User talk:Nishidani/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Notice of arbitration enforcement

Under a violation of restrictions imposed from the Israel-Palestine arbitration case, you are topic banned from editing and discussion of areas concerning Israel and/or Palestine, broadly construed, until 00:00 GMT on 6-13-12. Violations of this restriction may lead to a block from editing and/or a lengthening of the sanction period. If you believe this restriction has been placed without reasonable cause, please see the arbitration enforcement page linked in the header above for instruction on filing an appeal. The filing of an appeal is not a violation of the sanctions imposed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a brief response on a technical point, before all this nonsense is archived and I clank in my chains!

That’s fine by me, since it’s more or less what I imposed on myself.

Just a point about the use of the word consensus, however. It’s a tad improper to use this word in terms of the actual on-page deliberation by administrators, at least regarding.the 1 month ban in the edit summary. here (‘Nishidani: Discussion looks to be complete, consensus present for a 1-month topic ban from the area.’) There was no such consensus. To recap:-

  • (1) User:T. Canens (a)’24 hr block' (b) 'if we are blocking then a week is probably appropriate, considering the usual escalating blocks sequence. Alternatively, I can also go with your one-month topic ban.'
  • (2) User:Stephan Schulz concurs with (a)
  • (3) User:Floquenbeam I month I/P topic ban.
  • (4)User:The Blade of the Northern Lights concurs with T. Canens (a) because he then adds 'If not, then a week-long block would be the next step.'
As you can see, there was no consensus for a 1 month topic ban, there was a provisory consensus (majority) for a 24 hr. block, provisory because T Canens, on deeper review, allowed this could be extended to a a week or indeed a month, if, presumably, Floqueanbeam's maximalist position was agreed to.
The options canvassed were from 24 hours (3 editors at first), to a week to a month, the maximum proposed by Floquenbeam, which T.Canens did not rule out (2 of 4), while the other two editors concurred with T.Canens’s original proposal for a 24 hour block. The consensus is established not by the 4 arbs, but by your closing the case (3/2) in favour of Floquenbeam’s suggestion.
Still no harm done, and I certainly see no grounds for using this to challenge your personal decision to close by adding your own vote for a 1 month ban, but it makes you an involved administrator, not, as appears to be the case in the words you employed in closing the case, an uninvolved administrator. I’m just a stickler for correctly construing everything but the finer points of WP: policy, and somewhat comforted by the reflection that there is a certain appropriateness in my slip being sanctioned, with a closure containing an administrative slip! Regards.Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I stand by my decision. As stated, if you believe it to be erroneous, there is an appeals process, and I will in no way hold it against you if you wish to file one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the decision. I'm asked you for a courtesy - to drop a word to clarify for me why you, in enacting your decision, misrepresented its terms by calling yourself an uninvolved administrator and making the simplest of errors in miscounting the votes. It's not a matter of my beliefs - the record is as I indicated, and the only thing that worries me here, as a worker in a barren vineyard, is that, if my analysis is correct, this would be the third time, in six cases, that an administrator has misread the evidence. It doesn't help one's equanimity that Nableezy, with whom I disagree on many fundamentals, predicted unerringly that just such an 'error' would occur. A 50% error in making calls is not good for the community that trusts in the neutral management of a conflicted area. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani: The lurkers here know you are a great asset to the encyclopedia, and a sanction for your double revert of an egregious misrepresentation of a source is very hard to swallow. However, may I suggest that discussion on an AE issue should be tightly focused on an actionable outcome. AE is frequently not a clear cut issue, and while I'm sure your above summary of each admin's initial view is accurate, my reading of the following discussion is that there is a (vague) agreement with Floquenbeam's proposed one month topic ban. T. Canens made a comment that essentially supported your view, but added "I can also go with your one-month topic ban". Then The Blade of the Northern Lights added "I'm happy to give your suggestion a try here". No further comments have occurred in a week—while I am not an authority on AE procedures, Seraphimblade's interpretation seems reasonable since silence (no dissent) is usually taken as agreement. Johnuniq (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Everything is 'interpretation', but there are natural limits which circumscribe the degree to which, in parsing simple sentences, one can be counter-intuitive and subjective. Were this not the case, humans could never understand each other. There is no way to read User:The Blade of the Northern Lights's comment than in terms of T.Canens' first proposal.Let's print it without bolding.
'I'm happy to give your suggestion a try here; let's see if that doesn't work. If not, then a week-long block would be the next step.'
Though this lies under T Canens' second edit, where he ranges from 24 hrs, a week to month as okay, making several suggestions, the remark cannot but be read as endorsing his first proposal, which TC had not abandoned, i.e. a 24 hr ban.

'I'm happy to give your suggestion (note singular) a try here; let's see if that doesn't work. If not, then a week-long block would be the next step.'

I.e. if 24 hrs doesn't work, then the next step would be a week-long ban.
The if not . . then construction, in the context of escalating periods (next step) of sanctions, can only mean 24 hrs.
Most of my troubles with wiki editors deal with the precise construal of source sentences, which I think POV warriors are particularly prone to ignore. In fact this IR complaint arose out of exactly such a case, the misprision of simple English by an editor not known for his care with language. I believe in the proper construal of sentences before you hazard a private conjecture as to their meaning. There is only one way to construe that sentence. Still, if you can't see that, then perhaps I'd better get to work on some urgent philological input on a curious sprachfeld in ancient languages which a friend requested from me a week ago, and stop the precisian's rigour at least here. Cheers, pal. Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Johnuniq summarizes my read of the discussion quite well (and thanks for doing that), so I really don't have anything to add as that goes. I don't know you or those who filed the complaint, nor do I edit in the Israel-Palestine area, so that makes me uninvolved. It may well be that you're generally an excellent editor, and indeed, a lot of people have made it clear they think so. When we're talking about arbitration enforcement, though, we're talking about areas that have become so fraught with bad behavior that ArbCom has had to draw bright lines, for which crossing them is sanctionable for anyone and everyone. In this particular case, edit warring was so epidemic that hard limits had to be placed. I realize you believe you were absolutely right, and several others do too, but that's not the point—edit warring is harmful even when you're right. If you were unequivocally right, you had only to ask for the input of other neutral editors, and they would have unambiguously agreed with you. That would've definitively solved the issue without all this drama, and we'd never have had occasion to have this conversation. We have mechanisms like third opinion and requests for comment to get more eyes on something.
As to the discussion close, I'm sorry that you disagree, and realize I'm unlikely to change your mind, but I do still believe that I properly read the evolving discussion and its outcome. Doing so is not a matter of nose counting. However, even if we count noses, three of the four admins to comment opined that they considered the topic ban proposal reasonable, and the fourth to comment did not object (he commented only once before it was proposed, and did not return to the discussion afterward). After several more days passed, no one else had either objected or proposed any new alternatives. I think, given that, that the topic ban proposal is the one that had the clearest consensus behind it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I won't appeal because I wish to avoid absolutely any further discussion of this issue which, as can be seen, only gives POV warriors excuses to challenge any administrator's call and the legitimacy of their work. Admins should not be pressured one way or another, and to do so is, in my view, damaging to the project. It's simply that the construal of Blade's sentence, as above, is unequivocal - he was (though I admit he may well change his opinion, or may have written in a way that did not quite represent his thoughts) syntactically for a 24 hr ban. If Johnuniq, who has played an exemplary role in taming wildness on some articles I edited, agrees with you, that is the end of the matter for me, since he is absolutely independent and neutral, even if I think he, on this occasion made a subjective parsing of an unambiguous sentence. That's it. Best wishes.Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Response to Nishidani's reply to me above starting "Everything is 'interpretation'".
A good case for agreeing-to-disagree could be made here, but I would like to respond in case there is an issue regarding interpretation of talk page indents. I have seen several good editors indent comments in a fashion which suggests they have a different model of how indents and replies work from other editors. I think I have wanted to point this out to Tom Reedy or you (can't remember who) on one of the Shakespeare talk pages, but didn't because it is usually trivia, and would have distracted from the issues.

The format of the final comments at AE is:

Thus, I propose a one month I/P topic ban...Floquenbeam 20:47, 4 May 2012
Reply to Jujitsuguy...Floquenbeam 21:37, 4 May 2012
Looks like I missed...T. Canens 22:15, 4 May 2012
I'm happy to give your suggestion a try...Blade 5 May 2012

I suspect Nishidani's above analysis is based on a belief that Blade's comment was a reply to T. Canens. However, the indentation used in these comments shows that Blade intended the remark to be a reply to Floquenbeam. I read it as saying that Blade is happy to try the one month topic ban, and that Blade is making no response to T. Canens. Johnuniq (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(Just between you and me, since details lose most and no one should be expected to press on through them.)
Ingenious, and I admit I hadn't thought of indentations! However, it fails to understand the time-stamp and placement, after Canens, and the stylistic irresolution of Blade's syntax.
Against my own reading, I must allow that your solution does resolve, if only partially the awkwardness of 'if not' following if that doesn't work, which worried me from the outset. I.e. in your reading this should be construed as, 'Let's see if a one-month ban' doesn't work.' + (If not= 'If the one month ban is not accepted'), then (as my second option) a week long ban would be the next step.
The problem however is grammatical, and the sequential implications in standard English of next step. (a) 'if it doesn't work' is a conditional clause, which provides us with the protasis, but the apodosis or main clause is lacking. Since Blade uses the present tense here, 'if it doesn't work' in your interpretation would mean 'if the effect of a month's suspension doesn't achieve its purpose with Nishidani's editing' in the subsequent months. What is the difference between
  • 'let's see if that works'.
  • 'let's see if that doesn't work'
The difference is that the first means 'Let's try that solution out'.; the second 'Let's see if the solution proposed is dysfunctional'(in the months or years following the expiration of the ban), and if so, then. I.e. the first is an independent sentence, the second anticipates precisely the grammar we have in the following sentence, but the meaning of the second sentence, taken the way you take it, will not support that interpretation, because it refers to a shorter ban. The two sentences are logical only if the first refers to a 24 hr ban.
I took the apodosis to be the following sentence, which is framed as such, despite the two being separated by a full stop. Whatever, 'the next step' in either reading remains ambiguous and thus indeterminate. We do not know from the sentence what Blade is indubitably thinking, if your indentation argument takes priority over grammar and the time-stamp sequence. Fascinating rejoinder, Johnuniq, but I'm sure no one will see the point (Blade's comment cannot be taken as supporting unequivocably either 1 day or 1 month, but he would have been, like three out of 4 editors, comfortable with a week. What he thought at that time is unknown. The only admin whose opinion on the length of the span is unequivocable is Flobequean. I think I've outrun the ad break in the Formula1 race in Spain, which in my book is more punishing than this. I'm sure the sanction for my absence from the telecast for these several minutes will be to return and find Fernando Alonso has lost the lead, or is that the lede? Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
A petrol head!? I would never have guessed. That is suitable retribution for misreading indents as you will undoubtedly agree when re-reading the comments in a week! What's with "unequivocable"? My monitor is resting on my Shorter OED so I won't investigate its origin. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The shorter OED ignores all the really interesting words in English.
  • unequivocable:'Capable of only one interpretation, unambiguous'.(O.E.D.2nd.ed.1989, vol.XIX,p.5 col.3)
From your unfamiliarity with the adverbial form, I can, with Sherlockian intuition, abetted by some help from Basil Bernstein, gather than you are young enough not to have been born much before 1980; that by that date, even if praeternaturally precocious, you had not learnt to read; that you were born outside Great Britain; into a family whose newspaper subscriptions did not extend to The Daily Telegraph; and therefore probably of comfortably middle class culture, though you mixed in primary school with lads tending to use what is called in sociolinguistics, a 'restricted code'; and that you are certainly not of Polish extraction, and a few other things which propriety forbids mentioning.
I.e. 'In 1980 Gdansk is unequivocably Polish.' Daily Telegraph 6 September 1980, 9/6. Yeah, I'm a petrol-head - one of my first jobs as a minor delinquent in a gang full of mechanics was to scrounge for ball bearings and chassis parts in rubbish dumps. As fa them fucken 'indentations', I know wot to do wif'em - nah, not shove'em roight up yer acre-but get Mick the panelbeater ta knock'm back in'a shape. I didn't 'misread' them. I ignored them, much as many, yourself excepted except in this discussion, ignore the niceties of English usage! Toh! and cheers :) Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Holy rev 'n roll, you have exceeded yourself! I dare not ask what propriety forbids you from mentioning, but two other possibilities are that I have simply forgotten everything prior to 1980, or that I am insufficiently educated. I am, however, smart enough to not argue with you on a point of language; nevertheless (paraleipsis, boplding and bracketed link, Nishidani's intrusion. See note below), as you correctly predicted my Shorter OED does not mention "unequivocable", and some searching led to the Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style which claims:

unequivocal; unequivocable. The latter is erroneous, yet the error is surprisingly common. Most dictionaries list only the former, but some writers are undaunted—e.g.: "Coach Joan Stolarik can say unequivocably [read unequivocally] that her team will win when Wilson Hunt swims against Wilson Fike" (News & Observer).

That came from HighBeam and if that link does not work but you would like it to, add your name here. I point that out in the spirit of WP:ENGVAR as Google shows plenty of examples to suggest that the quoted claim is overly unequivocable. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, very clever - using that device of paraleipsis. You can't be 'insufficiently educated' since kids are exposed to that by studying Julius Caesar, and anyone who has studied Shakespeare is, in contemporary terms, over-educated. But, I must have some breakfast in a local restaurant before responding to your provocation that Septic tanks are RS. Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Waaahl, you know what it's like in the Mediterranean world Mrs Merkel wants to synchronize to German concepts of the good life (nose to the grindstone 24/7, etc.,) Over a lazy breakfast I met a friend, who invited me to lunch, and after lunch, another guest invited me to his cantina and vineyard for afternoon drinks and . . .)
I'll have to be succinct for once. Your high-beam hit is as useless as tits on a bull, or knackers on a eunuch, because the work adduced has nothing to do with the English language. Rather, it is a text, loaded with prescriptive (i.e. subjective) intent, for determining proper usage, against the empirical evidence, of the term in American legal writs, papers, and judgements. If American (legal) usage were the barometer, we'd all feel uneasy that Shakespeare failed to register Bushisms.
(1) Bryan A. Garner is not a good source, since we are talking of English usage, not American legal usage. The same goes for Charles Harrington Elster‘s The Big Book Of Beastly Mispronunciations: The Complete Opinionated Guide for the Careful Speaker, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2006 pp.4 79-480) since, in challenging ‘unequivocable’ (Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage, OUP 2011 p.913) the sentence you quote is followed by:

‘The dictionaries contain only unequivocal, though undaunted lawyers and judges have written *unequivocable’.

That's the sort of crass statement that puts any philologically trained Nervous Nelly's semantic knickers in a twist, if only because the O.E.D. contains the word he denies exists in 'dictionaries', and therefore he must mean '(legal) dictionaries'.
  • You cannot cite a dictionary of legal usage as evidence for the use of a word that is not a technical term in law. Garner is contesting the use of that word in legal briefs and judgements.
Garner has not consulted the OED which registers all usage, not English legal usage, which is his limited brief.
The OED does not mark this as ‘irregular’, a solecism, or non-standard (as Elster tries to insinuate, implying it slipped into use in 1917 and then was accepted by Merriam-Webster in the 1970s)
Like so many entries in the OED, the earliest usage only registers what OED readers, like William Chester Minor, recently described by Simon Winchester in his fascinating piece of biographical detection, The Surgeon of Crowthorne, tell them what the results of their intense if desultory readings are.
The OED here, as often, is not definitive, but provisory. No one has notified it of the error (I've done this several times, even with Elizabethan words, but no reply suggesting they read your letters has come back).
The adjective actually goes back at least to the abridged, English translation (1720) of Jean Chardin’s famous travelogue

The Chicane of the Persians, is as perplex’d and intricate as ours, and the Terms it makes use of, are as difficult to reduce into a plain unequivocable Sense;’ (Sir John Chardin, Travels in Persia 1673-1677, Dover reprint 1988 of the the Argonaut Press imprint of 1927, pp.122-123).

This reprinted a version in 8 volumes by Edmond Lloyd, London, 1720 of Chardin’s Voyages du chevalier Chardin en Perse, et autres lieux de l’Orient, which had appeared to acclaim 9 years earlier in 1711.
The French original does not contain that word. Lloyd's version translates

les chicans des Persans est aussie embarrassée que la nôtre, et les termes don’t elle se sert, aussi difficiles à réduire dans un sens uni.’ (Rev ed.Paris, 1811, tome 3, p.252).

From thereon in the frequent use of the word is easy to trace, from English and Scottish writers through to the founding fathers of the US, to our day.

'Their eyes fparkle, their features and geftures demonftrate, in the moft unequivocable manner, a mutual attachment and a ftrong defire of approaching each other, not with a hoftile intention, but with an ardent affection,’

In colonial, revolutionary and the then independent USA, the term reverberated in the writings of the Founding Fathers, who wrote the Federalist Papers, an informing document for the interpretation of US constitutional law, making Garner's objection look all the more weird. You can find it in the Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe's papers, and contemporary state documents.

'that the contemplated repeal, taken in connection with the known and avowed object of the repeal, is an unequivocable violation of the Constitution in a most vital part.'

'Of his will to do it, I have the most unequivocable proof. No sir, it is the result of respect for you, & for the reputation of your administration, which can only be endangered by confiding too much in persons wholly unlike yourself.'

  • 1779 Report of the Secretary of Internal Affairs of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, E.K. Meyers, 1887 p.293.

'Yet this state (of Virginia) determining to give the world the most inequivocable proof of their earnest desire to promote peace and harmony with a sister state.'

'I must prove them by the most unequivocable testimony.’

'they are indubitable, unequivocable tokens what the national religion was, and is, affording a clear illustration of the congeniality existing between the spirit and character of a system and its own principles, and not with their opposites.’

'Our language provides numerous equivalents or synonyms for this grand function, and most of them are intelligible and unequivocable.'

In the treaty of Capitulation every condition agreed upon both as to time and manner must be expressed in precise and unequivocable words.'

This freely adapts the German text (Mitter und sohn, 1902 p.38) which has 'Jede getroffene Vereinbarung ist dem Sinne und dem Wortlaute nach von beiden Parteien strenge zu halten.'

‘if the language is clear and unequivocable.'(p.970); ‘if they are clear and unequivocable.' (p.1198).

In literature, the same result

'He turned to William Jennings Bryan, who had thus far sat in humid silence, fanning his face with a palm fan, and declared in unequivocable terms that Bryan was the one responsible for this "foolish, mischievous and wicked act.'

With sullen pupils focussed on a dream,
Stares on the stagnant stream
That moats the unequivocable battlements of Hell.

'Harry Walters was a harsh and unequivocable tyrant to his own family, but he was a peaceable fellow and not too courageous where outsiders were concerned and a great avoider of trouble.'

'His plans to work in Russia and/or to train as a doctor, though pursued with greater purpose, never crystallized into a firm and unequivocable intention.'

'Neither in Frankfurt nor in Jena are either of the labels 'theologian' or 'philosopher' unequivocable when applied to Hegel.' (admittedly a treanslation. I'll try to check the German 1970 original.

'As a matter of fact, both Margaret Nicholson's Dictionary of American-English Usage and Fowler's Modern English Usage, from which it stems, blissfully combine the term "usage" with the unequivocable adjectives "right" and "wrong.'

The learned author of the article on סְדֹם (Sodom) in Johannes Botterweck,Helmer Ringgren,Heinz-Josef Fabry (eds.),Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000, Volume 10, pp.153-165, p.155, cites an authority that geology has failed to yield ‘unequivocable results' re its location.
No wonder people like Richard A. Posner and Antonin Scalia have given a withering review of the author of your source. This may not convince you, but it's a nice way to spend my time in the gulag of editorial silence where wikipedia's general disattention to anything but its own behavioural etiquette, rather that precision of content and meticulous control of sources, consigns me, as the penultimate step for a permaban, the logical consequence of a 1 month incremental sentence, when I make my next slip! Probably it would be more constructive to send slips to the O.E.D. to correct their errors: they don't sanction contributors-at most they ignore them. :)Nishidani (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
If you think that a wall of nicely formatted text, with links, is going to dissuade me from following my TRUTH, you are correct. Before scuttling off, I will protest that whereas the text you highlighted faithfully follows the form of paraleipsis, my Googling was for self-education, but when I was taken straight to the HighBeam page I thought that some harmless baiting would be in order, with the double bonus of the opportunity of pointing you to the HighBeam application page if of interest, and a place to park a small joke at the end.
My breakfasts are quite perfunctory affairs (although greatly enjoyed)—it looks like I may need some tips on improving my lifestyle in due course. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I read your preceding post precisely that way. I was practicing a combination of irony, reflexive mockery by self-caricature, accelerating to absurdity my temptations to pedantry, while indulging in chiakking, and topping it all off with a pathetic whinge inspired by a recent rereading of Ivan Denisovich to cover my secret glee at having a month off from this joint's gruelling grind. I was raised with the street-wise culture of sledging for fun, esp. with 'mates', and can't quite shake it off. The link to High Beam (which I hear as a hi-ball made from Jim Beam, and taking to it would probably induce the same intoxicating dizziness) was invaluable. I'm much tempted, but fear it would compete for my attention with the many books I have lying about that feel snubbed if I google. I'll think about it. As recompense for the pseudo-snidism in my remarks, if you want, I'll tell you how to make Torta paradiso out of potato starch. A slice of that, with Neapolitan coffee topped with a dash of Sambuca is as good a way to start the day as eating vaginamite on toast (provided link to avoid confusion with the 'breakfast of champions', as feminists, not smokers or readers of Kurt Vonnegut, understand it). Cheers pal.Nishidani (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
ps. As a final piece of philological arcana might I add that 'in due course' is a great tribute to John Wayne.:)Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Your kind offer on Torta paradiso is tempting, but while I do cook, it's at a very basic level. Also, I think I've taken enough of your time lately! Johnuniq (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Um, I guess I can edit again? Nishidani (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but only if you're good! Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes, the use of 'good' as a moral qualifier, and not as an epithet for competency (good at)! Well, out of porridge and back to the badlands, whether as sheriff or outlaw, will depend on 'good will' and 'bad luck'. For as that solipscyst with the Danish accent said: 'There is nothing either good or bad, but Arbcom makes it so'.:) Keep me honest, then.Nishidani (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 22:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

United Nations resolution on Israeli settlement activity, 2011 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Road Map, AFP and PNA
Islam and antisemitism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Fascist Italy
Izz ad-Din al-Qassam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Intifada
Murder of Shalhevet Pass (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Palestinian
Muslim Brotherhood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Counterpunch

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Immediate reverting of my work, and, if they occur in my regard, meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, tagteaming. Personal ref notes

Policy, all sorts of policy, can be adduced to tactical advantage in an edit summary to justify drastic actions. On many occasions, it turns out that there is nothing to the policy claim. I often suffer from irrational, from the hip, reverts by editors who, as often as not, turn out not to have examined the sources, or, if examined, fail to cite policy adequately to justify their automatic deletions of RS. This is a pattern, and I will note instances as they occur.

  • Luke 19 Verse 27 made a brief intense effort to annoy many pages I worked, and assist in the evidence-building for my perma-ban by provocative stalking. He was indefinitely banned on May 18,2012, just after I got a month's suspension in good part thanks to his efforts. The day after, on the 19th Iloveandrea, with whom Luke played what seemed like a pseudo-adversaries game in the I/P area, one the comic Zionist, one the comical anti-Zionist, was also indeffed. Neither contributed anything to wikipedia in their brief intense interventions, other than disruption, which was probably the point of their presence here.
  • (3) Seeing dubious language and matter and photos introduced into the Al-Aqsa Intifada page by 2602:304:6F77:6E99:A97A:A327:B58E:72EB, from a wiki page I've never edited (Murder of Shalhevet Pass) though I've known since its inception to be a POV shambles, I went to it and began fixing it. The main correction was to the sentence:'event shocked the Israeli public mainly because the Palestinian sniper was intentionally aiming for the baby.' The two sources for this say no such thing and patently fail WP:V
This basic correction to the lead was quickly reverted by here by 2602:304:6F77:6E99:A97A:A327:B58E:72EB, who provided no edit summary for his reversion, nor a response on the talk page to the reasons I had given in my edit summaries. It was purely an exercise of the assumed right to 1 revert in the I/P area, and the reverter believes no explanation is required. In the meantime, the photo he introduced at Second Intifada, and which I had removed with the contentious content, was initially restored by User:Eat memory who then, after a talk page discussion, subsequently removed it. The contentious matter remained. 2602:304:6F77:6E99:A97A:A327:B58E:72EB, then reverted User:Eat memory's consensual edit, and then provided new sources for the lead sentence whose failure to comply with WP:V had motivated my removal of them on the other page. The extra sources add nothing to that page, but merely refer to Shalhevet's death, ostensibly justifying the non-neutral language, 'one of the most shocking incidents', which at anyone's glance violates WP:NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Not right away, but over the years, Ben-Gurion even made an effort to put himself in the Arabs' shoes and stated: "A people doesn't forget so quickly that its country is being taken away from it." On more than one occasion, he said that if he were Arab, he too would fight the Zionists. Here is Ben-Gurion as a justifier of Arab patriotism. Ben-Gurion likened the heroic glory surrounding Izz ad-Din al-Qassam in the 1930s to Yosef Trumpeldor's fame. The terrorists that al-Qassam led and the intifada fighters, more recently, may also be likened to the terrorists that Menachem Begin led. Here is a basis for another riveting discussion about statesmanship and terror.

So I got to the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam‎, which I have edited with substantial content on 5occasions before, and paraphrase these remarks almost verbatim.

It is quickly enough partially reverted by User:No More Mr Nice Guy, who hitherto had made just one prior edit to that article in 2009. with the edit summary, 'removing the coat from the rack', here.

What he removed are words taken directly from Tom Segev's paragraph on Izz ad-Din al-Qassam‎ and Ben-Gurion and Zionism.

  • On more than one occasion, he said that if he were Arab, he too would fight the Zionists..'

WP:COATRACK is not wiki policy, and even were it, it wouldn't apply to my edit, since the nominal subject is a Palestinian Arab who fought against Zionism, and Ben-Gurion's remarks refer both to Zionism, those who combatted it, and specifically to the nominal subject. So this is a pretext to remove the fact Ben-Gurion said what he said. I reverted this abuse of policy and good sense, reminding the reverter to read the source and note that what he removed is in it.

User:Brewcrewer, who has never edited the article, suddenly appears out of nowhere and repeats NMMGG's revert, but with a different objection here, with an edit summary:horrific amateurish writing.

This too refers to the clause I added:

  • 'who on occasion admitted that were he an Arab, he would have fought the Zionists,'

Brewcrewer's revert has no basis in policy, except to illustrate WP:TAGTEAM, and WP:STALKING. The 'horrific amateurish writing' is straight from Segev, and the only difference is my writing 'admitted', where perhaps 'state' would be better. Brewcrewer can email Segev to remonstrate with him on the niceities of English prose of course. But opting to revert en bloc instead of adjusting the one editorial word one might object to on these grounds is spurious. The revert's only apparent purpose is to remove from wikipedia an uncomfortable statement which is, for that matter, famous (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What then happens? The ring-in syndrome. Out of left field, Ruby Tuesday ALMWR someone who rarely edits wikipedia, but hangs round to weigh in when the going is tough for the lads, enters to back up the two earlier editors, by once more removing as 'editorializing' a clause which comes direct from the source. False policy justification again. editorializing refers to what wiki editors add, not what sources day. But the damage is repeated, perhaps in the hope I'll revert what I think is vandalism and provide the grounds for an AE complaint and permaban. Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Ruby Tuesday ALMWR was of course indeffed as a sock almost immediately - he has a signature that declares itself in most edits.Nonetheless User:No More Mr Nice Guy returns and reverts my restoration of the edit after the sock had been detected. This time, apart from WP:COATRACK, the pretext is WP:CONSENSUS. I.e, Brewcrewer, without a reason, and himself, without a policy, are two, and agin it, and I am only one. Such is the 'rationality' of article building in the I/P area. Policy has nothing to do with it: it's a numbers racket.Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • List of editors who have used here, in my view, their IR option with a patently spurious claim about policy observance, or who don't either bother to justify their revert.

At Azzam Pasha quotation

At Al-Aqsa Intifada

At Izz ad-Din al-Qassam‎

At Judaization of Jerusalem

  • User: Plot Spoiler here. All that was required was to remove the quotation marks, rather than revert. This is an example of a total revert of a substantial edit from RS simply because you object to a minute element not in that source. The right thing to do after controlling the source is to copyedit the minutiae you object to, or shift the passage elsewhere. Objecting it doesn't belong to the lead is subjective. The article's lead is thin, the source very high quality, and the remark by Dore Gold is absolutely appropriate, in a thin para dealing with whether such a policy exists or not. Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

At Hebron

My edit summary was:'Removed Beit Hadassah snap (1) misleading (2) not notable, unless we want several hospitals in the photos (3) added an eyewitness account by Perera to the takeover. Text to help editors check in notes.'
It's fascinating that one can revert a text on the grounds that it has a typo in it, or because you disapprove of the syntax. Correct it. But a revert on these grounds suggests that these are pretexts, and one just wishes to remove the matter added.Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
AnkhMorpork challenges Foundation for Middle East Peace as RS. It is used on quite a few pages, Oslo Accords, Roadmap for peace, and is stable there. In 16 odd edits in a few hours I doubled the length of the page all sourced to RS, esp. academic books which say exactly what the FMEP says. AnkhMorpork trails me to this page, which he hasn't edited, and tries to be a nuisance. The discussion starts on the talk page. Within a few hours, he reverts all references to it before even trying to define why this eminently good RS does not fit wikipedia's criteria. Again, there is no serious motivation, just a personal feeling and an incomprehensibly counter-intuitive reading of WP:RS. Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Shrike once more steps into the breach, to simply revert without discussion what I and another editor were discussing. This is the second time he has done that, showing up from left-field in a surprise strike(-out). As discussion continues, he blankets my 16 odd edits that raised the content of the page from 6kb to 12kb. The edit summary runs:-

'rv all the recent editions as violations of WP:NPOV.Usage of bad sources are against the policy especially in Wikipedia voice per WP:ONUS explain why those source should be accepted at all.'

All of the recent editions (?)!!
Actually Shrike didn't even read my edits. He saw my name there and mass-reverted. Otherwise one cannot understand how he could challenge my edit to this nonsensical phrasing he restored:

Local farmers have lived in Yanun since the 18th century.

That means that the farmers of Yanun have lived for 3 centuries. There is no evidence that they enjoy such extraordinary longevity.
I rewrote it:
'Yanun's Palestinian farming community has worked its fields for three centuries.'
I.e. communities exist over time, local farmers, individuals do not normally survive a century, let alone 3.
WP:RS Sources. Shrike contests my using the following sources:
  • David Dean Shulman, Dark Hope, University of Chicago Press
  • Sean McMahon, The Discourse of Palestinian-Israeli Relations: Persistent Analytics and Practices, Routledge, 2010 The author is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the American University in Cairo.
  • Edward Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine and the adjacent regions: a journal of Travels in the years 1838 and 1852 , Murray, 1856. This remains cited, but the additional material I added from the page was removed.
  • Belén Vicéns, L'Orient Mitjà en el punt de mira, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2005. Belén Vicéns is an Arabist. her book was published under University imprint. It's in Catalan, and based on her field research as an academic specialist in the Arabic language and Muslim-Christian relations.
  • Tanya Reinhart, The Road Map to Nowhere: Israel/Palestine Since 2003, Verso
  • Robert Blecher, 'Living on the Edge: The Threat of "Transfer" in Israel and Palestine,' in Joel Beinin, Rebecca L. Stein, (eds.)The Struggle for Sovereignty: Palestine And Israel, 1993-2005, Stanford University Press, 2006. Robert Blecher, holds a PhD in Syrian history. He is an academic, an Arabist, and now works with the International Crisis Group
  • Sarah Irving, Palestine, Bradt Travel Guides, 2012 (A perfectly respectable, well-reviewed source for non-controversial material on the environment and ruins of Yanin.
  • Palestinians 'forced to abandon village,' BBC News, 21 October 2002. Extraordinary how, when I use the BBC as an RS, its reliability is questioned.
  • Anna Baltzer, 'Outposts, Settler Violence, & the Village of Yanoun,' in her Witness in Palestine: A Jewish American Woman in the Occupied Territories, Paradigm Publishers, 2007. An activist and author, with two books to her credit, and published by a respected educational publisher. Far better qualified as a source than Sandercock whom Shrike accepts. See below
  • Settlers Force Desertion of Yanun Village,, Settlement Report | Vol. 12 No. 6 | November-December 2002], Foundation for Middle East Peace. This is a respected American, Washington based think tank whose balanced reportage has been praised by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Admiral William J. Crowe, and which prints opinions and research by established scholars in the field (a short list here. It has been adduced, and not challenged, on several wiki I/P articles, at Road Map for Peace and Oslo Accords, for example. It's acceptable to the top American political and military brass as a source of insight into the Middle East but not to Shrike or AnkhMorpork if Nishidani uses it.
Shrike is troubled about sources?:) One of two preexisting sources I checked and corrected as wrongly quoted has been left in. It is
  • Josie Sandercock (ed.) Peace Under Fire: Israel/Palestine and the International Solidarity Movement, Verso, 2004
Josie Sandercock is an activist, she has no academic background in the Middle East. Verso, however, is a perfectly respectable publisher. This was added and rightly so by User:Al Ameer son 3 years ago (July 2, 2009). He made a technical error, since he quoted the editor Josie Sandercock for what on checking proved to be a short paper by Hussein Khalidi, 'Yanoun.' I corrected the slight oversight, and Shrike wiped it out. His edit was therefore based purely on the premise that my edits are objectionable, and do not require close evaluation for the errors they may correct to the preceding state of the article. It's completely irrational use of the revert technique, indifferent to policy, erratically motivated (NPOV for Shrike practically means here that the content added should be neutral! and not describe what is reliably reported as happening!) and based, apparently on personal dislike of my work. Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:UP#POLEMIC

Hello According to policy one of the sections on your talk page either should be removed or you should file a case.This section exist some time already are you going to remove it or file a case again mentioned editors?--Shrike (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read the policy. I am taking diffs of problematical editing according precisely to

The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.WP:UP#POLEMIC

This is not a polemic, but a gathering of evidence. I am documenting a revert pattern. Reverts are allowed, but they must be justified on a sound policy basis. Both of yours had no basis in policy, as anyone who is familiar with the ostensible policy you waved when reverting me would realise. The IR rule does not allow editors to blanket relevantly sourced material published under academic imprint, as you did. This is not polemical. It is a statement of what happens, and forms the basis for an eventual request to examine the whole issue of 1RR in the Arbpia area. I do everything above board, in the full purview of the community, and this section gives advance warning of the nature of the complaint I intend to raise when the opportunity presents itself.
As for your edit at Yanun, yes, I'm strongly minded to report this, as it appears to me that you blanketed a day's intensive article construction without even examining what you were doing. That is the third time you did this to my work. The first example was with the Afsai article, which, in a very brief time, you had to back down from. The second was at Azzam Pasha quotation. You haven't learn the lesson and persist. Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
You admit yourself that is evidence hence either file a case or remove it.--Shrike (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Read the policy. I will file a case against you within the day. It's just I'm not particularly good at that, having never done it.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok one day is fine.--Shrike (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
There other users mentioned except of me you going to file case against them too?--Shrike (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you'd have a hard time convincing admins that WP:UP#POLEMIC applies to the material, one reason being that it's not polemical. If you think that Nishidani has misrepresented or that his concerns that he might be being targeted are groundless, why not take the time to explain your reasoning?     ←   ZScarpia   11:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The user is admitted that is evidence this allowed but for limited time material about me was added today but material about other users was added long time ago.--Shrike (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Shrike. Look at my editing. I actually work here to build articles, and not to engage in endless revert wars, POV-mongering, and pro/anti battles. You have twice made, in my regard, profoundly disturbing, and time-wasting reverts. Since you so desire, I will report this, because you are now turning a note made on my page as evidence for future reference (I simply am bad, at my age, at running up diffs archeologically, and must record them as they occur) into some other form of challenge. You may apologize for destroying 3 hours work yesterday by an abuse of 1R, and I can archive this. If you keep interrupting, both my professional work, and my occasional work here are disrupted, much as your shoot-from-the-hip reverting of me in the past disrupts me. So give me a day or so, or apologize, and don't keep posting here. Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not desire anything I only desire that you comply with policies.--Shrike (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't preach policy when you abuse it so extravagantly with regard to reverting serious editors and suppressing by erasure impeccable sources. I will archive at sight anything you write here hereon in.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Shrike, Nishidani said that he was gathering evidence, but to document a revert pattern, not necessarily to bring an AE or AI case. My reading is that Nishidani's purpose is to draw other editors' attention to possible poor treatment of himself, which seems like a legitimate use of his user talkpage to me. The situation appears to be ongoing, so calls to remove the material are premature. If you think any of the material misrepresents or is unfounded, then make specific requests for that material to be changed or removed.     ←   ZScarpia   12:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The pity of this is that the bloody page at Yanun is an eyesore, with many minor errors of grammar and spelling, and correct WP:NPOV to correct. The Shulman and co. material should be in a separate section dealing with general comments, etc. Once I'm reverted, I can't touch it for a day. I now have to balance getting a report it with dismantling under a sweltering sun. a huge wrought iron gate that no longer functions electronically, and haul it to a repair shop. Life!Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't allow Shrike to bounce you into faster action than you want to take. If you're worried that Shrike has a case, but you're not ready to proceed, seek an opinion.     ←   ZScarpia   14:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Nish, a bit of advice if I may be so bold. Delete sections like this. That was a terrible edit made by your interlocutor, one of the worst I have seen in how ever many years I've been around here (and thats saying something), an edit he should be ashamed of and apologizing for. Absent that apology, I dont see why you bother. nableezy - 16:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've had a long and tough afternoon with that bloody gate. Nice to see you back Nab. I've made a copy for my archives. I'm reluctant to report people, as you know. It looks pretty snippety, esp. since Shrike reported, and then pushed for me to be permabanned on a triviality, and I abhor, if they arise in myself, vindictive feelings or actions stemming from them.
On the other hand, there is a legitimate problem here. I do think this 1R stick is being thwacked about far too frequently on the wrong editors. I do not see my colleagues taking the same trouble to revert obvious sockpuppets and disturbances in this area of the encyclopedia.
I never check other people's contributions, but earlier today did and compared them to mine. In the last 500 edits I have contributed useful, often substantial content to Yanun, Aqraba, Yitzhak Shamir‎,Eliyahu Bet-Zuri, West Bank, Islam and antisemitism, Judaization of Jerusalem, Operation Magic Carpet (Yemen), United Nations resolution on Israeli settlement activity, 2011, Beit Jala, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, Roger Williams (theologian)‎, Ofra, Bethlehem, Price tag policy, Beit El‎, Murder of Shalhevet Pass‎,Second Intifada,Hebron, Abdul Rahman Hassan Azzam, 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, Susya, Iran and weapons of mass destruction ‎Azzam Pasha quotation, Shasu, Palestinian refugee, Nuclear program of Iran, Trita Parsi, Haj Amin al-Husseini, Donald B. Redford, Palestine, ‎Old Yishuv‎, Silwan,Joseph Trumpeldor, Kafr Qasim massacre . The only time I removed material without then adding to it by compensation was at Battle of Tel Hai, which was all narrative editorializing by some amateur historian with a bad memory.
It's not much, but it is steady, academic or mainstream newspaper based article building. There is far too monitoring, or talk page argument evidenced in many editors' contribs sheet, and far too much subtraction from articles by editors who block, elide and then drift on to talk pages. Fine. But if that is what you are good at, do not, that is what I am asking for, follow tradesmen around who actually think constructively, read in the subject, and, if they touch an article, feel obliged to read it from top to bottom, and assist in its promotion to a supra-stub level instead of dithering over p's and q's, and thinking strictly in terms of defending a national image.
I'm too tired to make a decision tonight on this. But if tomorrow springs no surprises, I'll decide one way or another then.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Nableezy is correct: just delete this section, or archive it, or ignore it. If you couldn't be bothered, I would be happy to archive it for you. There is no need to debate user page rules here, so if no one has a substantive point (are any statements on this page misleading?), there is no need to continue. There is no requirement to file a case quickly. I spend a lot of time lurking on noticeboards and the situation is that a laundry list of complaints must be removed (but there is no such list here), and a case must be filed within a reasonable period of completing a compilation of evidence. Further, there should not be any gaming of the system by trying to keep evidence in perpetuity by tweaking something in it every week for many months. None of those conditions apply here—the information is very neutrally stated, there are no inflamatory headings or accusations, and the tweaking is constructive. Take your time: I have seen much more incendiary pages survive WP:MFD on the basis that it's only three months since the compilation was started, with an assurance that a case would commence soon, meaning within a couple of weeks (and that's after the MFD, which was after the compilation was unedited and unused for a month). Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nish!

Good to see you around. I am not sure if you have heard of it yet, but Birzeit University launched a Palestinian Archive project. I thought you might enjoy that. Take care! -asad (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. That's a great link, thanks pal. Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ali Abu Awwad

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ego and Hubris

Unfortunately for those we rush to label 'controversial' here, they belong to the Judaeo-Christian tradition, with its prophetic vein. - Nishidani

Does this mean that anyone you perceive as pro-Israeli must be either a Jewish or Christian religious wacko?

Did you ever read "Why I became a Zionist" by athiest Albert Einstein?171.8.66.113 (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. But you really must learn to spell simple words like 'atheist', and learn to read for tone. That 'unfortunately' was wryly ironic.
Einstein actually fitted the prophetic profile. In a letter to Chaim Weizmann in the year of the 1929 Hebron massacre, he wrote:'Should we be unable to find a way to honest cooperation and honest pacts with the Arabs, then we have learned absolutely nothing during our 2,000 years of suffering,' and went on to warn other Zionists that if they themselves did not ensure harmony between both parties, they would be haunted by the conflict for decades.(Walter Isaacson,Einstein: His Life And Universe, Simon and Schuster 2007 p.381) That was spot-on, except that it was the Palestinians who are haunted by the conflict. But really, hey, this is wasting valuable boobtube time for the Olympics, and it's not the place to discuss these things here.Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
So criticism of a typo and criticism of Israel instead of answering my question. That's fine, my writing and Israel's history are both spotty. But I don't heave my narrow judgements on anyone who disagrees with my political views. The sources you've been stacking on the obviously controversial opening line of the Palestinian People page contradict one-another and prove the controversy. Yet they are all good and in line with your beliefs. It is like circular logic, perfectly in line with the Abrahamic tradition. And the Olympics are stupid. 171.8.66.113 (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Result of WP:AE#Nishidani

Hello Nishidani. The result of the 1RR complaint is that you are banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict on all pages of Wikipedia for one month. This includes articles, talk pages, user talk and Wikipedia-space discussions. You may appeal the ban in the usual way. Please see the details in the AE discussion. The ban expires on October 6. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. No, no appeal. That strikes me as just.
Just as a curious coincidence, I found this in the mailbox this morning.
Indirectheng <KillAllEuropeans@hmamail.com> 06 settembre 2012 07:21

A: Nishidani Fucking Eurofilth, I hope all you Europeans and Arabs get exterminated. For two thousand years, you scum have tried to exterminate us and failed. First the Romans, massacring six hundred thousand Jews in Jerusalem and spreading us across the Roman Empire as slaves. Then the pogroms by Cossack, Polish, and Russian barbarians. Then the German trash. Yet you failed every time. And that was just some of the things happening in Europe. All the while in the East we were forced to live as dhimmis under Muslim rule. Now that we have finally rebuilt Israel, you Europeans will never be able to destroy us. We will nuke you hateful scum into oblivion if you try. Furthermore, the Arabs and Muslims will never get to rule us again. Now it's THEIR turn to be ruled. Let them be servants for a change! Long live Israel! Fuck Eurotrash and Islamofilth!

Whose land are you occupying, Christian? If you come from the Americas, Australia, or New Zealand, you and your ancestors are guilty of crimes against humanity by stealing land via genocide. And if you come from Europe, you and yours are guilty of two thousand years of genocide against Jews. YOU have no room to talk, European Christian.

The Palestinians are an artificially created entity, manufactured by the Arabs, to destroy Israel. They never have been and never will be a nation. They can have all the U.N. groups like UNESCO try to create the illusion that they're a real nation. But in the end, all those moves are meaningless. They will never, ever, destroy or reduce Israel, even if Israel has weak leaders.'

I think crap like this means, that despite my lapses, I must be doing something positive for the encyclopedia's I/P sector! Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
You're not the only one. I too received several copies of the same message, from the same (now blocked) user. Over the past couple of years, I have received several hundred similar, as have other editors involved in these issues. This has been discussed at ANI several times, but tech experts seem unable to resolve or prevent this abuse.[1][2][3][4][5] It is another serial vandal, who gets his jollies from foul racism combimned with threats of violence and sexual abuse. RolandR (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Not too worried by threats of sexual abuse when they come from a chronic wanker.Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
If you received that via Wikipedia email, the person can be blocked from sending mail. Let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
No comment on the email but you shouldn't be discussing the topic area or why you feel you are doing positive work while topic banned. Cptnono (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you feel better now? In short, go away. Do something positive, rather than wasting your and everyone's time trying, as many do, to make life uncomfortable for serious workers.Nishidani (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I feel fantastic. I don't need to explain to you why you are a burden to the project and you wouldn't understand it anyways. Enjoy your topic ban. If you think you are the only one who gets terrible emails then you are too self involved to dabble in the topic area. I have not received a terrible email since telling the sender to "fuck off" (direct quote I sent to a pro-settlement editor). Grow up and stop toeing the line of your ban. Go away until you are welcome again. Cptnono (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
So that's the beef? I'm a burden to the project? That only makes sense if the project has nothing to do with the 5 pillars, but their violation in order to push a POV. I really think I'm a burden to some because when they write, they are not quite aware of what they are saying, as when you use the idiom, toe the line solecistically to mean 'surreptitiously nudge one's way beyond the strict legal limits'. So when you advise me to 'stop toeing the line of your ban', your counsel consists in suggesting that I infringe the topic ban, not, as I am doing, observe it. Serious editors have a huge amount of their time wasted here because many simply don't understand what they are writing, either in editing or on talk-pages. Perhaps playing dumb is a tactical advantage: it does waste everyone's time, and does stop solid work being done.
I certainly toe the line of my ban in the accepted use of that phrase, i.e., I "conform to a rule or a standard." My only consolation in reading what you write is that occasionally your bloopers make an unintended sense, as when, in your edit summary you wrote, 'filibustering the wikilayers.' You of course wished to write 'wikilawyers'. Those who lay the groundwork of wikipedia do build it up layer by layer and, and in sensitive areas, find their masonry undermined by filibusterers or more often kibitzers intent on seeing nothing is ever actually done by nagging the obvious to death. Too many layabouts who lie about. . Growing up primarily means acquiring some grammatical and lexical mastery of one's mother-tongue. You have a long way to go.Nishidani (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Nish, I would just recommend you ignore Cptnono. He is clearly trying to lure you into violating your TBAN. -asad (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
it's hard to keep mum when one's mother tongue is twisted out of shape and crippled.Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I can relate. But, in case you haven't already noticed, Cptnono's modus operandi is to come over as vulgar and loudmouthed in an attempt to elicit careless responses from people. -asad (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I feel so silly! I just assumed that he was talking about intellectual property or internet protocol.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm closing this down for a month, chaps. No interruptions please. I'm looking for a non-rubbery prophylactic one can hood one's edits with, preferably with a beeper that lights up when some rule is infringed, warning the user to withdraw. Everything's on the net, so I'm sure something will turn up to ensure protection as I continue my intercourse with wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought they come in your size. Why not use this period of abstinence to familiarise yourself with productive editing so that AE doesn't have to constantly abort your illegitimate mess? Ankh.Morpork 12:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that you know I warned you, as one of the editors I regard as profoundly disruptive here, not to frequent this page, 'abort your illegitimate mess' is a messy metaphor. (a) a mess is what happens when something is aborted. What is aborted is not a mess, but a life that is disposed of, or messed with. (b) What is a 'legitimate mess'? What you, and several other editors do, I surmise. You all know the rules, and use them, not to improve this place, but to rid it, by pettifogging, of editors whose work you dislike because it ensures balance. Don't reply. I can revert malicious disturbances here as much as I like. Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It is of course impossible to divorce the pleasure from the productivity, and it is true that I have commingled the sybaritic with the sensible during my Wiki tryst. Yet, I must assure you that I do attempt to "improve this place" and furnish well-balanced and comfortable handiwork, and although the whilom musky whiffs have drifted across the harsh Wiki plains and editors have locked horns in this heady air, I posit that these contretemps were but a seasonal aberrancy and not be perfunctorily portrayed as perennial patterns. It is a pity that during your Wikipedia time, you have disregarded its mutually pleasurable possibilities and failed to intuit the need for the occasional adjustment of position and rhythm, and perhaps, if you were somewhat more attuned to other's needs, far from having to employ a rubber, you might be able to conceive something worthwhile. Ankh.Morpork 13:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Seeing your AE notice on my watchlist reminded me why it's been so long since I last checked it. But I wanted to say that it is fortunate for the project that you're still around and I'm not. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks pal. I'd gladly exchange my presence here for a return of your equable eye.Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

List of indigenous people - Israelites

I'm not sure why you reverted my edit last week, as you left no explanation. However, I noticed that I had made a mistake in any case, so I had placed it back in the corrected form. I might note, reading the extensive discussion in the talk page, that it seems Wikipedia editors involved lack cultural awareness enough to edit this article since you have been discussing the wrong subject! Please discuss before taking any further action. Crock8 (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I gave an explanation: 'reverted crock'. Crock may be your handle, but the word, among other meanings, signifies 'nonsense'. I reverted a crock of crap, which you have now restored with this edit.
You are rude as well as ill-informed and tending towards being misleading. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It's all a motherlode of crap because:-

  • (1) Replacing Bedouins with Arabians consists in eliding a specific tribal group with an extensive page about it, by an indefinite term linked to an ostensible synonyn, on a new page that has no content other than a brief lead saying Arabians is the general term for a people sometimes called Bedouin. The page has no references save one, to the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Arabia, which talks of ethnic Arabs. Thus the Arabians are 'ethnic Arabs', but you don't even link to Arabs. The POV strategy is obvious.
The article is a list of indigenous peoples. Had you looked at the Arabs article, you will have seen that it, like the Arab people deal with the entirety of the global Arab populations. Arab tribes doesn't help much either. I would suggest, if you are so unhappy, to propose a merger of the four articles in whatever way please you, but Arabians, despite the obvious shortcomings of the article, suits the purpose of the list best. The use of Arab when referring to Bedouins is appropriate, while the reverse it seems is not, within the culture. Perhaps you can expand the Arabians article to a better standard? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • (2) Israelites. You haven't apparently even clicked on the link. The article is about 'indigenous peoples'. You have introduced a highly ambiguous historical, mythic term to smuggle in the POV that the Jews are indigenous to Palestine, which the talk page is undecided about, and thus are acting objectively on behalf of User:Evildoer187, to push this POV.
"a highly ambiguous historical, mythic term"? Israelites appears to be the correct plural adjective form in English of a member of any given ethnic group with a known place of origin, in this case Israel. Israeli, is not the correct grammatical adjective that would be Israelian, but Israelite is still a correct, though more archaic usage form. The people of Israel, Kingdom of Israel, and Israel as individual and community identity seem to have been fairly well established in history, Western and Easter, and supported by archaeology and linguistics among others. You may think its a 'myth', but its a fairly consistent 'myth' that the "Jews" preserved for over 2,000 years given the Greeks and Romans certainly believed it. But then, other cultures have myths also, right? So why don't you bring this up in other Wikipedia articles. If you are going to start debunking cultural myths, you may as well do a thorough job. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • (3)Israelites, in biblical lore, are an historic congeries of peoples, ancestral to the Jews, and neither in prehistory nor today an indigenous population. They are registered in ancient records in Egypt, the Sinai, in Syria and many other places, where biblical lore sets them. In the Biblical account they are nomadic tribes who invade Palestine and wrest it from the indigenous Canaanites. Secondly, the page lists contemporary peoples who are listed as 'indigenous' minorities. It does not list ancient peoples who may have been indigenous to a country. Thirdly, you provided no source saying these Israelites are listed as a (contemporary) indigenous people. There are no such sources.
Within the culture, the record (Torah) shows that the progenitor of Israelites, Abraham, purchased land in the Canaan. Lore to you, but cultural property to others. I think you are trespassing! It also details that he settled in the land, engaging in planted agriculture. That Israelites were nomadic is a theory. However, I would be happy if you enlightened me as to where in the Torah it says the Israelites were 'nomadic'. A subsequent invasion was in fact God-directed, so not really a subject to modern ethical analysis.
There are many contemporary indigenous people that are not minorities. In fact the largest indigenous people are the [Han Chinese|Han]] who are the majority in the Peoples Republic of China.
All indigenous peoples are 'ancient' by definition since most non-indigenous populations date only to early medieval (European) period, for example the Franks reaching the Pyrennes in the early 6th c. by displacing and assimilating the Gaulic Celts, or the Arabs (from 7th c.). The "Jews" however are fairly unique in that they have claimed a place of origin from the ancient times which comes with perhaps the best ancient identification of individual tribal lands and borders in existence.
Do you know what you are talking about in seeking a source for a "(contemporary) indigenous people"? If they are not 'contemporary', they are extinct! There are many such ethnic groups, and if you agree with the Nazis, Israelites also would have been "non-contemporary" along with Levites and Kohens. It seems to me that no sources are required to establish this fact. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • For these and many other obvious reasons, your edit was a 'crock', and will be reverted, I hope by neutral third parties who can see that your behaviour constitutes an intrusive attempt to tagteam and get round the objections on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
My avatar in Wikipedia is crock8, so I like to play with words just like you Glen, Glen West is it? However, it does not give you the right to sling personal abuse by converting my avatar to something entirely unsavoury.
As for tagteaming, cute try, but I had never heard of Evildoer187 until I started editing this list. I think this would be obvious from the edits.
Nor am I 'getting around' the objections raised in the talk page. Its just that the subject of the objections was wrong in the first place, as I informed when I began editing. Its called re-framing the question. I note that you make your entry there citing Tibetans and Basques, who are in fact Bodpa[ites] and Euskal[ites]. I therefore quoted John Trudell for your benefit. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You are with this second edit further trying to game the process. The citation from Scharfstein reflects a religious POV, and happens to be controversial, not a statement of fact. The distinction between the ostensible self-defining ethnonym Israelites, and the putative foreign ethnonym, imposed on the Israelites by outsiders ignores the fact that the Hasmonean state used as its official term 'Judeans' to self-define, and used ḥever hayehudim on its coinage. Both Philo of Alexandria and Josephus use 'Israelites' for the Biblical era, and 'Ioudaioi' increasingly for for the post-biblical era, and their contemporary fellow Jews. and they are in this 'self-identifying'.
Of course Schaferstein is reflecting a religious point of view...its a book about religious rituals in Judaism!!! Doh! However, he doesn't seem to be the User:Schaferstein participating in the editing of this article. In what way is it controversial and not a fact?
The Hasmoneans were out to restore independence of Judea! What else would they put on the coins?! This did not overnight cause the Levites and Kohens to become 'Yehudim' from the date of minting!
You want to get into the analysis of why User:PhiloofAlexandria and User:Josephus switch between these terms? Are you saying that either of them made a difference to the self-identification of the millions of non-Levites and non-Kohens in their times? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
In short, you and Evildoer are combining to push into this article as well contemporary political rhetoric about Israel's right, as a state of presumptive autochthones, to take over the West Bank, whatever logic, the historical complexities of the issue, and the non-existence of sources for the notion of Jews as indigenous to Palestine allow us to say. The POV pushing comes out clearly in your formulation above:

'An ethno-religious group of the Eastern Mediterranean with recorded settlement in the area of modern Israel, Jordan, Syria and southern Lebanon.'

Actually, I reflect a plethora of maps way before any record of 'Palestinians' emerged in the 20th century which show Israelite tribal lands. Judea happens to be a reference to the tribe of Judah, and Samaria was the claimed capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. That you' read political overtones into the editing only says something about you. Most "Jews" appear to have a fairly good case of claiming for their land rights that geographic toponym from which the "Jew" is derived, but which only became "al-Ḍiffah al-Gharbiyyal" in 1950. So to be utterly consistent, those that live there are Gharbiyyalites, and I may well question their indigenousness. Instead perhaps you can find some sources of the Filistin indigenousness claims and claims of land rights in the Ottoman and earlier records? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Modern Israel does not refer to Judea or Samaria (the West Bank) which is where the Jewish people of high antiquity were concentrated. In leaving that obvious fact out, you are openly insinuating that Modern Israel includes the West Bank. I.e. you are pushing the settler POV of Eretz Israel.
The "West Bank" is not a recognised geographic toponym. The "al-Ḍiffah al-Gharbiyyal" was created only to distinguish the 30 deputies in the Jordanian Parliament from the "al-Ḍiffah al-Sharqiyyal", or "The East Bank" deputies. Since the west bank of the Jordan is not a useful geographic identifier of an area (being limited to a linear feature), I used more common and familiar identifiers. Is it my fault that the king of Jordan had no other Arabic name for his newly annexed territory? So what exactly do 'settlers' have to do with my editing? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Why do serious editors have to keep AGFing this continual incremental thrashing of POV bullshit in the encyclopedia by prevaricating blowins, who make their usual dozen edits in other articles and then zoom in on the only area that interests them as POV warriors?Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Since apparently you think my editing is "continual incremental thrashing of POV bullshit in the encyclopedia", I will not give you the benefit of "AGF".
You accusations is striking though, as I have not edited so frequently in Wikipedia as you had, nor for so long, and this is my first dispute, which is more it seems than you can say.
I'm curious why you think that this "area" is the only one that interests me? Admittedly it is an area of interest, and it was only when I was wronged in a conversation, and informed that Wikipedia does not list "Jews" as indigenous that I was forced to wade through the "incremental thrashing of POV bullshit" in the talk pages before editing. I'm sorry you feel slighted, but facts are facts. Most "Jews" that care anything about their cultural practices know if they are Kohen, Levi or Yisrael. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning

You have broken several rules on the List of Indigenous Peoples talk page, namely Assume Good Faith and No Personal Attacks. I will report you, if this continues.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Gee whiz! I'm pooping myself. What a fright! Oh dearie me.Nishidani (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • ^ Bachmann (2007, pp. 420–424)