This user may have left Wikipedia. Rabend has not edited Wikipedia since 15 January 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Talk Now, or Forever Stuff Your Sorries in a Bag!

Re: MeeMix[edit]

Since you've opened a discussion at the Village Pump about the issues, I'd like to wait until the conclusion of that discussion before taking action. Wizardman 02:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you sent me another msg, so i'll take a look shortly. Wizardman 18:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can put it at WP:DRV. I encourage doing so, since at this point I don't really have an opinion of my closure. Wizardman 13:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hateful propaganda?"[edit]

What alternate fucking universe do you live in? We're not going to have an article about a territorial dispute which just repeats the claims of one government involved in the dispute. That's preposterous. Calling that stance "hateful propaganda" is asinine. <eleland/talkedits> 18:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peace[edit]

yo I hope I didn't put you off with any attitude in the israel-gaza conflict article, I really did not intend to give any reason for you to be upset, though I do see my comments were at least brash. Obviously you and I are on different ends of the spectrum here, and we will almost not agree on much in this issue. I do respect your opinion though, and I think the only way we could possibly have a neutral article in any Israel/Arab article is if we all attempt to contribute and make sure the issue isnt overrun by ideologues on either side, as I am sure you think there are plenty on the pro-arab side, and I see man on the pro-israel side. I am being sincere when I wish you peace and happiness. Peace Nableezy (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

You're not to bad yourself. We really have a hard time here, I think. We are overwhelmingly out numbered by pro-Palestinian editors. This would have been ok if all of them were open minded and adhere to reality (and many of them are). However, quite a few of them simply see this as another opportunity to spread anti-Israeli propaganda. We must make sure the article reflects reality, and not some biased Palestinin narrative, as it currently does. I realy think that once truce is in place, most of the Urban Legends ascribing genocidal tendencies to Israel will turn to be nothing but a dramatization of not so dramatic reallities. We should be on guard, we must be active, but we shouldn't worry just yet.--Omrim (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

grossly[edit]

you right on that, I just saw the first section of the article were it says "IDF officers say the figures are dubious and that Hamas is inflating the numbers." Didnt read all the way through, sorry bout that Nableezy (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im beginning to think the world is coming to an end, but I hope this conflict ends :(. But thanks for your understanding, and I should have read the whole article. Nableezy (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Gaza Massacre"[edit]

First let me preface what I say by this; I have found you to be a very reasonable editor, and with an admitted pro-Israel viewpoint do attempt to find neutrality in our discussions. But I cannot really understand why people are objecting to the use of "The operation has been termed the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) by Hamas leaders and much of the media in the Arab World." in the lead. As I see it, of the people who have objected to its use you come across as the most reasonable so I thought I would ask you so I can understand why some feel it shouldnt be used on policy grounds. So the first question is do you think the use is not being used by Hamas leaders and much of the Arab media? If you think it is, why would it be non-NPOV to include it, only as the name being used, in the lead. I completely understand that many will find the name objectionable, that it is not really a 'massacre', but what I cannot understand is that we should only include the Israeli name for the operation and not what the other 'side' is calling it, that that would somehow be NPOV. I welcome a response as I truly think you have been a good editor and have added much to the discourse on the talk page and in the actual article and would like to hear your opinion. Thanks. Nableezy (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree with all that you wrote (specifically about the victimization), but I dont disagree with all of it either. But what I cannot get around is that the arguments are based on that the Arabs should not be using the term, that it is not really a massacre. I dont want to debate that, you have your opinions on why this is not a massacre and I respect that. But, there is no denying that they are using the term, and if we want to appear at all encyclopedic, that should definitely by included. That the name is more inflammatory than the name the Israelis gave is not our concern (and there are plenty of Arabs that object to using a childrens song as a name for something in which over 200 children have been killed). Like I said, I sympathize with those who do not see it as a massacre, but I cannot see how that should disqualify showing what the Arabs are calling the conflict. Nableezy (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had changed it earlier to "Hamas leaders and much of the Arab media have termed the conflict The Gaza Massacre (arabic script here). (sources)", would that satisfy your concerns? I think you bring up a valid argument (oh how I wish the people who have been arguing this would do the same) but I dont think the answer is to remove the phrase. It is clearly prefaced by who is making this the name. Reading what you wrote it seems that the presentation of the information is the problem, but I think there needs to be mention of both sides names. Does this remove any of your concerns? Nableezy (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the boldface, i think the names on each side need to be in bold, per wiki convention. Also, have the Israeli named the bombing 'Dolphinarium discotheque massacre' or have they described is as a massacre. If they have named it that then it should go in the lead paragraph of that article, bolded, in my opinion. I also think that, as Omrim brought up, if this is referred to as 'The Gaza War' in israeli media, that should be included as well (i dont feel like looking through a bunch of israeli sites though, the one i saw was haaretz which seems to use cast lead almost exclusively), with proper citations. In every article that has different names for different languages, the names are bolded. I think it would be trying to treat this article as somehow different from the rest of the I/P or I/A articles because the name is inflammatory to some. The bolding, while I understand your point that it raises the term in the consciousness of an uninitiated reader, is being presented on equal footing as 'Operation Cast Lead', both the names used by each side, both bolded. What you think? Nableezy (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the english sites they refrain from using that term, as that is not the accepted term in english. But I think the evidence shows that on the arabic sites (we showed bbc arabic and aljazeera) they use it, and, more importantly, it is used as a title by Hamas leadership, specifically calling this conflict 'the gaza massacre'. Here are english sources directly quoting hamas leadership: (eg SBS World News Australia, quoting a Hamas spokesmon "Basically what is happening is the fault of Israel because it is impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre." [1]; turkish news agency quoting hamas spokesman 'Hamas leader Muhammad Nazzal made the announcement for his party during an interview with Al-Arabiya television Monday evening. Hamas will not try to make any political gains on the backs of the Gaza massacre, he said.' [2];); your thoughts? Nableezy (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here is the english translation of a google news search of the arabic term from the past month: [3], hope we can clear this up. Nableezy (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats cool, find what he thinks as well, although I think he is on record for inclusion and adding Gaza War. I just want to see if two sides can reasonably discuss this without the type of edit jaakabou and tundrabuggy have been making. If we can figure something out we can bring it to the group to see what they think, just so we dont have another 20 archives talking about nonsense. Nableezy (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) thought it might be easier to have this in 1 place, i put together both talks in chron order at User_talk:Nableezy/Massacre_usage. Nableezy (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the rest of the lead, i think it should mention casualties, but not 'all but xx have been soldiers'. I would think it would be more neutral to say 'As of (date) there have been t Israeli casualties, u of which have been civilian. There have been x Palestinian causalities, y of which have been civilians.' No judgments no nothing, just the facts in as neutral a sentence as can be constructed. Nableezy (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say we go paragraph by paragraph, lets first resolve the first paragraph then move on, but feel free to bring this up on the article talk, dont think many people would object to the wording above. Nableezy (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your good question[edit]

I just wanted to respond to your question below because the bizarre bot achived it.

"Is a picture of bloody Palestinian corpses educational? The feeling (not just mine) is that pictures here are put for reasons cynically beyond education."

Firstly, let me say that please don't take anything I say personally in these exchanges because I'm sure you are a throughly nice person and hey, you play guitar so we already have something in common. Anyway, to respond to your question. Yes, I do think it has an important educational value but then I also think showing the absolute carnage caused by suicide bombings etc has educational value. I won't elaborate too much on why because others e.g. here have expressed it much more eloquently than I could. I think it's important to show a bit of the true horror of these events and the kind of chaos and carnage that exists. I'm lucky enough to have avoided blood splattering closeness to these kind of events so far but it's been a pretty close call on one occasion, close enough for the blast wave to hit your stomach and make your legs fold (and that was apparently a very small device). I've also seen all sorts of other distressing things in several places and I still do quite regularly living so close to the heavily mined Cambodian border. It's hard to avoid encountering unpleasant things if you move around. On a lighter note, I've even been detained on suspicion of spying by an embassy guard in Abu Dhabi during the Iran-Iraq war and handed over to the Iranian embassy (surely illegal ?) for being in the wrong place at the wrong time with no ID. Apart from the initial shouting and waving of machine guns this actually turned into a nice chat about life with a smart official there and free cups of tea for a few hours. Anyway, as I say, yes I do think the right kinds of pictures can be very educational when covering these kinds of events. Can you imagine the Vietnam War without images of children on fire etc ? If you travel around Vietnam for example you'll see a lot of very graphic images of the war. They aren't there for cynical reasons now that relations are pretty much normalised. It's just history or at least a part of the history. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Grossly[edit]

I agree. The only thing that is important is that all the elements of the IDF version are presented, rather than in would be a general denial. The IDf, surprisingly (when compared to 2006 Lebanon), is making good defence for such allegations.--Omrim (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new lead paragraph[edit]

would appreciate your comments at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#new_lead. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I want to thank you for all your very hard work at the Gaza War. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

anti-Israeli? Pro-palestinians?[edit]

Oh come on! You know that except for that freaking ~~troll~~ trollish NonZionist, most pro-Palestinian editors are not anti-Israel anymore that pro-Israel editors are anti-Palestinian. But even if true, we could use less of that type of divisive, inflammatory talk - and ignore people in one own side who promote such views. Logic and reasoning should be used, not appeals to emotion and sides. I want to write an encyclopedia, not to castigate the other side for being wrong or celebrate my own for being right.--Cerejota (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bye for a while[edit]

I enjoyed hearing what you had to say but that comment by The Squicks has me so upset that I think I need to take a break for a while. Look forward to working with you again. Nableezy (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am just going to stay away from anything not directly related to the text of the article, which I should have been doing anyway. Dont take that to mean I am not interested in what you have to say, but if you want to talk about our personal thoughts on these issues, feel free to engage me on my talk page. I dont want these conversations where anybody with an opinion is going to read them. Both sides, I know. Nableezy (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slacker[edit]

As another admin said of a previous version: Declining G11/db-spam deletion. Options for articles with a long history include reverting, rewriting, talking with a relevant wikiproject, WP:AfD, and sometimes WP:PROD.) In this case, rewriting will do. I started. You may want to continue. DGG (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Rabend. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]