User talk:Nableezy

I was smoking the other night and I began to violently cough. I coughed so hard that I pulled a muscle in my back. So what did I do next? Smoked some more to try to ease the pain.

East-Jerusalem included

Here are other sources stating that East-Jerusalem is an occupied territory :

• from UN website. It is referred as such in all of the UN resolutions regarding this topic since 1998.

• International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004 : The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law”

Widely speaking, Resolution 904 (1994) of the Security Council states that Jerusalem entirely is an occupied territory : Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, which affirmed the applicability of the fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 to the territories occupied by Israel in June 1967, including Jerusalem, and the Israeli responsibilities thereunder.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. But I think 904 is still referring only to EJ, western Jerusalem was not occupied by Israel in June 1967. nableezy - 12:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a complex issue.

I think Jerusalem is considered as an occupied territory (referring to the 'corpus seperatum') and East-Jerusalem is considered as a Palestinian Occupied Territory but I could never find as source nuancing both aspects simultaneously. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC at List of Israeli cities

There's a RFC at to talk:List of Israeli cities#RfC: Are Israeli settlements Israeli cities? about weather the articles inclusion of Israeli settlements (with city status) as "Israeli cities" in this context original research, or otherwise problematic. I'm telling you this because you made a related post on the article talk page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC step three comments

Hi Nableezy. About your comments at the Jerusalem RfC discussion - I've noticed that some of your posts have been focused on the conduct of the other editors, rather than on the content issues at hand. Actually, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the way you express some of your comments makes it hard to tell whether they are comments about the content or about user conduct. For example, on one level this comment appears to be taking issue with what should be considered original research. This is, of course, a perfectly legitimate subject for a comment. On another level, though, saying things like "silly me", and "thats what again? Oh yeah, its not the same" might be interpreted as sarcasm, and therefore as a judgement of the actions of the editor in question.

As I wrote in the introductory section, I would like participants to keep comments focused on content, and I would prefer that there be no discussion of user conduct on the RfC discussion page. To this end, it would be a great help if you could make an extra effort to strip your comments of anything that might be considered sarcasm, or of anything that might otherwise appear to be commenting on user conduct. Would you be willing to do this? If you have any concerns about user conduct, even small ones, you are welcome to bring them up with me in private (preferably by email), and I will take a look. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Ive replaced the comment. Hope thats better, if not let me know. nableezy - 21:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Conduct

I responded to the RfC at Talk:Rujm el-Hiri. I think you might consider a wiki-break. You seem to have an axe to grind and Wikipedia is not the place to do so. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you learned that in your 329 edits with more than 50% in userspace? Thanks for the advice, really, no sarcasm at all. nableezy - 04:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

...

Glad to see your are still around and doing what you do. Hope all is well. -asad (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)