed to edit under the policy of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, add the link to the poilcy in the edit summery. I remember my first days on Wikipedia and if someone reverted something I genuenly belived as the sole legitimate truth and wrote "ARBPIA3" I"ll just start edit-warring without having any idea of what he is talking about, only until a few month I actually discovered what is even "ARBPIA", even though several months in Wikipedia. New users, especially Israelis/Palestinians who are not the best English readers, have a good tendency to be unconstructive in their first or only edits and if you link the page, there is a better chance of not starting an embarrasing battle of a new user for his truth, which might get a potential good editor banned. Thnaks.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bolter. Thats good advice, Ill try to remember that. I usually also leave a message on the persons talk page. nableezy - 21:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If you wonder why: I too had a blast ;) --TMCk (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Why did you restore only one of the two categories that were recently removed from this category page? Debresser (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Because the other one was repeated on the page? nableezy - 18:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Belgium has just scored against Wales, so there'll be a pause in the match, sufficient to drop another boring reflection.

Reading about correlations on a page I don’t care to intrude on, I think that’s correlation with entailment. Jeffrey Goldberg is the source for, branding Gilad Atzmon as an antisemite. Hence he is an antisemite: Goldberg is the pope of such judgements , then. His moral authority comes I guess from the fact that he admitted in one of his books that part of his IDF duty he would assist in locking Palestinian youths arrested for stone-throwing or taken for administrative detention without formal charges for several months, up to 6 of them, in a refrigerator box like container (zinzana) for 1 to 3 days, where they were bundled in limb to limb with a small pan to shit on which was emptied once a day, simply because they had made minor infractions of a prison rule. The same Goldberg who, in condemning Atzmon as an antisemite hints that something’s wrong with John Mearsheimer, who endorsed GA's book as an important read. Mearsheimer replied to that on Stephen Walt’s blog at Foreign Policy. So if Mearsheimer thought Atzmon’s book provoking, he’s also close to being an antisemite, as are Richard Falk, Brian Leiter, Oren Ben-Dor and many others in the diaspora. The only advantage of being old these days is one has memories of the McCarthy red-baiting witch-hunting, where such correlations with entailment led to the destruction of hundreds of innocent people’s lives, and when the US imitated, if on a small scale, what it protested, otherwise legitimately, with regard the paranoid countries of the Iron Curtain. I don’t know whether Atzmon is an antisemite, since I haven’t read him. All the others above, esp. Falk, Mearsheimer and Walt, are of course, men of eminence, moral rectitude, and courage. But of course, one doesn't in this regard use a reverse correlation with entailment to associate their qualities with Atzmon. One just doesn't tout opinions based on opinions grounded in opinions. Nite. Back to the real world, soccer at the moment.Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting that Goldberg's page, which I read for the first time a half an hour ago, appears to have been written by himself.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

God dammit Nish, I was at juma and was recording that game. nableezy - 19:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not gunna tell you the result, then. From this sincere kaffir, have a good iftar before seeing the game (a beauty!) and I hope this Ramadan will end with you and yours spiritually refreshed.Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Good game, and with Belgium scoring early you only ruined a few minutes for me. nableezy - 22:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Somone has been systimatically editing the page of max blumenthal to look like a promotianal page When I tried to correct it I got flagged by you

can you make sure the page is not flawed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relzap (talk • contribs) 22:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have a question. How do you know when you have 500 edits? where does it count? --STI500 (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:STI500 first click at your "contributions" (you will see that button in the upper right hand corner of your window.) Then, at the bottom of your page, you will see a button saying "Edit count". If you press that, you will see that at present, you have 16 edits, Cheers, "page-stalker" Huldra (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

thank you! --STI500 (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Per this request please explain your position at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard in the "First statements". Debresser (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. I noticed your comment there regarding part of your post being commented out. Please see my take on that, and my suggestion.[3] Debresser (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Umm Im aware. nableezy - 23:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

With regard to this charmer, I´m basically 100% sure that was the Telstra-vandal, report him as such (like this) and admins normally have him blocked pretty soon. See User:Huldra/Telstra-socks, he has threatened to kill/rape me countless time, lastly today, when he also threatened to "rape my young daughter" (as if I have ever given out family circumstances on WP...)

Oh, and if you see those rape/death threats, please make an archive.is-version of them. I am collecting them, to hand over to the Australian police, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, Id rather just get the articles indef extended autoconfirmed protected anyway. Kinda wish it would be rolled out everywhere already. And will do for the last line. nableezy - 06:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, I would prefer so, too. However, it seems the "norm" is first to protect it 1-2 weeks, and progressive longer protection periods after that. At lot of wasted time....but at least I´m no longer afraid I will be blocked for reverting him, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's much for Nab to cheer about, unless he enjoys the spectacle of an ex-colonial power wiping out little Iceland.Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Fucking shit that game. I like France more than most teams, but I really wanted to see Iceland go through England, France then Germany. They get one back and boom number 5 for the frog eaters. nableezy - 20:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, the best outcome at least. You might not have noted this curious court case, an appeal to the Israel High Court, fortunately overruled, to deny Palestinian prisoners the right to watch the match.Nishidani (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Ziauddin Sardar here. Sounds like a readworthy book. Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page, Nableezy. I can see why this type of protection would be needed in such a conflicted area. I will keep looking at other AFDs that aren't part of that whole thing to get my experience. Valeince (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Nableezy. Qabatiya, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

On 27 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Qabatiya, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1596, half of the revenues from the Palestinian town of Qabatiya went to the Tarabay Bey of Lajjun? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Qabatiya. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Qabatiya), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The clip, recorded in Hebrew and English versions, started with an Arabic greeting, the phrase, “Muwatinuna al arab al aezaa.” While the prime minister had meant to say, “My good friends Arab citizens,” with a slight mispronunciation his words were understood as, “my Arab goats.” The gaffe was pointed out by Knesset member Ahmad Tibi from the Joint List who released the following statement, “He [Netanyahu] meant to say the word ‘al-aziziye’ which means ‘my good friends.’ However, the word he said was ‘ al aezaa,’ which means ‘my goats,’” explained Tibi.

Don't let it get your goat. Come to think of it, 'get' means 'goat' in Swedish, so the English idiom is capracious-Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Nableezy, I have seen that you currently have undone some edits by the IP hopper user:JovanAndreano, 1. He is a berber nationalist which removes content about arabs on a daily basis. most of his accounts are already blocked, and now he keeps coming back with new ip adresses everyday. I am one of the people who keeps an eye on his edits, but it is a very though job!He keeps coming back continuasly, and the amount of vandalism is incredible. Today he use ip:105.156.239.20, the 25th he used ip:41.143.157.59, the 23th he used ip:196.206.65.210, the 21 he used ip:105.156.233.41. He makes the same type of edits, and one thing I noticed is that all of these users check my contributions to revert them. Can you maybe help me, and keep an eye on this editor. Alhaqiha (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FEnforcement.23Debresser and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Debresser (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Amendment request: Debresser (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!