User talk:Nishidani/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 → Archive 30

Reference errors on 3 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Jstor

Good luck with the new account. FWIW, as can be seen at ANI, in the first thread as we speak, there is a lot of controversy regarding the country of Ethiopia and its peoples. Right now Llywrch seems to be most involved, but I imagine that it could benefit from input of other highly qualified individuals as well, and I have to think you might be among the most qualified in general around here. And the sometimes confusing history of the Ethiopian Jews and Ethiopian Christians and other ethnic groups and the claim for the Ark of the Covenant might be of interest to you. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like I'll soon have an account, but am steadying myself to go on a reading diet. That access is a gargantuan temptation, and I must be careful not to succumb to an omnivorous gluttony. Right now, I'm up to the gills in antipodean ethnography - so much of it is there that I can't allow myself too much distraction. But it's nice to hear from you, John, and to see you are still enriching Wikipedia with your widespread uploada of encyclopedic material. Best wishes. Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment

Please comment at Talk:Kadesh_(Israel)#Proposal_to_Change_Name_of_Article. I posted this here for you, since you took part in an earlier discussion about this issue on that same talkpage. Debresser (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Some light reading

I sent you some light reading. Check your email.... Zerotalk 11:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

newish article

Could use a hand like yours.--TMCk (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. Hospitalized for kidney stones. Can't edit for some days, perhaps weeks. Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Yuck. That's painful. Good luck and best wishes then.--TMCk (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh gosh, poor Nishidani. Happened to me about 20-something years ago, in Scotland. The most excruciating pain I have ever experienced, much, much worse than the worst toothache. Fortunately over with in a few days (it was only a small stone, but big enough to make its presence felt). May have been caused by letting myself get dehydrated on long (several weeks at a time) cycle tours in (very hot) Spain. I read somewhere that drinking plenty of milk can help avoid them. Seems to have worked, as the problem has not recurred. Best wishes, NSH001 (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Doctors have told me I have a high tolerance of pain. I allow dentists to do dental work on me without an anaesthetic, etc. but, damn it, you're right. This kind of pain's in a different league. The remedy is 2 litres of water a day - imbibing the most tedious liquid on earth for a week or so, and if that doesn't work, surgery. Thanks N.Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Appalling news, my sympathy. However, there are many interesting stories, which I'm sure you know, involving people urinating while standing on their head (upside-down). That was in the days when surgery involved butchers with infectious knives. This might be good time to recycle the adage may all your problems be little ones. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hmm, 2litres/day doesn't sound like enough to me. And if you're drinking that much fluid, it should be isotonic, or you can add some electrolytes to the water. I'd recommend alcohol-free beer as a good isotonic drink (well, anything's better than water). Maybe see what the docs think. --NSH001 (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Hchlama Mehira--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The big day. A visit to the specialist, . .who has fallen sick himself and cancelled all appointments! Thanks for the kind sentiments and suggestions. Why urinate standing upside down? Johnuniq? That comparatively easy, compared to drinking a glass of wine upside down (which in the long run probably explains some of these later run-ins with kidney pains!)Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Apparently the hope is that by standing upside down, gravity will move stones away from the entrance to the urethra before attempting to urinate. "Benjamin Franklin, as usual, outdid everyone. When stones blocked his urethral opening, he dislodged them by standing on his head and urinating upside down." [1] Good luck! Johnuniq (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
That's an odd way to interpret the laws of gravity. I've drunk beer and claret upside down for half a century on request (by folks who've heard the usual rumours) and the grog goes north, as, my head on the floor, I use one hand to pour the stuff into my mouth, from where it travels in the proper direction irrespective of physics, i.e. towards my stomach a foot further up in the direction of the ceiling.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If its anything like a blocked catheter .... whatever: you have my sympathies. Padres Hana (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

1RR violation

Hi, firstly, you violated 1RR at the list, secondly you cast aspersions when you claim HOUND. That page is on my watchlist. I am giving you the courtesy to self-revert. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, while I wasn't hounding you at all in this case since the page was on my watchlist, you did explicitly give me permission to follow your edits, see here: User_talk:Nishidani/Archive_21#Khazar_theory_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry Sir Joseph (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I see exactly one revert by Nishidani today. You have to be able to count past 1 to get to a 1RR violation. nableezy - 21:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Fine, I meant the other DS, not reinserting something that was reverted. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
... without first establishing consensus on the talkpage. Especially something that is POV, sourced to a POV source, and ill formatted. Nishidani, why can't you put spaces in the right places? Debresser (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I actually think Sir Joseph and Debresser are correct here...and you can blame me for that. See User_talk:Huldra#Arbitration_motion_regarding_Palestine-Israel_articles. Since December, 2016: "In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." (The two diffs: [2] [3]) But I see Bolter already reverted it, so it is a bit difficult for you to self revert.... Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Just noticed this. I go on line late in the day recently. Why all this fuss? I note that Bolter21 broke the 1R rule on the very page SJ complains I did (but where I didn't) (Ist revert,2nd revert). This happened after SJ’s protest, before the intense scrutiny of you all, and I don't see any warning on his page. Of course, I personally ignore things like that. I don’t go to complain to Ed Johnston, or admins, or write up a draft of an AE indictment in my sandpit. But for those of you who reflexively indulge in Nishidani-reverts mostly on inane readings of policy (e.g. examine the completely farcical pretexts used to POV revert out long standing material I put back at Al-Dawayima massacre), i.e. via pretexts, as the RSN board agreed, I would suggest you be consistent.Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Huldra. The way that interpretation plays out, anyone can revert anything and then demand an editor spend hours if not days trying to convince a team of automatic reverters that their objections are specious. The rule would mean policy precision is irrelevant, consensus trumps everything. Everyone who reads Israeli newspapers knows Palestinian stone throwers, even if they hurt no one can get from 18 months to 3 years prison. When Uri Avnery notes that an Israeli IDF soldier caught on film cold-bloodedly blowing the brains out of a wounded Palestinian, who had been neutralized 12 minutes earlier and lay bleeding slowly to death as folks walked around and chatted, received 18 months, and compared the sentences: 18 months for throwing an innocuous stone if you are Palestinian, 18 months for shooting a wounded man in the head if you are Israeli and he Palestinian, it is automatically erased. Uri Avnery is perhaps not RS!!!, Gush Shalom is perhaps not RS!! Let's revert and have Nishidani convince several of us for 10 days on this one as well (If the reverter was serious, he would have simply googled around and found a dozen sources which make the same comparison. This is revert-abuse, stalking to revert wherever possible one particular editor and sheer laziness, aside from POV pushing by suppressio veri.Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, I did mention on the talk page that Bolter violated DS. And I didn't report you because I don't like reporting people for stupid stuff like that, and as you saw in my sandbox, the DS violation wasn't the main reason I was going to report you. It was for your behavior and comments towards me and anyone else you disagree with. And you shouldn't get too emotional about things, if you do, perhaps try to stay away from those areas that get you worked up. Focus away from Jews and switch to Australia. There's no need to get worked up over an online encyclopedia. And while I may sometimes feel your frustrations over the rules, after all, it's a numbers game and your side has the numbers which is why most IP articles are heavily biased, those are the rules. If you don't like it, go to ARBCOM and propose a change. In the future, I suggest you think twice about your edit summaries and how you interact with other editors. Your comments are not conducive to building a collaborative encyclopedia.Sir Joseph (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
You have an inordinate number of reverts of my edits. I'm a careful editor. I don't take this job lightly. You are gratuitously insinuating I 'get emotional' and 'worked up' in the 'area' and must 'focus away from Jews'. What in the fuck is that meant to imply? (it means, that you follow my edits and read them exclusively in the light of what you imagine they might entail for a 'Jewish' image in the world. Just to make you focus, if you can, I edit Palestinian pages. Jews have nothing to do with it. Nishidani (talk) 15
03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to note, that Ashkenazi Jews has nothing to do with Israel/Palestine, but regardless, people get worked up over lots of areas. I stopped following many pages when I couldn't help getting worked up. We should all strive to try to edit in a nice manner, and edit summaries attacking people doesn't do that. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't get 'worked up' by topics. I get pissed off by having to waste time coping with bad faith, obtusity, and political obsessives. Tthe editors who edit the Ashkenazi page do so almost exclusively in thinking of Israel, suffice it to see the immense amount of genetic junk thrown in to prove a connection. The problem at the Ashkenazi article is that almost no editors there evince any basic knowledge of the topic, i.e, Ashkenazi history or culture. I supplied 25% of the sourcing, exclusively linked academic works for the history, while everyone else sat round chatting, kibitzing, reverting focusing obsessively on the pseudo-history of 'genetic' proofs, basically because they are ueber attuned to political implications. Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see the assailant's brains being blown out, it seems the bullet made a hole there, but not a JFK-style hole. And the shooting occured 11, not 12 minutes after the stabbed soldier's m16 had a failiure and al-Sharif was spared for 11 minutes. No one said Uri Avnery is not an RS (although I am sure at least 40% of the people in this thread might say he is not), but the statement it self, placed in that spesific place, is POV push, whether fact or fiction, but I already stated that in the talkpage.
Now again I'll urge users not to say things like "I will report you for your behavior", and just either do it or not. And I can cry all day about the fact the article on Deir Yassin includes the word "massacre" in the title, or that Ilan Peppe is given a strong voice in articles concerning the Palestinian exodus (and he is much less reliable than Avnery), or that every article on an state, kingdom or empire from the past which ruled the region has "State of Palestine" as part of the countries that today exist in that entity's region. There is no point in doing that here in Nishidani's page. Wikipedia is not perfect.
As Joseph said, all of us need to edit in a nice manner so it is obligatory to ignore sometimes. This is not the Gaza border, you don't have to retaliate on every single assault or whatever you deem as an assault. I had many disagreements with Nishidani, especially from my salty times, before two folks tried to ban me from Wikipedia, and yet I don't think I ever reported him, but one time someone decided to report him on my behalf for condecending. This shows how toxic this field is. Is it that all of you are old and you don't remember what it is to have a parent, a teacher or a boss, who says things that makes you feel your dignity is hurt? It isn't that hard, I am sure you all been through it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't care for 'niceness'. I care about facts, and the precise citation of policy. I can get on perfectly well with people I might think are cunts, if they show competence, no ruses, just precise professional editing, in their work, here and in real life. Conversely I know a lot of nice people who are pains in the arse, and whose company I avoid. Being old means you don't have any dignity other than what you supply yourself, so, at least technically, one can't be 'hurt'. I don't give a fuck for what people think of me because I don't work here to shore up some wimpy, fragile self-esteem. As to Avnery he was challenged re Gush, and the point he made was a legitimate factual comparison. All facts can be thought of as POVs to the extent that they exist isolated from context. They are POV if the context is suppressed.Nishidani (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The attitude you present in the first sentence is not one that can make people be fond if you and you yourself admits it, by saying "I don't give a fuck for what people think of me...". Do you expect people not to "HOUND" you as you claim? You can claim until tommorow that you are superior to others in your editing, but it is not going to change the fact saying things like "I can get on perfectly well with people I might think are cunts", which is obviously interpreted as a code name for some people with whom you interact here, is not going to prove you are professional and that's what important. I have yet to understand what drives people in this website. It took me a few moments to really understand what said about POV, but I don't accept it. Writing the comparison there is a clear push of the POV that Israelis are being treated lightly by the Israeli justice system, in contrast to how Palestinians are being treated. Do I disagree? Not with the fact, but I don't think you can draw a connection between the two, considering the two have completely different backgrounds and contexts, I am not going to get into right now. I don't see why the POV of Avnery and obviously, you, has a place in the list of incidents. Does it have a place in the article on the incident? Yes. Does it have a place in an article or a section concerning Israel's law system in regard to the Palestinians? Yes.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The article on the incident is unreadable garbage, starting from the farcical title (Hebron shooting incident) I just read it now, and I'm buggered if it is worth anyone's time trying to make it readable in English or cogent.
Bolter we have rules, and editors that master them, and exercise care in making judgments, don't have to be nice, or whatever. One rule is that we are peons, whose subjectivity is under tight rein. In the Avnery instance, you just state this is a POV comparison. Well, no. We go by sources. Every experienced editor knows that if you have several highly reliable sources making the same observation then it can't be suppressed as a 'POV'. You say
the 18 month sentence being what is otherwise given to any Palestinian stone-thrower who does not injure somebody.Uri Avnery 'The Great Rift,'Gush Shalom 25 February 2017
etc.etc. Our incidents page can contain far more of the gist of an event that the useless spin offs we have, which are just a clutter of bloated responses, reactions, etc. By the way, cunts was used without thinking of present company. I've known a lot of people who are 'nice' and are cunts (most politicians for example). My point was rhetorical. A lot of 'nice decent people' have turned out to be murderers historically. Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Every time you violate something, you end up saying that the article is a mess. Even if that were true, something I didn't check, the state of the article gives you no additional rights! Debresser (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Who said I was claiming additional rights, for fuck's sake? Nishidani (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I was just making a point. Please refrain from swearing. Debresser (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Debresser, you weren't making a point. You were evincing an intrusive illiteracy in logic, which is disruptive. (a) Elor Azaria was mentioned (b) I examined the page on that incident (c) it a mess of garbled English and misreportage or stacking of irrelevancies. (d) stating this fact prompts you to make an out-of- left-field wild generalization about an ostensible behavioural tick of mine (every time I err, I blame the state of an article). (e) and, having invented this behavioral pattern you then insinuate I am claiming rights others don't have. All this is invented out of whole clothe, a fabrication of driveling fustian. If you cannot think syllogistically, don't comment, at least here. Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I won't react to that. I hope just you got the point of the discretionary restrictions. I have not much hope you will be more civil or less condescending the next time we cross paths. Debresser (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't cross paths. I edit pages, and find my quite normal additions frequently reverted by the usual crowd. Bolter is the only one who I can rely on to not be petty, (b) chose to revert where there may be arguably some grounds to do so but only then (c) argue his case cogently (d) and yield ground, as I do, if the burden of evidence goes the other way. He should be an example to you all.Nishidani (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
You dont exactly get to dictate the language others use, least of all place on their own user talk page. nableezy - 22:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: Wasnt even aware of that. Good to know. nableezy - 22:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

  • You just violated DS. Please revert or I may report you. In addition, not every interaction between an Arab and a Jew is about the IP conflict. It is OR and SYNTH to apply every dispute to the IP Conflict. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
You and a few others are violating the intent of all Wikipedia laws. Constituting a standing editing majority, you successively revert in tagteaming quite innocuous edits and say 'gain consensus', when there will be no rational discussion towards consensus because you have the numbers. This is utterly cynical. In the last edit, if you read the page it documents numerous examples of Palestinian stone throwing. This is by the tradition of the page an acceptable thing to be registered. I add an example of 4 Israelis throwing a stun grenade into an apartment to drive out the Palestinian occupants, and you revert it on spurious grounds: i.e. those who threw the grenade were 'criminals'. Well, all Palestinian stone throwers are defined in Israeli military law as criminals. So what's the fucking difference? None, except that you think the ethnicity of the thrower changes the nature of the act.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
One thing that can help create a better environment for editing in the I/P conflict area, is for Sir Joseph (SJ) to stop hounding Nishidani. Over the last several years, Nishidani has repeatedly asked SJ to stop hounding him, but to no avail. Typically, SJ denies hounding and claims that the article is on SJ's watchlist. Well, the reason the articles are on SJ's watchlist is because SJ hounds Nishidani, and then SJ adds the article to his watchlist. I am not (yet) seeking sanctions against SJ. But I think it would be a good idea for SJ to understand that experienced editors can see that he is hounding Nishidani, and it may also be a good idea for SJ to consider removing from his watchlist most, if not all, of the articles that Nishidani edits in the I-P conflict area. IIRC there are something like 5 million articles in the English WP, many of which need significant work. I see that SJ has been making some contributions to areas outside the I-P conflict. In my view SJ should seriously consider shifting away from wasting his time, and the community's patience, on his apparent obsession with Nishidani's work in the I-P conflict, and instead invest even more of his (SJ's) efforts to contribute to WP areas that do not involve the I-P conflict. Thanks. Ijon Tichy (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

"I don't want to be nice" was a line from an old song that I often repeat. I have lost some of my enthusiasm for being a Wikipedia editor because of the protective policing of all things Israel/Palestine/Jewish. To the extent that I wouldn't recommend Wikipedia as a reliable source for information about these subjects (with the exception of the bits of articles I have contributed). Is there a limit to the number of articles one editor can revert? Or a quota? Padres Hana (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

To enforce an arbitration decision and for your violation of the 1RR restriction (specifically: editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit) placed by the Committee on all ARBPIA articles, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Hi Nishidani: May I suggest, in the future, reverting yourself whenever someone says it's a 1RR violation (actually it's not a 1RR violation, but a violation of a clause which was added in the last ARBPIA case "restoring a disputed edit")? This is my own practice, irrespective of whether I think the person is right or wrong about the complaint. It's not worth getting blocked over trivial procedural matters. Feel free to argue about the edit etc. as much as you like. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Kingsindian, but I also think the editorial conflict may have been exacerbated when Nishidani may have felt exasperated and frustrated that Sir Joseph was relentlessly, obsessively continuing to hound him despite Nishidani asking him several times to stop. Moreover, Sir Joseph (SJ) appears to be in denial of his bad habit. Every time Nishidani, or I, asked SJ to stop, he declined to admit to his bad behavior. (For example, see the discussion in the immediately preceding section titled '1RR Violation,' and also see the comment that SJ recently posted and self-deleted.) As long as SJ remains in self-denial about his bad habit, behavioral problems are, regretfully, likely to appear and re-appear. In My view, SJ's bad behavior in the I-P Conflict area of WP detracts from SJ's apparent on-going good work in contributing to WP areas unrelated to the I-P Conflict.
Overall, over the last several years, Nishidani has shown remarkable restraint in dealing with relatively large numbers of disruptive, Civil POV pushing users who suddenly appear and re-appear to tag-team to revert Nishidani practically immediately every time he makes an edit they don't like. I think Nishidani should continue to show restraint, but it is also reasonable to expect that he will lose his (very long) patience every once in a while. Ijon Tichy (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I reverted because I didn't want to deal with you.however, if you continue to cast aspersions I may be forced to take you to ani. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Ijon Tichy, Sir Joseph, may I suggest that the discussion between the two of you (and by you about each other) may have outlived its usefulness? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
SJ, your starting a complaint against me on ANI may turn out to be the best thing for you as a WP editor and for WP, because it will open your own record to close scrutiny and other people will see that you have been relentlessly, obsessively hounding Nishidani for years, and that you have completely ignored all pleas by Nishidani, as well as by others, for you to stop your disruptive behavior.
Like I said before: I am glad you have been doing some work on areas outside the I-P conflict. I suggest you continue to expand on that good work, and drastically reduce/ minimize your contact with Nishidani by removing the articles that Nishidani edits from your watchlist (articles that you likely added to your watchlist after following Nishidani there), and by never reading Nishidani's list of contributions ever again.
There are many thousands of existing WP articles outside the I-P conflict that need significant improvement, or thousands of new articles that need to be developed, including a good number of articles on various aspects of Israel or closely related to Israel, that are not directly or closely related to the I-P conflict, and that are, in my view, much more important, to people everywhere, including Israeli people, than the WP articles on the I-P conflict. It would be great for the encyclopedia if you could put your energies to good use in these areas. Ijon Tichy (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Ijon Tichy, if you have evidence, feel free to add it to support your argument, otherwise you are just casting aspersions. I also would like to second HJ Mitchell in saying that this is probably not the best venue for such a report and that the discussion here has probably outlived its usefulness. Thanks. El_C 19:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

El_C, since you asked:

here is a diff where Nishidani indicates to SJ that SJ is hounding him.

Nishidani does not make any accusations, including those of hounding, lightly or casually. Nishidani is an experienced editor who is very careful with the facts, and if he says that SJ is hounding him, then it is highly likely that there is ample evidence to support that.

For people who are intimately familiar with the very frequent and very numerous editorial disagreements in the I-P conflict area of WP, and who follow Nishidani's work very closely almost every day (such as myself), there is a lot of evidence that SJ is hounding Nishidani. Gathering that evidence and presenting it here is very time consuming and I simply do not have the time to do so, because I am busy in real life, and whenever I have spare time I try to spend it on reading the work of good editors (including Nishidani, as well as several others) and to contribute to developing WP articles.

El_C, if you have the time, motivation and inclination to look for the evidence, I suggest you simply follow Nishidani's list of contributions over the last few weeks, months and years (skip Nishidan's edits in the areas related to Australian native tribes/ aboriginal people/ etc, because SJ is only interested in Nishidani's contributions that are related to Israel, and especially the I-P conflict area). You will find the evidence, for example you will see many cases where SJ appears, shortly after Nishidani has made an edit, to revert Nishidani's contribution or to contest it on the article talk page etc. Happy investigating! Ijon Tichy (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is how user:Nableezy described Sir Joseph's behavior: diff
Here are three insightful comments by user:Sean.hoyland describing how some users work to disrupt and frustrate the efforts of policy-compliant editors who are trying to contribute in the I-P conflict area: 1 2 3
Ijon Tichy (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
did you just admit to hounding? Sir Joseph (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It falls short—you can't simply direct me to investigate. The onus is on you, as the one who made the accusation, to prove it. Looks like they edit similar articles. El_C 12:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Just a note to save people the tedium. SJ is asked, to repeat what I told him some time back, not to disturb this page, which is reserved for serious editors ((Redacted)). The exception is AE or ANI notifications.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Warning for personal attacks. Don't comment on your opinions of the intelligence of other editors. The WordsmithTalk to me 00:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Apropos your redaction Sir Joseph admitted a year ago he stalked me BTW, I hope you don't mind that I sometimes "stalk" you. I oftentimes use you as a free version of curiosity.com He complained however, to no purpose, that he was being stalked when he walked into a page and made a rollback violation against an old consensus, and was called for doing just that, which immediately provoked him to whinge to an admin ‘I don't need to have this over my head every time I edit’ is what worries him, but there's no problem in openly stalking me so that I am to have ‘SJ to deal with every time I edit’. In this perspective what is good for the Nishidanean goose, is not so for the one that ganders at him like Medusa. Since at that time he admitted he stalked me his presence was innocuous, I said I didn’t mind. In the meantime the mechanical reverts became vexatious.

Soon after this exchange, in May he was blocked for badgering editors, and the block admin wrote:that SH was ’ wearing out editors' patience and bludgeoning them into the ground with your relentless repetitions and exhausting WP:IDHT issues . . your refusal or inability (I honestly don't know which it is) to listen to what other people say.’

Badgering and WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT is what he was sanctioned for, and in stating last night I do not want on this page people intruding who show no intelligent grasp of editing on these sensitive issues, I unwittingly echoing an administrative judgemnent on something that in the past has been judged problematical with SJ’s editing.

One example of irrational editing. At Stanley Milgram he vigorously opposed those who wished to keep Milgram’s ostensible ‘religion’ from the infobox. He then in an incorrect edit summary suggested I violated WP:DS (15:31, 29 December 2016) when I including the fact that the Ukrainian prime minister denied entry into Israel was Jewish, something reported in all of the sources on that specific ban (here in The Times of Israel; here in) Haaretz; here in Ynet.

I.e. On one page he nags away at editors who consensually agree Milgram’s Jewishness in whatever sense is not to be included in his wiki info section, and when I add that the Ukrainian prime minister is reported to be Jewish, he takes me to task. Milgram’s Jewishness must be recorded, the Ukrainian PM’s Jewishness, reported unlike Milgram’s in all sources on the specific incident as an integral part of the story, must not be registered. This is totally erratic, and the only inference one can make is that, in SJ's I cannot state anything in sources about Jewishness, without getting admonished by SJ. The evidence?

SJ followed this up with something which was extremely offensive: unlike him, I don’t whinge to administrators, and dismiss these attacks as piffling. But the evidence is obvious:

  • try to stay away from those areas that get you worked up. Focus away from Jews and switch to Australia. he complains I 'condescend, but that takes the cake for condescension. The insinuation was obvious, that I get emotional about 'Jewish' topics (=antisemite). As an editor specializing in the cultures of people who have suffered historic discrimination I edit with the same principles on Aborigines, Tibetans, Palestinians etc, regardless of the ‘sensitivities’ (to their national ideology) of nationalists in Australia, China, or Israel, etc. My work on the pathologies of ethnocentrism has an extremely high citation rate on Google Scholar. I know it inside out. Only RS count, not equivocations like saying that it is acceptable to note on Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017 all incidents where Palestinian youths throw stones at Israeli cars driving in the West Bank (a criminal offense in Israeli military law), but one cannot include an incident of 4 Israelis throwing a stun grenade into a Palestinian’s apartment in Israeli to drive them out. That kind of double standard is characteristic of POV pushers with a nationalist profile. They are extremely attentive to the image of their own country or ethnic group, but are indifferent to any outgroup the former may have a conflict with, and that means WP:NPOV is beyond them. It is abusing wikipedia by using ethnic criteria to distinguish identical behaviour as different. My noted worldview excludes any idea that subsumes individuals into a national stereotype, unlike what you get with this kind of rubbish, making a general attack on Swedish people, for which he was reproved by User:Drmies, and User:Mastcell, among others. That is why SJ is not welcome on this page.Nishidani (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm familiar with much of the history here. However, I didn't come here to engage in a discussion of content disputes or NPOV issues. The edit of his that you cite is commentary about your content contributions, which is a valid thing to discuss on an encyclopedia. Your comment that I partially redacted, however, was a criticism of SJ's intelligence as a person. Do you see how that's a different issue, and one that doesn't belong on an encyclopedia? Especially on a place where you've asked him not to participate, like your talkpage.
I'm not blocking you for the personal attack and I'm not dragging it to AE, though either would be acceptable under the Discretionary Sanctions. All I did was remove the attack and ask you to refrain from commenting on the motives or competence of other specific editors. Can you at least agree to that? The WordsmithTalk to me 14:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
You took the appropriate wiki action, of course, and I have no objection to your redaction. What the system misses is that there is a huge amount of unreported poor editing, lack of mastery of the proper policy protocols, and bad faith generally in this area. Most serious editors ignore it: editors who spend a lot of time whinging at AE et al., are often the same as those who have a POV that overrides their judgement. I know it is customary to refer to examples one cites as 'content disputes' when, however, close familiarity with the history of a topic or subject would show, they are not content issues but matters of competent judgement. In an ideal wiki editing environment, people would collaborate by striving to possess themselves of a precisian's command of policy rather than waving a flag (WP:RS, WP:BLP etc.) at you when these policies have absolutely nothing to do with the content dispute, but are there as pretexts, in edit summaries etc., merely to satisfy the requirement one motivate a revert. If I reported every inanity, or abusively specious edit I note, or innuendo made my way, I wouldn't be editing. I would be dragged into endless forum shopping, which is I guess the internet version of mall shopping, killing time. Thoreau said killing time mutilates eternity. Well, not quite. Killing time deadens one's self aforetime.Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
You are incorrect in one thing however in stating:'The edit of his that you cite is commentary about your content contributions, which is a valid thing to discuss on an encyclopedia.' Saying I get het up by Jewish issues, and should go away from them is a personal attack, as well as a serious insinuation. It has nothing to do with my content contributions.Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In these messy days...

I think you might like this as someone who seems to love Japan.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Cute, with a lot of errors, like suggesting Kūkai inventing the Japanese writing system. I guess the manga approach to history is what will furnish future generations, if they do exist, with their basic 'knowledge'. One will pass one's daze/days between infotainment and nymphotamement. I'm glad I'm old. I really was lucky to have lived in one of those intelligent, brief periods of Western history, that ended around 1982.:) Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Unless you enlighten on past education, today, in Israel, the educational system is not searching for new creative ways to teach the material to students, like creating a funny animated skit. Instead, what you learn in a History course, is not "history", but "how to succeed in the bagrut test in history". In the past you could learn only from the teacher or a book/encyclopedia, today people have decided to outsmart the system and give you a sheet with no more and no less thsn exactly what you will be tested on. They teach you what kinds of question will be in the test, how to answer them, whaat exact words to use and how to get precisely 100%. So now everyone is teaching how to succeed in the test, rather than teaching history itself. This is partially why I had such a low grade in History (7/10), despite the fact at one given moment it seemed as though I knew history better than my teacher, who didn't even know that Jaffa was supposed to be part of the Arab State and that Plan D was implemented in April and not in May, as she asserted. Knowing this two facts didn't help me, when in the test I forgot one of the criteria for a Righteous Among the Nations status, which made me drop 15 points. I am not sure how knowing four criteria for this status is going to make me understand Jewish history more than understanding the course of the Independence War.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think Israel is any exception to the general drift, in any case. There has been a general policy of dumbing down everyone for some decades, in favour of a factitious (economic) 'performativity'. When I studied languages, from Greek to Russian, Chinese and Japanese, no one in the classes has the foggiest notion of what their 4 years of intense study would lead to. They studied for love of the topic, gained in adolescence, regardless of its utility jobwise. That changed in the 1980s: everybody had to think of the economic implications of the subjects they planned to take on. Greek and Latin have no direct functional value, but when WW2 broke out, the Australian government scoured all high schools that taught those subjects, for the brightest students, who then mastered Japanese in a year and formed the nucleus of their intelligence and interrogation units. In Italy, if you did those ancient languages in the classical lyceum, Universities automatically accepted you for any discipline, engineering, medicine etc., and corporations snapped you up before you even got a university degree. To judge by your work here, I wouldn't worry about your grades at school. I was asked to repeat first year in primary school. I was expelled from high school, and, once forced to matriculate by studying on my own, started getting excellent results. Fuck em.Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
BY the way, young man, I should compliment you on your growing command of English. 'skit' for example, was the precise word required by context, among many other things I noticed in your prose.Nishidani (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Didn't think Israel is an exception, but didn't know it isn't either. I am happy we learned the Bible. Even though it is not a "different language", it sure teaches a lot of language, and I think it is more interesting than literature, because it has the more historeographic feeling. But bible is probably one of the most undervalued subjects in schools, and if we didn't have a large religious bloc in Israel's political system, they would have canceled it already.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, if you wish to master English, reading the King James version is indispensable, as literature. It gives you a sure touch for things like prosody, the balancing of sentences, and historical idiom. It is no guide to history however, since its history is selectively harvested, rewoven, and often mangled for theological purposes, and much of the best parts of the bible are short stories -deceptively spliced in with vague historical echoes-invented for creating a religious outlook, like the Purim narrative or Exodus. The problem is, these stories are enchantingly written, but not 'historical', so that absorbing them as part of one's historical identity means taking emotionally on board as a truth what turns out to be a number of brilliant short stories. The stories can be read as 'true' to human (not 'Jewish') psychology, certainly, just as the myth of Oedipus might be read as 'true', but he never existed. A lot of Roman history never 'happened', it was invented. The problem is taking the Bible as an index of an ethnic mentality, or as forming the mould in which all 'Jews', and no one else, are shaped.Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Exodus and Purim are not my history. The more prominant Jewish history is during the Classical Age, rather then the Iron and Bronze Age, but I am certainly willing to accept Josiah and Jeroboam's stories as historeography, with the exact standards you would accept from a script written up to the Classical Age. Whatever archeologist might find, I also accept. If Israel Finkelstein's theory, that Judah never ruled over Israel, and that it was a small insignificant kingdom, that later mixed the mythologies of both entities into one, I'll go with it. I am more connected to the theories of the origin of the mythology more than the mythology it self. I am most certainly not a decendent of some Mesopotamian dude who migrated to Hebron, but it is part of the tradition of my people, written where I live today. Going to the Bible and saying "it is not true, and it can't be used to justify anything" is not far from people who claim that before the Palestinians created themselves in response to Zionism, they have no right to be the sovereign of the West Bank: it doesn't matter. I once thought it does matter, as well as many other things, hence the word "Nihilist" in my userpage, but today I no longer think like that. Even if I recognize the fact an old tradition is just that, I am not willing to give it up for the price of being a sad leftist. I enjoy being a Jew who traces his roots to the Hashmoneans. Anyway, I have three books on my book list, I am a slow reader and I am going to have to read them during fighter training in the army, so I guess reading the King James bible will have to wait a lot of time.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I think comparatively, on the basis that history excludes uniqueness, and therefore what I say of the Bible is equally valid for all other religious or cultural products of pre-modern 'historiographical writing'. Greek nationalists stake territorial claims on the basis of ancient documents, as do the Serbs, the Turks, the Chinese, the Hindutva nationalists, etc.etc.etc. Koreans and Japanese are forever disputing the interpretation of ancient chronicles for what they are thought to state about their contiguous and interacting worlds 2000 years ago as it were relevant to their respective identities, and it is no anomaly that Israeli nationalism uses the same technique. The ancient history that is (ab)used to provide some political or cultural warrant in contemporary times is not the history of historians. Several of my close family have Jewishj origins, among others - but this for them is purely an anecdote, it has no bearing on who they are, though, if they got into an identity pursuit, no doubt it would figure prominently, as oneside of the family's Cohen origins would be trumpeted as securing roots that are 3,000 years old, ignoring the Norman French, Irish, possibly Goan, Anglo-Saxon, Phoenician (on my wife's side) miscellany in our pasts. Sorry if I implied you should read the KJV immediately. It's only to be dipped into, occasionally, to read say, a chapter of Genesis, or Exodus, if only to remind one that when you say 'my brother's keeper' in English, to take the most familiar example, it resonates with the story of Cain and Abel, where it was coined from. I have no Greek 'blood' but from early childhood that is where my imagination, and therefore a core of my identity resides, though analytically I know that this is a tropical camouflage for aspects of myself which have no 'ethnicity'. As to reading, since you have been inducted, think of glancing at Sun Tzu's manual, and of course Carl von Clausewitz, much cited for one phrase but rarely read from cover to cover. Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting analysis by Uri Misgav in Haaretz of an Israeli high school national matriculation exam. I am guessing (I don't have data to make an informed opinion) that this crap is not unique to Israel, and that similar horseshit is happening in many other countries around the world. Ijon Tichy (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

let's take solace from the example of Riccardo Bertani an 86 year old 'peasant' from northern Italy who left school to work on a farm out of sheer boredom, and set about learning languages, apparently now he's mastered 100. Reminds me of another Italian farmer who drove a tractor while memorizing the Aeneid, and spoke to himself in Latin. He could recite the Aeneid from cover to cover. I know of hillsmen in the backblocks here who whiled away their time herding by memorizing the whole of Tasso or Ariosto. This is not only farmers: John Jackson wrote one of the most penetrating books on emendations in Greek literature, Marginalia scaenica while working his mother's farm for decades in the wilds of Cumberland. Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
In recognition of your extensive work in creating articles about the indigenous groups of Australia. – Uanfala (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Uanfella. I apologize for recently getting behind schedule, but will try to get at least 300 done by year's end, all going well. Your overseeing these things is much appreciated. Remember, I'm only doing structural stubs, so that editors now and in the future can find a readily formatted page and just fill in the masses of details that I haven't had the time to get down into the article. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice to whoever

I'll be offline for several days.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question scheduled for second TFA

This is to let you know that the Shakespeare authorship question article has been scheduled as today's featured article for a second time, for 23 April 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 23, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Being reverted

This is both meaningless in policy terms (what is meant by 'not relevant in the way it is cited'?, and contradicts the practice of the lead which has several statements that have a restricted time period. E.g.
’Another poll conducted in September 2014 found that 80% of Palestinians support firing rockets against Israel if it does not allow unfettered access to Gaza,’
’In 2012, Jerusalem and Israel's commercial center Tel Aviv were targeted with locally made "M-75" and Iranian Fajr-5 rockets, respectively,[15] and in July 2014, the northern city of Haifa was targeted for the first time.
’prior to the 2008–2009 Gaza War, were consistently supported by most Palestinians (8 years)
So the revert fits the norm of what is done to my additions. Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I/P

Hello, I just wanted to drop by and say your comments at this AfD really impacted me. I was always aware of the "I/P bias", as you called it, in the news media and try my best to gather multiple sources to achieve a universal perspective on an issue. To see this exist every time you come here to edit, while still being expected to keep your composure, must be frustrating. I apologize immensely for the ignorance of the editors here who contribute to this serious problem. Again, thank you for the words you said at that AfD; I will carry them with me whenever I read any news story.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That's very decent of you. I note you have a strong editing record, after a mere 2 years. I commend your enthusiasm for the project. Editors here aren't ignorant. Rather, they are very serious-minded, and think a cause they identify with closely is under a concerted assault by POV pushers whose point of view, differing from their own, is thereby intrinsically 'suspect'. Notwithstanding this, the I/P area, which I would advise anyone not to get sucked into, is a good training ground: it requires patience, composure and equanimity and quite a few regulars have managed to help articles stand on their feet by insisting on neutrality, which is not something commonly encountered in sources of either persuasion. You know a good editor/admin in the I/P area when you see that (s)his comments or judgements are somewhat unpredictable, i.e. based on a close examination, case by case, of the merits of arguments, and attention to the strict meaning of our basic policies. Best Regards Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

French needed

I just wondered, under Djett: on p. 345 is the "quatorze cents habitats" equal to "Fourteen hundred inhabitants"? It is just rather high, comparing it to later number under Jatt, Israel, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It certainly means 1,400 unless the author was playfully alluding to their royal lifestyle on living on that number of cents! Does that make sense?Nishidani (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, and well, a population of 140 would have made more sense, taking the 1596 and 1922 data into account. Ah, well, if Guerin said 1,400, then 1,400 it is... Huldra (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The sort of thing attribution fixes, huh? I think T.S. Eliot would have chipped in with some crack about Djett being possible evidence for the superfetation of τό ἔν! It's the Middle Yeast after all, where miracles, except for the obvious political ones, recur!Nishidani (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Matthias Hermanns

Hello, I see that you created the page Matthias Hermanns, which contains the statement "Towards the end of the 1930s, around the time the future 14th Dalai Lama was found, Hermanns had the opportunity to meet him, still a child, since he knew the family well. According to Hermanns, the child did not know Tibetan at that time. On being asked his name, he replied in a Chinese dialect that he was called « Chi », the local Chinese name of the village of Taktser." You gave as reference "P. Matthias Hermanns, Mythen und Mysterie. Mage und Religion der Tibeter, Cologne, 1956, p. 319"

I was not able to find it. Would you be kind enough to provide a citation from Hermanns book? Thxs, --Tiger Chair (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks indeed for picking me up on this. I've removed it and will look into it later. I did that rapidly, translating from another page, I think, and never got round to checking it independently. My bad.Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for speedily removing this part, and replacing it with a source directly from Hermanns writings. Sounds all OK from my side.--Tiger Chair (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello: request for feedback on proposal for "Palestine-Israel conflict" article

I noticed you are a relatively frequent editor of that article and so..... since I am very new here to "serious" contributing on WP and so rather than just try to go and create what I propose and then submit it; I instead wish for feedback on how substantive and possibly useful what I suggest might be, here is what I am thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Hello.2C_new_here.2C_and_I_perceive_a_GRAVE_.28.26_not_even_mentioned_offhand.29_total-omission_of_the_possible_actual_ancient_root_of_this_conflict

Yes I now realize the word "grave" is too much. Tell me what you think. Thank you for time and attention. Sinsearach (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

God undoubtedly started the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but he died in Abrahamic fashion, sending the fruit of his spiritual loins to die by proxy on the cross, and then after 1900 years, a brief obituary was written by Friedrich Nietzsche in 1883, regarding the old man himself, which means after the first stirrings of Zionism, - he may have had just a few months to swing that last act of creation, but Nietzsche it turns out was only plagiarizing a remark by Max Stirner in 1845, and Stirner also was pilfering a remark in Hegel's Phenomenology back in 1807, so we can't correlate the rise of Zionism with God, because he died earlier.Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Beautiful!--TMCk (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Balfour declaration

Hi. With the 100 year anniversary of the Balfour declaration coming up, there has been a lot of work on the WP article recently by Oncenawhile. I'll try to help out with some copyediting and stuff, but I am not well-versed with the overall history. If you have some time, could you take a look at the article and make some suggestions about emphasis, breadth of coverage etc.? There's also a notice left at WP:IPCOLL by Oncenawhile for others to give comments (I'm not sure if that Wikiproject is on your watchlist, so I repeat it here). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Yes I've bookmarked it, and will, as time allows, try to add some input. Just on the lead I noticed:
  • 'istorically Palestine had always formed part of Syria.'
'Always' is too dogmatic
Perhaps 'historically had long been considered/treated as part of Syria'
  • 'exchange for revolting against the Ottoman Empire during World War 1' should be linked to Arab Revolt

= exchange for revolting against the Ottoman Empire during World War 1 etc.

It should definitely get group support to help Oncenawhile achieve its FA qualification.Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations

...on your front page Featured Article today! Was great to see that your 1,200+ edits over many years on the Shakespeare authorship question have been recognized. It's a fascinating read too. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

👍 Malik Shabazz likes this. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated though I have a guilty sense of pilfering a credit due 99% to Tom Reedy. I thought I knew my Shakespeare, but Tom turned out to be a first class scholar, extraordinarily generous in sharing his textual acumen and mastery of the literature, even to the point of going out of pocket to get several substantial, rare and costly commentaries posted to me so that I could independently work on the topic. Again, he really knew how to craft a line so that, with terse cogency, a complex summation of several scholarly views could be honed to cover all bases. Speaking only of the early herculean effort to clean the Augean stables of idiotic fringe puffery, Paul Barlow (sit terra tibi levis, Paul) also put a tough shoulder to the wheel. It was a strain though. It took I think 9 months of daily work to get that from a fuck-up to F(uck)A(all), and we were lucky that admins finally stepped in to allow us to work in peace. All round, a collective effort, but it was Tom Reedy who steered it into port. All credit to him: it engenders no umbrage in me to sit in his shadow.Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
As typical, you are much too generous, mate. I seriously doubt the article could have been improved much had it not been for your fortuitous arrival upon the scene at a particularly hopeless time. When the going gets rough and the path grows dark, the contributions and company of those few who stay the course cannot be weighed or compared. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
So are you too generous, Tom. Yes, Nish was the number-two contributor and absolutely deserves a lot of credit; but you were definitely number one. And let's not forget (yes, may Paul rest in peace; I miss him all the time when I work on these pages) those I think of as the "auxiliary crew", persistently helping to resolve issues, tidy up the article, and move it along. I'm thinking of Xover, Johnuniq, Peter, and there may be others I'm forgetting (my apologies to them if I am). --Alan W (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
My efforts were minuscule but I'm going to accept any thanks I get because I spent a ridiculous amount of time negotiating with certain now-banned editors. Thanks all! Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey, don't try to pin that on me! I stayed as far away from that mess as possible, and still ended up with a bad case of burnout (zero edits for over two years-level burnout). The credit goes entirely to others, and chiefly to the superhuman efforts of Tom and Nishidani; but, I concur, also a gaggle of honorary mentions (that I will promptly and resolutely refrain from mentioning). I do want to call out Paul B. though: he didn't edit the article so much directly, but he did contribute heavily to the discussions on the talk page, and, the interfering ideological battles aside, those discussions are almost as critical for the end result on a controversial article like this. But in any case, I think of the article sort of as a credit to Wikipedia: if this grand experiment can achieve a FA-level article on the SAQ, then there is no such goal that is inherently inachievable. --Xover (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, let us then mull Max Weber's great conclusion to his essay on Politics as a Vocation. It applies t scholarship as well, though I think it a dictum for life generally.

Die Politik bedeutet ein starkes langsames Bohren von harten Brettern mit Leidenschaft und Augenmaß zugleich. Es ist ja durchaus richtig, und alle geschichtliche Erfahrung bestätigt es, daß man das Mögliche nicht erreichte, wenn nicht immer wieder in der Welt nach dem Unmöglichen gegriffen worden wäre. (Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective. Certainly all historical experience confirms the truth - that man would not have attained the possible unless time and again he had reached out for the impossible.)

Best regards to all.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Precious

reflections

Thank you for quality articles such as Shakespeare authorship question, beginning with Kada no Azumamaro, for covering topics such as Australian tribal societies, Japanalia and Shakespeareana, for reflections such as ""The South Hebron Hills are a place of great beauty. ... But...", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Phew! I'm glad at least that you reminded me of Kada no Azumamaro. I'd really rushed that off the top of the head, without sourcing. I've started to fix it. Thanks for the heads-up. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

Cyrus the Penner (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyrus the Penner: Are you trying to increase your edit count? If you are going to drop messages like this, it would be better to get some clue about what they are saying. Try browsing WP:NPA and WP:DTTR. Someone willing and able to be helpful would write a message including a diff and some calm text explaining why, in their opinion, the diff shows problematic behavior. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, the PAs are pretty much all over the place at this point. I thought it wouldn't be necessary. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
There's a good chap, just delist my page from your watchlist and waste your time elsewhere please. Don't comment here.Nishidani (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Only replying because your statement is grammatically comical. 'regarding an issue with which you may have been involved'. This use of a modal verb asserting epistemic uncertainty, when you cannot entertain the slightest doubt that I was 'involved', stirs my funny bone. Have a nicer day, and don't return to this page.Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed as a sockpuppet here. My compliments to Hijiri for a fine piece of sleuthing. Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a weird case. Apparently, the sockpuppet was an enemy of EMG and wanted him banned. They tried to edit so as first try to gain the latter's sympathy, and then subsequently try to get them tarred by association. I don't think I've come across this kind of scheme before. Kind of makes one lose one's faith in humanity a bit. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
It did look very odd, his badgering EM Gregory on his page, and presumptuously pitching a matey tone of ostensible connivance. While not thinking it was a set up -eager beavers proliferate here - it just sounded false, and was one reason why I joined you immediately in arguing against the proposed ban of EMG. I can remember writing something along these lines in my first draft - EMG cannot be implicated on the basis of what a blow-in is asserting about him - but lost it when called to attend to more urgent home duties. I can vaguely recall a similar trick in my past, of someone brownnosing me with a feigned sympathy of 'pro-Pally' views, that had me instantly on guard. But I've had so many of these brush-ins and set-ups that I can't finger it, and don't care to. I wouldn't lose faith in 'humanity' over this kind of tripe: though it's true that in the virtual world, these meta-games proliferate. In direct social encounters, it's far easier to read and call such shysters out, since the constraints of reality kick in. In any case, Hijiri really did some excellent sleuthing there.Nishidani (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Blanking assistance required

At Katubanut. I created and wrote this page unaware that the tribe already had its article, shoddy, under Gadubanud. Wot I wanked should be blanked.Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Gadubanud

Please don't add copyright content to this wiki, not even temporarily for editing. Please do your amendments before you save the page, or use an external editor. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It would help if you provided s diff.Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
This history link shows that five revisions have been deleted. Presumably Diannaa (who does a lot of great work in the copyvio area) felt that there was a problem, but whatever it was has been removed. Perhaps you had a copy/paste error and inserted stuff you were working on accidentally? I've done that! Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
No 'perhaps'. It's just that I'm a fucking idiot re protocols. Most of the articles I am fixing and expanding are either (a) copyright violations that the bot doesn't note or (b) free composition. So what I do is go to the copyrighted text, look at exactly what it says, and then paraphrase it so that it becomes neither (a) nor (b). As for the rest, I research the topic, and put in nothing which cannot be found in any of the academic articles I work it up from. Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Consilium de digito extrahendo

Nishidani, do it yourself! Learn to use the tools the MediaWiki software provides. For example, if you create an article with a mis-spelled title then: move the article to the proper title and edit the redirect (not the talk page) on the wrong title to {{db-author}}. However the correct action in this case was to convert Kolakngat to a redirect - something which you could and should have done. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Please help me out

Would you happen to know which incident is referred to here: "In 2016, an article by Walters about Hebron said Israeli soldiers “shot dead five Palestinians” in the city..."? Much appreciative for any help.--TMCk (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

No specific incident is being referred to, I assume. One would have to find his original article to be sure. 10 Hebronites were shot in that town in 2016, mostly in separate incidents.
List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016, 5 between January and June
List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2016 5 were between July and December.
One might deduce from this that the article was written in July, summing up the mortalities to that date. However that is just an intuition. You can check the details by doing a search of those two articles. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, yes. I now could access an Haaretz article thru google cache which says Walters' article was published on January 12, 2016. There were 5 shot dead in the first two weeks of that month so you're most likely correct about five referring to several incidents. Much thanks, --TMCk (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Not shot dead surely? Or have I been nodding as I read up and edited that article? Still, good work. Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
'Shot dead' of course. Corrected.--TMCk (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
From now on in, I will think of you as Tracy! Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I do like flattering with a pinch of offense. Thank you #1.--TMCk (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Offense? I grew up with, and loved, Dick Tracy comics. If it's gender, Tracy is an exclusively female Christian name:) Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Hah, one could annoy me with pronouns but not offend me. As for Dick, my thought (of course) was on the unfortunate combination of words, potentially describing a much too common type of WP editor.--TMCk (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes! I did think of the risk of making a cock-up, but, what the hell-'Tracy' wouldn't kick over those phallic traces, but erase all trace of the innuendo (which of course wordgames never do. My brother once worked with a chap called Richard Dick, nicknamed 'Double Dick', which gave no offense. Some linguistic neighbourhoods, like the one I was raised in, thrived on what would now be considered the 'politically incorrect' - conversation was all punning and sledging verbal oneupmanship. A cousin of mine in a club, a person of some athletic distinction, was recognized by the then PM with the words, 'Well, here's a turn up for the books. How are ya, Shithead,' to which he responded, 'Good as gold, Fuckface'. They then had a beer and a laugh. With that kind of matey slang in my head, it's hard for me to tiptoe around the world's contemporary conversation! Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Philosophy etc. - Richard Rorty

What do you think of Richard Rorty? I only know a little bit about him, but I think his quip about "truth is whatever your contemporaries let you get away with" applies very well to Wikipedia. I've just started reading Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I began reading him on the isle of Elba some 20 years ago, just after 4 of his volumes reached me by post. Far more interesting than the contents of Napoleon's library there. He's eminently worth close study: I'd advise you to read the follow up volumes of his collected papers, no burden giving the mesh of a lucid prose style and the erudition of his cultural reach. Generally I think his work as a 'reactionary metaphysician' salutary, but could never quite sympathize with his liberalism. I'd lost my liberal faith a decade before I encountered his. Of course I'm a still a 'liberal humanist', but I thought it was, in practical terms, a gross misreading of modern, particularly late modern structural trends in the world, easy to uphold if you are contributing to the 'conversation of the world' as that developed in Ivy League universities. Rush Limbaugh was infinitely more persuasive in engineering the kind of mindset you see in the apotheosis of Trumpism, than Rorty and co., who were very acute in teasing out evil and cruelty if it was a matter of an exercise in close reading of, say, Nabokov's novels (pp.141-168 of the volume you're reading) than in seeing it, and acting on it, as it unfurled on their neighbours' doorstep some kilometres down the road. That essay on Nabokov is Rorty at his best - a literary critic endowed with acutely tuned antennae. As to 'truth' being what contemporaries letting you get away with, it's not surely the 'truth' that should be the object of concern, so much as the quest for inaccuracies, sieving the clutter of secondary talk that buries discernible (if only just) realities under a mother-lode of rhetoric, misplaced focus (rendering prominent what is contingent, marginal) spin or/and irrelevancies. This is a Popperanian position of course. I still think wiki's rules, however weird, ideally militate against the flatulence or distortions of even our best news sources, and so, if one must evaluate it in these terms, it promises, depending on the stubborn persistence of its more careful editors, to give the average Joe-blow a better set of angles to keep somewhat informed of how the world works, than most other widely read sources in the public domain. That's just off-hand, but there's lots to think about there. Good reading.Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Somewhere in that book (I flipped through my underlined copy a few nights ago) Rorty adopts the position that the quest for 'truth' is unnecessary if one simply ensures that a society has its freedoms guaranteed. That sounds very much like an Oxbridge exam topic ('Discuss'). It's a nice line, but like a lot of nice lines, question begging.I think he takes truth far too seriously in the abstract: in our everyday world, 'truth' is just getting the available facts and making likely inferences, as in crime stories or the third-degree interrogations of matrimonial conversation à la Virginia Woolf. Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I am still reading the book (slacked off a little due to other things), but I got distracted by a quirky book called Indiscrete thoughts (the title is a play on discrete mathematics) by late MIT mathematician Gian-Carlo Rota. It contains some very amusing anecdotes of mathematicians's lives and thinking, along with a very interesting philosophical section on Edmund Husserl's phenomenology. Do you see any connection between Rorty's and Husserl's philosophies? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to be late getting back on this. I just got back late last night from giving a talk abroad. I'll try to get back when I've gone through all the neglected chores: my tomatoes look like they survived the worst of a hail storm, but I need to rush out, check, and bind them to their 'tutors' (or props). Just at a rush, off-cuff, Rorty in his fundamental work, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1980, check) charged Husserl with being one of the philosophers in the turn of the last century who, like Russell, tried to reestablish rigorism in philosophy by chucking out the residues or recrudescenses of psychology in logic. So at least in that programmatic work he took exception to Husserl as delaying the perception that the philosophical undertaking was provisory, aesthetic, even literary, a kind of game of analysis at play with no sure anchorage or pretensions to descriptive validity. One would therefore, again, at a rush, think they were diametrically opposed, but since both Husserl and Rorty wrote voluminously, I'd need to do some checking. Best regards.Nishidani (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I suggest, if you get time, to read the 1980 book. He touches on Husserl, but his general view is well summed up on p.386, which I'll copy out here for you:-

The notion that we can get around overconfident philosophical realism and positivistic reductions only by adapting something like Kant's transcendental standpoint seems to me the basic mistake in programs like that of Habermas (as well as in Husserl's notion of a "phenomenology of the life-world" which will describe people in some way "prior" to that offered by science).p.382 (etc)

The most precise summation of his views on Husserl I can find are in his essay 'Philosophy as science, as metaphor, and as politics', in R Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others, Philosophical Papers, vol.2 Cambridge University Press 1991 pp.9-26 pp.16f. That he can treat sympathetically that monstrous anti-Semitic cunt, Heidegger so favourably compared to the latter's great mentor, whom Heidegger stabbed in the back, leaves me, as usual, perplexed.Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to check it out when I get the time. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
More apropos wikiwork, I guess as a fellow aficionado of one of the few sensible analysts in the I/P area that you caught Nathan Thrall, 'Israel-Palestine: the real reason there’s still no peace,' The Guardian 16 May 2017
The analysis is more or less what we agreed to was the case (the farce of the endless reports on peace initiatives), discussing him some time ago. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

What is it about WP:ARBPIA you don't understand or think you can play with?

What is it about WP:ARBPIA3 you don't understand or think you can play with?

You made an edit,[5] I reverted it,[6], so per WP:ARBPIA3, you have no right to restore your version.

If the regular edit warring user warning template reads "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right", all the more so in the WP:ARBPIA area.

Please be aware that this is your last warning before WP:AE and a likely block. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You are reading ARBPIA as a personal warrant for a reverter's omnipotence in asserting a right to have any final decision on whether what another editor like myself may add to a page. I have sought clarification here. Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
No. All it means is that you must discuss first and edit later. Which is good advice even outside the WP:ARBPIA area.
The WP:ANI post was closed as an issue for WP:AE. I have already stated that I am not planning to pursue this issue any further. If you do intend to open a WP:AE post, please remember the mandatory notification on my userpage, which you forgot after opening the WP:ANI post. Debresser (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I discussed, remember. I gave you three points. You made an error in thinking the source did not mention 'Palestinian Bedouins'; you made an error saying B'tselem was a 'radical leftist' organization- B'tselem is all over IP articles, and no editor removes it in my memory, it has never been successfully challenged at RSN; 'Why at the beginning of the paragraph', you asked. because the paragraph on home demolitions started from the 1993 Oslo Accords, whereas home demolitions, as per a hundred sources, began in 1967, as everyone knows.
Therefore, your stupid edit summary was empty of serious content and unanchored in any policy, purely subjective. You said you'd think about it, and probably did, but said nothing. Debresser, you cannot just exercise a revert right and then shut up. Secondly, in you edit summaries or arguments you are obliged to be intelligible, not oracular. If experts are reading this, they can tell us who did what wrong. I am sure you violated 1R; you think I broke the consensus outrider. That is possible, only if it can be shown you tried to engage with my objections. You didn't. Consensus is not a matter of saying nothing, and trusting that a revert is enough to fuck up another editor's contributions. So by all means go to AE - if I get a ban, fine. It means this place, with all the brilliance of administrators notwithstanding, cannot fix intelligent workable rules, because saying I, for one, can be reverted, and must not restore the elided text until the silent interlocutor ignoring my comments decides some weeks or months if ever to say 'how about a compromise' is fucking farcical.Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm nows informed I should take this to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. I find all those places totally beyond my powers of comprehension, but this contrettempts is very serious. You are reading the rule re consensus as giving you the power to revert, even irrationally, and then say I have an onus to convince you. I try to do so, and you ignore me. If that is the meaning of these deliberations, i.e. that consensus means no one can restore what anyone else removes, even if the remover stays silent, then the word has assumed a different meaning than what it is supposed to bear. I'd go there, but I can't format a request that would make sense. So fuck it.Nishidani (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Debresser and Nishidani: Just to be clear, the "consensus required" clause in ARBPIA has been dropped by ArbCom. See this ARCA request. 1RR rule still exists as before. And, as before, it is still good to talk things over and try to get consensus. As a general rule, it is better to discuss on article talk pages instead of user talk pages; so that other people can join in. In this case, Nishidani restored an edit after a couple of days, with an explanation. If Debresser wishes to challenge it again, they can just revert it and/or discuss more on the talkpage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I have discussed the matter on the article talk page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad someone understands policy round here. I don't read that stuff, it gives me a headache. And Debresser's edit summaries and the remark above (so per WP:ARBPIA3, you have no right to restore your version) indicate he is as ill-informed as I am, and both reverted me on spurious grounds and made an AE threat that, in the ARCA light, would have boomeranged. Still the other page is the place to discuss things. Thanks for clarifying things, which is all I requested at A/I. Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
It is annoying, but typical, that when enacting new restrictions warning are handed out to all editors, but when lifting them like 5 days ago, nobody notifies anybody about anything. Debresser (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Dja Dja Wurrung

Hi Nishidani,

you suggested moving Dja Dja Wurrung to Djadjawurrung, and this has just been done by User:NSH001

Are you sure this is how it should be done? The official government web sites and the Dja Dja Wurrung's own organisation's pages] all use Dja Dja Wurrung as does the National Native Title Tribunal . Ian D Clark seminal work on Aboriginal languages and clans,[1] identifies numerous spellings of the word but settles on the AIATSIS use of Dja Dja Wurrung. Garyvines (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC) Are you sure this is how it should be done? The official government web sites and the Dja Dja Wurrung's own organisation's pages all use Dja Dja Wurrung as does the National Native Title Tribunal . Ian D Clark's Aboriginal languages and clans : an historical atlas of western and central Victoria, 1800–1900, Published: Melbourne, Vic. : Dept. of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University, c1990. ISBN 0-909685-41-X, identifies numerous spellings of the word but settles on the AIATSIS use of Dja Dja Wurrung.Garyvines (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Ian D Clark Aboriginal languages and clans : an historical atlas of western and central Victoria, 1800–1900, Published: Melbourne, Vic. : Dept. of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University, c1990. ISBN 0-909685-41-X
The short answer is no, I'm not sure, I was just responding to Nishidani's request on the talk page. Since no-one has objected in more than 3 weeks, and it seemed a reasonable request, I went ahead and moved it. At least, I thought, it'll provoke some discussion if someone really does disagree. I seem to have been successful in that aim! Any further discussion should be on the article talk page, of course, not here. --NSH001 (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Gary. As NSH001 advises, I'll respond on the talk page in a mo'.Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Last warning

This is a last warning regarding discretionary sanctions that will most likely be implemented against you if you make one more denigrating or patronizing comment to an editor who disagrees with you. You started with me, but then you just moved to Icewhiz, and it is getting worse over time. This is simply the way you treat fellow editors, and it is unacceptable. All these are from one talkpage and only a few days, and it is simply a disgrace for this project.

  • "Remember my advice Debresser. Opinions count for zilch in editing"[7]
  • "This is kindergarten level advice", "Do you understand this?"[8]
  • "It is bad enough for Debresser to start reverting me when he had read neither the whole page nor knew of the relevant policy", "That is not how we do things here"[9]
  • "Look up the word 'prevarication'"[10]
  • "This is getting absurdly complicated, indeed stupid"[11]
  • "You are not focusing on the specific problem raised in this section"[12]
  • "You clearly are totally confused and are not examining with any attention the material provided for you by other editors", "virtually all serious sources", "the conflict you wish to erase or render all but invisible"[13]
  • "Your arguments are meaningless because you do not bring sources and you do not reply to the specifics raised by myself"[14]
  • "It's lazy to remove"[15]
  • "You appear to know nothing of WP:NPOV"[16]
  • "Don't be naïve", "You are wasting editorial time"[17]

Debresser (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Read the thread. It started when you reverted while you made several egregious mistakes, showing an ignorance of wiki rules, arbitration rulings and policy. The evidence is set out above. One cannot edit in the company of people who refuse to enter into a rational dialogue, but just crowd in to revert and stay silent, or say no. The above remarks in context are all objections to evident stonewalling or talking past legitimate points raised. The same practice, of not listening, but even pushing the revert button to elide comments on the talk page is occurring at the talk page of the Balfour Declaration article. You should drop your mission in your recent wiki life to provoke me and then make threats. Piss off. Don't visit this page even to alert me to this inane menacing. Nishidani (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I am obligated to post a notification on your talkpage that I have opened a WP:AE discussion regarding your recent and past uncivil behavior towards your fellow editors on Wikipedia. You can find it at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nishidani. Debresser (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
One of the English synonyms for incivility is thoughtlessness'. In the I/P area many editors are incivil without leaving a trace of 'rude' language, or irascible remarks, because they are thoughtless regarding both the topic, and the evidence required to write up the article. Of course thoughtless incivility is not actionable, whereas its persistence as a mode of editing is far more deleterious than heated exchanges or one-sided vituperation. In my view, a due sense of modesty, if one is unwilling to roll up one's mental sleeves, would translate, in people who don't have a clue, into a greater restraint when tempted to assert their presence on difficult articles. It is, further, a disruptive abuse to keep trying 'Nishidani' to AE or, if not, tagteaming to revert every other contribution I propose. How often have POV editors complained about me there, eager to get me banned? I'd say a couple of dozens times, several cases this year alone. Drop it, and keep away from this page Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC).

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict for one month.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  Sandstein  13:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Children

Ijon Tichy (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I.e.Brad Parker et al.,'No Way To Treat a Child: Palestinian Children in the Israeli Military Detention System,' Defense for Children International April 2016. This is evidently an anti-Semitic smear. Firstly Israel has a unique conviction rate, 99% of the indicted, which shows it only detains the guilty. (b) The guilty are a chronic plague in that area, they swarm everywhere, which is why the system has had to convict 700,000 Palestinians. That's over 10% of the population, which means you have an exceptionally high incidence of criminality among those folks. (c) Thirdly, these are not children. Of this spurious report's so-called evidence only one child in 429 cited as witnesses, was detained in an Israeli prison from 2012-2015. The rest were 12 or over, i.e., adults. 1 in 429 is statistically meaningless. It's just one slip-up in Anat Berko's proposed law. 'Shit happens', and this was a minor skidmark.(d) This is war, not a matter, therefore, of prissy human rights fussing. But even in war, civilized nations, meaning those where a lot of English is spoken, there are rules, and these things fall strictly within the remit of Military Order 1651 (e) Brad Parker is an 'Advocacy Officer, and advocacy for a cause means he's biased, and his work probably indictable as incitement. (f) all parents need do is have the mukhtar conduct a whip-around, preferably by getting the muezzin to hand over his prayer broadcast system (and give the landscape some peace:we've had to close down 59 calls to prayer at Hebron this last month to allow the settlers at Kiryat Arba an uninterrupted clear audio reception of Arutz Sheva) and pony up the US$2,580 fine for stone-throwing, which is what most of this juvenile criminal element that survives rubber-coated steel bullets and toxic inhalation of suffocation gases is caught for. From a more general philosophic perspective informed by a deeper knowledge of the region's history, these folks should thank their neighbours that they are (for the moment) still alive. As Edward Luttwak, a distinguished historian, put it in an erudite letter to the Times Literary Supplement (19 February 2016 p.6) while expressing admiration for the restraint Israel had exercised in its so called assault on Gaza, in killing just 551 children,and permanently disabling only 1,000 of the 3,374 wounded kids,'if a Palestinian state had been established in 1947 or any other time, by now it would have machine-gunned many more Palestinians than the Israelis have every killed.' They're getting kid-glove treatment compared to what history would have dealt out to them had they ruled themselves, and should be grateful for the restraint. An Amora like Simeon bar Yochai must be writhing in his grave at our restraint in these unfortunate circumstances (Talmud Sofrim 15:10). Come to think of it, in this earthquake-prone zone, something ought to be done to calm things down. Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Great analysis Nish, very insightful. Captures the brutality, viciousness, criminality, insanity and massive hypocrisy of the colonialists.
Does WP have an article along the lines of Imprisonment and torture in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? If not, it may be a good idea to start such an article, using, among many other sources, the two sources I included above, and the sources in your comment above, and high-quality analysis from additional reliable sources, hopefully as high in quality as the quality of the insights/ analysis in your comment.
Ijon Tichy (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The problem in the I/P area is not making more new articles, but improving the existing ones, which cover most things, more extensively (and of course my own views and analysis would have no place there). What really worries me is the amount of known facts and material generally existing, that never even gets into reliable secondary sources, or at least in those I examine to see if the topic is handled. In any case, we're into spring, and I intend to enjoy it. Apart from a few remaining duties, I'm thinking of taking a leaf out of your commonsensical book, and mucking about more in the non-wiki world. This was impressed on me the other day when I noted the kaleidoscopic imbrication at one focal point of my gaze of a colour mosaic of a thrush, a bee and an admiral butterfly all crossing the same point more or less simultaneously from different directions, only at different depths within the garden. See those things often enough, and reading ought to take a back seat. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Enjoyed reading your description of the bird, bee and butterfly. I have been enjoying the wildlife around here. And some of the cherry trees around here are already bearing delicious fruit.

You have been doing great work on WP. Keep up the good work.

Ijon Tichy (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I've followed Frank Spinney's articles for several years, since he retired (if only because he did a sensible think and played Ulysses round the Mediterrean in a small yacht, a very sane thing to do). A lot of ex-CIA folks say interesting things afterwards! Thanks also for the other. I'll offer in exchange these all too brief remarks by a fine writer Michael Chabon, recorded at Hebron, where he had the same reaction more or less as did Mario Vargas Llosa (see Tel Rumeida page)- Naomi Zeveloff Q&A 'Michael Chabon Talks Occupation, Injustice and Literature After Visit to West Bank,' The Forward April 24, 2016. Best Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I guess you've caught 'Varoufakis and Chomsky,', but if not, it's here. I particularly liked the former's definition of modern economics as 'a religion with equations'.Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, modern economics is mostly pseudo-science. It is almost entirely a cover, a fig-leaf, a Kashrut certificate, for the global kleptocratic looting of the global public wealth to create private riches.
You may be interested in this: Musician Roger Waters and a documentary film director discuss their documentary on Israel's Hasbarah efforts. (See the right-hand-side panel for all three parts of the conversation.) Ijon Tichy (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
IjonTichyIjonTichy The above is a disturbing post. Classic anti-semitic tropes populate the wording.I am sorry Nish, but I have been reflecting on the above for over 24 hours, and I must protest. Simon Irondome (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
No need to apologize, Simon. I'm logging in late from another computer as my own is being reengineered to rid it of the totalitarian intrusive claws of a self-installed Windows10 update which, despite my 95% successful attempt to get rid of it, still persists in little tricks to get me back on (their) updated ('date' means anus in Australian dialect) side. As to Tichy's post, I didn't see it in context, as antisemitic, unless the kashrut certificate is taken to signal that the kleptocracy has Jewish connections. An idiom like that would come naturally to someone like T who grew up, I assume, in Israel. We all have differently sensitized noses for these things, and even here in writing 'noses' I immediately realized that my choice of 'noses' could easily lend itself to a negative construal ('And the Lord said unto Moses...') implying an antisemitic mindset. Language is a death trap to the best of us (suffice it to follow the debate between Christopher Ricks and Julius re T S Eliot's antisemitism) However, when I wrote it, I had in mind Bloch's beautiful words on the task of an historian being that of have an acute ability to scent his prey and track it down. If 'kleptocracy', well that is almost the default word to describe post-Soviet Russia, and kleptocratic is fairly objective for describing the way the multi-trillion dollar private debt crashes in 2008 onwards were transferred to the public debit ledger, most recently in the absolutely hallucinating case of Greece, which has been utterly bankrupted for generations by 'loans' that are actually rerouted back to Germany and France etc.etc. To think, everytime a kleptocratic 'rort' of these epochal kinds is duly noted that the Protocols are in the background of the annotator's thinking, is dangerous
In short, saying that 'modern economics is a figleaf or whatever for 'the global kleptocratic looting of the global public wealth to create private riches, ' seems to me both empirical and well-grounded theoretically (Michael Hudson, Piketty etc.). Most people don't think that way.There's nothing 'Jewish' about it: indeed, it is merely a late extension in terms of financial 'engineering' of the logic that impelled very unJewish empires like those of Great Britain and the United States to extract wealth from the rest of the world - this occurred formatively when Jews were still excluded from the said establishments.
Antisemitism can be very subtle, but diagnosing its pathologies is getting very difficult perhaps because it is now thrown around (I exclude yourself from this: you have proven consistently lynx-eyed in your discriminations here) so endlessly, not a little abetted by the narrative obsession in so many Israeli and diaspora newspapers of trying to highlight some ostensible 'Jewish' angle in anything from people in the news, Mickey Mouse, falafel, to Superman, comic books, beauty contests, gay society, whatever - I take this all as a sign of the negative effect of diaspora traditions- an unfamiliarity with what it is like to be a nationalist, nationalism being organically natural in a new state like Israel to create a common identity, since the diaspora experience was basically one of being on the receiving end of other nationalists-this made Jews great exponents of universal human rights) The sum effect is that anytime anything comes up for discussion a constituency is been unwittingly attuned to construe it ethnically, and read it for any potential political innuendoes or susurrations from the old whispering echo chambers that 'lie' in all historically mindful readers' minds. This worries me a lot.And I have always taken Tichy's exchanges as a reflection of similar concerns by someone 'on the inside'. Best Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
As all can see, I have removed words from the original posting which are dramatic and unnecessary. I have forgotten how to strike out comments, and I have to be out in a bit to the bank to pay off some of my creditors in a somewhat painful monthly ritual. (Oh the irony, based on some of the above) so I cannot trawl through endless guides on how to do it. The diffs are there for all to see. The post is unfortunately worded at first sight, and not in character with the editor who made them, the many positive contributions here of which I am aware of. I almost never use such a line, as you are well aware Nish, and others who "know my style". You have more than adequately summed up my concerns in your above post. Your friend and colleague, Simon. Irondome (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Irondome, am I correct in assuming you do not read Hebrew? Or, if you do, that you don't spend much time reading Hebrew-language mass media, including e.g. Israeli online newspapers and magazines, Israeli online TV and radio, Israeli videos on YouTube, books written by Israeli authors, etc? Because, as Nishidani tried to explain above, the term 'Providing a Kashrut Certificate' is commonly used in Israel as a general expression to denote 'bestowing legitimacy upon.' The term is used often (or at least not rarely) by average people in the street as well as by writers, journalists etc in a wide variety of contexts that have nothing to do with any religion.

(Of course, there is nothing wrong with not reading Hebrew, and Hebrew language skills are not a requirement, nor do I believe that they should ever be a formal requirement, for editing WP in the I-P area.)

In other words:

  • The vast majority of Christian economists, in the history of economics as well as today, worked or work to provide a cover, a fig-leaf, a Kashrut certificate, a Halal certificate, to bestow legitimacy on the global kleptocratic looting of the global public wealth to create private riches. A relatively small (but perhaps non-trivial) minority of brave, courageous Christian economists worked or work today to strongly oppose this looting.
  • The vast majority of Muslim economists, in the history of economics as well as today, worked or work to provide a cover, a fig-leaf, a Kashrut certificate, a Halal certificate, to bestow legitimacy on the global kleptocratic looting of the global public wealth to create private riches. A relatively small (but perhaps non-trivial) minority of courageous, brave Muslim economists worked or work today to strongly oppose this looting.
  • The vast majority of Jewish economists, in the history of economics as well as today, worked or work to provide a cover, a fig-leaf, a Kashrut certificate, a Halal certificate, to bestow legitimacy on the global kleptocratic looting of the global public wealth to create private riches. A relatively small (but perhaps non-trivial) minority of brave, courageous Jewish economists worked or work today to strongly oppose this looting.
  • The same applies to all other major religions in the history of humanity. In other words, providing a fig-leaf/ cover is independent of religion.
  • Of course the picture is even more complicated. I am not blaming the vast majority of economists for the severe historical and current problems with the global socio-economic system. Economists are just people like you and me, just trying to survive and thrive and feed and house and clothe themselves and their families. And it is not only the economists who are providing cover for the global theft of the public wealth, it is practically every person who has ever lived or who lives now: the prevailing global socio-economic system is embedded deeply inside all of us, and we are all both victims as well as perpetrators, of the global system.

You may also be interested in watching this scene from Network (film). In my view, it's the most important scene in an excellent film that has many important scenes. In fact I strongly recommend renting and watching the entire film.

Best regards, and continued enjoyment and happiness in life (hope you are enjoying watching the exciting UEFA football, although I wish Iceland would have won it all ...), Ijon Tichy (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Your words are appreciated IjonTichyIjonTichy. I freely admit to overreacting to your well-meant comment. I was feeling thin skinned that day. It happens. I find your comments very interesting. I am only beginning to study Hebrew, so I fear I could barely struggle through the simplest paragraph at the moment. Shame on me, but give it a year, and I may be able to understand the nuances of simpler newspaper articles and the like. My ambition is to read an Amoz Oz novel in the original. Then I will understand. I hope all is well with you and yours. Hopefully we can discuss your points further very soon. Nish is a patient host so hopefully we can expound further. With all good wishes, Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Simon, no offense taken. I fully realize your intentions are pure and honorable. And I admire your aim to learn Hebrew - it is not an easy language to learn at any age, especially not at a later stage in life. When we immigrated to Israel many decades ago, I was only 5 years old and I learned to read and write Hebrew relatively quickly, my older siblings had a somewhat harder time learning to read and write the language although they eventually mastered it, and my parents had a very difficult time learning the language, although they eventually learned it well enough to understand most of what they were reading. My parents attended an Ulpan, which helped. Best wishes to you and yours, Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
There are some languages which, if we don't learn them, leave part of our potential selfs unread, to our loss. I've always felt that way with Hebrew. I could hitchhike round Israel, and even the Gaza Strip with a grasp of the idiomatic basics a half a century ago, but since then, when I have time, reserve it for parsing the Tanakh. I really should pull my finger out and do that extraordinary idiom's claim on me more justice. I helped a sister-in-law several years older than myself, with it a decade ago, and now her daily practice leaves me ashamed (joyfully). Pity that her being only Jewish on her father's side makes her, despite these valiant efforts in poverty, not formally (as opposed to informally) accepted as one of the tribe. So, S, do apply yourself. These moments of our day, stressed or otherwise, take on a different tincture of light when we recite to ourselves verses and words that take us out of mean time into a different universe. Best to both of you.Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Ijon. This is stuff we've known for 13 years (parallel universes of modern information - the engineered moodosphere via the press vs. the ground, and underlying political calculations), but I've never seen it so meticulously documented as it is here. If you haven't see it, Jeffrey St. Clair How the Iraq War Was Sold CounterPunch July 8, 2016.Nishidani (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I would also recommend Eliot Weinberger, 'They could have picked...,' The London Review of Books, Vol. 38 No. 15 28 July 2016. It's a useful wake-up corrective for those of us who focus so intensely on Israel's problems, to be reminded that the Glicks and Qarims are small beer compared to the 'mainstream' lunacy in the Empire's 'Christian' heartland whose greatest pathologists are, perhaps coincidentally but nonetheless, Jewish, like the doyen of them all, Noam Chomsky. The diff is that that tradition has the language of Mein Kampf too close at home not to escape its resonance in the rhetoric of these little, for the moment, avatars of Hitlerism. Why is it in this harsh climate, my small orchard and vegetable plots promise abundance, apart from the perfume? RegardsNishidani (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the links to the articles. Indeed, these articles are informative, and frightening, and humorous all at the same time in that they expose the insanity of human so-called "society".
You may be interested in the following:
  • The New European Fascists, by Chris Hedges. "Poland offers a frightening example of the right-wing populism sweeping through many nations. Neoliberalism is wrecking economies, creating rage among the working class, devastating cultural institutions and eroding liberal democracy across Europe and in the United States." (And, may I add, in Israel, in the occupied West Bank, in Egypt, in many Arab countries, and in fact in many countries around the globe ...)
  • Why many poor white people have voted for Trump. Interview with J. D. Vance, a book author. Vance is a Yale Law School graduate who grew up in the poverty of Appalachia. Offers good insights.
  • Ur Fascism, by Umberto Eco in the NY Review of Books. From 1995 but still very relevant today.
Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Bit late getting back to this. I actually missed it, with intervening edits being made by others. Thanks for the links, esp. Umberto Eco. I discovered I have a trace of the Ur-Fascist - 1/14th of me corresponds to no.11, since I often imagine that it would be useful, when dying, to use the inevitability for some useful end. Talking of fascists, I see Philippe Sands, has just reviewed the evidence for Bliar in A Grand and Disastrous Deceit, LRB Vol. 38 No. 15,28 July 2016 pp.9-11. buried inside there's a good joke of the Iron Lady having dinner with her aides. They enter a restaurant, and the waiter asks her:
Waitress: ‘Would you like to order, Sir?’
Thatcher: ‘Yes, I will have a steak.’
Waitress: ‘How’d you like it?’
Thatcher: ‘Raw please.’
Waitress: ‘And what about the vegetables?’
Thatcher: ‘Oh, they’ll have the same as me.’
That pretty much sums up modern politicians. A megalomaniac surrounded by brownnosers. There's one exception. Elizabeth Wilmshurst.Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
This joke comes from an episode, some thirty years ago, of the much-missed Spitting Image. [18] RolandR (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Roland. The fact that The Simpsons anticipated Trump's victory, and the Putin connection, 16 years ago, together with this vignette, is proof of the old rule of thumb. If you want to understand the world, read comics or watch the best comedians, or parodists of genius. They are almost invariably way ahead of the commentariat by several years. The reason for that is that, like reality itself, they are not bound by rules of 'common sense'. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Roland, thanks. I was not aware of Spitting Image. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I enjoyed very much watching the Spitting Image Election Special 1987. Absolutely brilliant satire/ parody, adhering to the highest production values in writing, directing, craftsmanship, etc. And still highly relevant today, for example the most-recent bread-and-circuses affair in my neck of the woods. Best, Ijon Tichy (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I highly recommend The Onion. I've enjoyed reading their twitter feed every day over the last 6 years, they do a great job satirizing and parodying many key aspects of human society. Ijon Tichy (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Loved the joke involving the Iron Lady.
The following is interesting: Green Party of Canada Challenges Israeli Apartheid. "Green Party shadow cabinet member Dimitri Lascaris says the passage of the resolution in support of BDS could embolden other Canadian parties to take on the occupation." Also discusses a second, separate resolution by the Green Party, regarding the Jewish National Fund (JNF). --Ijon Tichy (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

An interesting article: The Cold War Is Over. Best, Ijon Tichy (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I can't think of many other populations, save modern Palestinians, who have been comprehensively fucked over by history as have the Russians. I'm sure they must have a word as evocative as sumud, but can't think of one. Mind you I'm losing touch and have been boozing and shoving the snout into the feeding trough for several hours in a farmlet built on top of a Roman villa. Best Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Glad you are enjoying life. Keep up the merriment. Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Opinion: Russia is now top wheat exporter, proving sanctions won’t work, by Amotz Asa-El. By the way, the author has a Hebrew name, are you familiar with his work? Ijon Tichy (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I"ve seen his works several times. He literally write in every single news paper/website he can. I never really understood what is his political agenda (didn't read too much of his articles) but it seems he is in the Israeli center-left side. He was the main editor of the Jerusalem Post, which is a mostly right-wing newspaper, but he was there ten years ago and at that time I could barely read so I don't know how was JP then. Anyway his articles usually full of historical references and examples instead of straight forward comments on spesific current events. He seems like one of the "good guys".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
(ec.) Thanks Stav. On the button, and informative as often. No, not familiar with him, IJ. I never take note of names like that, Hebrew or Arabic, except when the argument is specifically focused on the I/P area, the only place where often it can often assume a potential background relevance. It sounds like the forecasts given the Russian economy back in 1914: in fact perhaps the key factor deciding Germany for war were calculations that unless the rapidly industrializing neighbor to its East were destroyed, it would, given the developmental indexes, outproduce Germany in 2 decades. One point. We get a lot of eastern grain that is contaminated, even radioactive, through southern Italian ports. I once read in the 1990s that 16% of the Russian landscape was toxically affected. Indeed, I joined a programme to take in for several months a year children from the areas affected by the Chernobyl fallout. We had to feed them a special diet for 3 months,to rid them of the poison they absorbed from eating produce from local farms. Our child got on well with me, except for one dispute over which he was passionate - the superiority of a Lada to a Ferrari, but had nightmares suggesting he believed my wife was part of a plot to steal him from his mother. Jeezus. Didn't work out, but he went back with enough currency sewn into his trousers to tide them over for a year or so.Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Imperialism and Class in the Arab World. Published in Monthly Review by Max Ajl, a friend of Vittorio Arrigoni. -- Ijon Tichy (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Very good review, because it invites at least two rereadings (not that it's hard to read - I grew up with that style of analysis, just covers so many complex issues). I'll keep my eye out for Max Ajl's work, so thanks for the tip. Nishidani (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about the passing of your cat. I'm the proud daddy of two small dogs which I love dearly, and you have my sympathies. How do you feel about your cat?
Here are some articles that I think you may find interesting:
Best, Ijon Tichy (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Not quite my cat. I have only one, 17 years old, with Alzheimer's and a massive Garfieldian appetite but a local woman, somewhat aspergeristic, used to buy creatures to cater to her daughter's whims, keep them in the house, then throw them out after a week. Evicted baby turtles and kittens ended up in our gardens, so I looked after them, reluctantly. 'Pirate' was a famished strayling who insisted on pouncing in to put on the nosebag when food was placed outside for the other two. Aggressive of necessity, ferocious, it eventually was tamed, and just as, after 1 year, I managed to stroke it, and it stopped hunting and just slept around the gardens till breakfast or dinner. I should have read the behavioural change and taken it to the vet, but it was quietly dying, I now see. We found it under a shrub while gardening, scenting the stench of death. It joins another 12 animals in a cemetery near my vegetable patch. I'm not an ailurophile. I remember, on reading the great Vladimir Georgiev 's Introduction to the History of the Indo-European languages in 1981, stopping in my mental tracks at p.232 at seeing him gloss the Etruscan word krankru as 'cat'. Very odd, I thought. Cats didn't exist in Italy at that time. Indeed, as anyone of his stature should have known, the Latin word feles from which we derive 'feline' actually refers to species like the polecat or weasel, which Romans kept as housepets. Indeed A.E. Housman once wrote a witheringly funny review lambasting a German scholar for reading the line, illic caelureos . .(venerantur) at Juvenal's Satires 15.7:'there (in Egypt) the heavenly ones are worshipped'. That was the received manuscript reading but had long been emended to aeluros ('There cats . . are worshipped'). Since there was no native name for the foreign cat Juvenal took the term from Greek αἴλουρος, and monks, unfortunately the text never fell before the eyes of the anonymous Irish monk who wrote the exquisite Pangur Bán, transcribing the text throughout the ages altered the strange word by conjecturing it was a corruption of the more familiar 'caeruleus' (the bluish ones, the sky creatures, gods)
The one kitten I took into the house, when I found its gravid mother shivering in the snow at Christmas, and gave it sanctuary as it went into labour, has been raised as a dog. My first impulse was to shut the door, and leave it to its own resources, but my conscience and wife prevailed. The former because I was raised where cats were disliked, so much so that I once, aged 7,witnessed a gang of kids failing to drown a batch of kittens in a laundry tub: they struggled hard, clawing the water. So they took them outside and smashed them against the wall. A buried memory, of grief, came to remind me I was obliged to make amends, even though I hadn’t been involved. All silent bystanders to evil must work it through, make recompense in the future.
Thanks for the links. I actually follow Elon Musk's work regularly, the cars and transit system are highly intelligent: going to Mars is stupid. As a pub-crawler told me in 1969 while watching the moon-landing: 'if they'd spent that money making life on earth decent, . . ' I replied along the lines,'Theology, and it's a theological project, has a longer hold on our imagination than humanism, and now we’re seeing its secular reincarnation’. Pat the pups for me.Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
"We have not approached the time when we may speak to each other, but in the mornings sometimes I have heard, echoing far off, the sound of a trumpet. It is apparent that nations cannot exist for us. They are the playthings of children, such toys as children break from boredom and weariness. The branch of a tree is my country. My freedom sleeps in a mulberry bush. My country is in the shivering legs of a little lost dog." Sherwood Anderson, A New Testament (1927)
By the way, both my pups are rescue dogs. They are sending their love to their uncle Nishidani. Ijon Tichy (talk) 05:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
--Ijon Tichy (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that one, I haven't been following the Japanese papers recently (by the way, some of the world's foremost experts on the North Eastern tribes of Australia and their languages are Japanese, god bless'em). Newspapers need sensations, I guess, but the fact that Sassanids were in Japan has been known for a century in scholarship at least, and was duly noted in the Nihon Shoki (720). Mind you, it's very important confirmation. We underestimate in our popular imagination how integrated trading was in antiquity: Egyptian lapis lazuli from the Pamir or Afghanistan region found i9ts way to pre-dynastic Egypt. China got their amber through Roman intermediaries. The Tarim mummies and Tocharians attest to viable I.E. speaking linkages. Christopher Beckwith's Empires of the Silk Road, steps out at times on a limb, but it's as good a guide as any to the Eurasian globailization in pre-globalized times. Thanks.(Tell the rescue pups to practice retrieving granpa Nish from the morasses he gets himself into!)Nishidani (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, including the links. It's all very interesting.
What are your thoughts on this: We May Never Truly Fathom Other Cultures (7 Oct 2016)
The pups are saying hello to granpa Nish. Ijon Tichy (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
(Wagging my tales in return:)) Generally I think that is odd. Terentius’s line in one of his plays, Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto,’Being a man myself, I regard nothing human to be beyond my understanding.' Bi/trilingualism was very common at the historical crossroads, and among tribal societies all over the world, even markedly different in moeurs, so that many 'primitives' could grasp societies that were otherwise profoundly different from the one they lived in. One could write a book that wariness of strangers, while natural, only took on its plenitude of incomprehension when accelerated wealth accrual led to elite isolates which, once their power and the reach of their centripetal imagination consolidated over centuries to become an aristocratic sense of cosmic privilege, lost all purchase on the countervailing instinct of sympathy.
Montaigne on reading all of those Spanish reports, extracted a fundamental conclusion which one can find in Book 1, No 31 of the Essays, generally takes the line that our own customs are, seen in reverse perspective, just as weird, bizarre and aleatory as those which the Christians deplored among 'savages'. We deplored their rites of cannibalism, while going to church every day to dine on the body of God, in the communion service, etc. What makes civilized violence (from the Aztecs to us) so much more incomprehensible is that it doesn’t consist in just killing your enemies pellmell, as in a tribal fight. No. It is justified by a whole series of rationales, racial, strategic, theological (the Book of Joshua is foundational). We develop a metaphysics of murder, and give it legal cover by erudite distinctions about just wars, extrajudicial killings, turning a blind eye to genocides caused to people by the collateral damage of our own vibrant economic system's developmental impetus or 'civilising mission' (the French colonial army killed a third of Algeria's population from 1830 to 1880). We maxim-gunned 10,000-15,000 tribesman in an hour or two at Omdurman, for the loss of two score men; a few years later von Trotha wiped out up to 100,000 Herero tribesman and, as if that wasn't enough, Roger Casement, whether reporting on South America or the Congo, exposed the industrial and imperial genocides underway, as King 11 Leopold (just take a look at that fatuous photo and compare the man inside the party costume to the photo portrait of Sitting Bull. ) to entertained European royalty while his men killed at a minimum 1,000,000 Congolese, etc,etc,. I guess WW1 was a relief to the third world - for a brief interim, the mass murders stopped abroad as the whites decimated each other. I can understand murder at the elementary level: it’s massacres for a sophisticated reason which are odd. Not the massacres themselves, but the self-delusional mechanisms people who engage in great civilization's mass killings to provide a warrant or charter for what they are doing (I disagree with Jared Diamond's recent middle class book on this). If you read Steven Runciman’s Crusades, and then read Prescott’s account of the Conquests in Mexico and Peru, the ‘incomprehension that anthropologist feels for Aztecs is not a mater of a psychocultural divide, it’s just that he hasn’t familiarized himself with history, and Western history, or the obvious fact that there’s a little Nazi infant hidden even in the most civilized person, ready to morph given the ‘right’ circumstances.
I was much taken by Marvin Harris’s books, esp. Cannibals and Kings when it first came out, and his cultural Marxist theory applied to cannibalism. Have a look at what he says of the Aztecs pp.99ff.He makes the point that ‘The Jews, Christians, the Moslems, the Hindus, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Chinese, the Roman all went to war to please their gods’(p.107) and provides ecological constraint rationales for things like Central American cannibalism.
You guessed it. No decent film on the television tonight! Cheers pal, and give the pups an extra pat (not a cow pat! what a dreadful thought). (As kids, our first ammunition was cow pats, fresh crap crusted slightly under the sun, which you could scoop up and smash into the other gangkids' faces. We'd come home, happy, covered in shit, greeted by my pharmacist mother's smile- She thought roughing it up, exposing one's self to bacterial filth, was part of a good education, and wasn't far wrong, despite the pong). Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Calmécac had it survived the Spaniards or been taken over by the Jesuits, might have vied with Morocco’s Al Quaraouiyine as the oldest university of the world (forgot to copy and paste this last bit). Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Deeply understanding other cultures is sometimes hard, but not impossibly hard. One can understand cultures, that may appear at first as extremely foreign to one's own culture, if one is willing and able to spend considerable amount of time on carefully studying high-quality sources, learning the language(s) of the foreign culture, and, if possible, traveling extensively within the foreign countries and spending considerable time living and striking roots (at least for a year or more) in the foreign lands.
Arabic translators did far more than just preserve Greek philosophy (4 Nov 2016), by Peter Adamson in Aeon Magazine. -- Ijon Tichy (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I like to think of it this way: every one of the 10,000 historical cultures was or is a form of human possibility and constraint. It follows that absorption in any other culture than one's own can open doors that are locked if one remains monocultural. Great civilizations run on a paradox; they are promiscuous by the eclecticism intrinsic to imperial overreach - since they must absorb a manifold of distinct regional cultural realities, yet tend to orthodoxy when the politics of power at the centre feels threatened by the centrifugal vectors of the accommodated diversities. It's not however that one finds something out there not available to one's own sociocultural backdrop: Lévi-Strauss in his Mythologiques essentially concluded that the devices of 'savage thought' were still with us, not overcome by progress, but simply reformulated. The imbrication of social and cultural categories with natural taxonomies is constant - we just think we have gotten beyond the apparent oneiric randomness of primitive thought because we have a technology that beguiles us into believing we are cognitive creatures that have made some quantum leap out of the historical past. Reading ethnography, one is constantly struck by the wild blindness of explorers: they die where natives thrive, they cannot read the landscape for the telltale signs of how to survive in it, signs that are meticulously archived in the ecology of native lore. Burke and Wills hauled 20 tons of equipment across central Australia, with food stocks calculated to last 2 years, and died of starvation, in an area where the Yandruwandha were living intelligently off the desert's recondite riches. The stupid bastards just didn't do the obvious things, like earning good will, learning the languages, changing their diet, etc. The !Kung-San of the Kalahari classify over a hundred insect species, and found close to 20 edible, while others have medicinal functions, and where early travelers saw a desert void of food, their native taxonomy closely classified several hundred plants, each with its ethnobotanical uses, all of course encoded in a different discursive form than what we are accustomed to think in terms of. I was going to write about the failed follow-through of Hellenism's philosophical impact on the Palestinian Talmud, as opposed to the Bavli, then Maimonides's failure, reflecting a broader Islamic missed opportunity, to take Aristotle's syllogistic system on board (monocultures etc) and got distracted, probably because I've had a long day's reading and need to rest up with some film. Thanks for the link and have a good weekend. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights.

When you get a chance, I'll be interested to read your thoughts about the failed follow-through of Hellenism's impact on the Palestinian Talmud.

Additionally, your thoughts on the following? Leonard Cohen Sang About Our Love Affair With Death and Destruction (14 November 2016). A short video tribute to Cohen's work over the last 5 decades. "The brooding singer-songwriter tried to humanize society's darkest wishes, and lamented its inability to ever be at peace." The Real News (4:29 minutes)

Ijon Tichy (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

50 years ago I read a comment by Moses Hadas raising the hypothesis of a decisive influence of certain Platonic texts like the (otherwise) draconian Laws. He had in mind the minute regimentation of every element in one's life according to an established tradition set down by philosophers/sages. Given that rabbinical literature took on board some 3,000 loanwords from classical languages, it still strikes me as odd that so little is done to try and reconstruct the lost historical hinterland, esp. in the ascendency of Hellenism over the world where at least the Palestinian Talmud developed. Some have argued that there are traces there of a syllogistic modus operandi, not evidenced in the Bavli,for this very reason, but that had failed to gain much traction. Abrahamic religions of course are systems of advanced irrationality whose function is to detribalize the Neolithic world by making its spiritual heritage more amenable to communities living within the powerful jurisdiction and statist universalism of empires. So it's particularly interesting to see how they cope with propositional logic, which, since Pythagoras, has raised the problem of the truth status of axioms. All three had creative skirmishes with the Greek tradition: Christianity tried to meld the two, and we have theology under pontifical and synodic authority; the Islamic world had a major moment of creative contact, evinced by the Muʿtazila only to suffer, devastatingly at least in terms of science, from a failure of nerve. Judaism, having, aside from the probable Khazar experiment,a role of minoritarian subordination to secular authority, just withdrew into an cognitive enclave where the chain of tradition trumped logical curiosity, though it retained an indirect contact with it through familiarity with Arabic translations of Greek works (e.g. Saadia Gaon, Maimonides, etc). The results more or less, from a classical angle, in the case of doctrinal Judaism, are more or less as Israel Shahak set forth. Despite the tragical nature of the necessity to dispossess and destroy another people in order to reenter history in the most imbecilic form of normalcy, it is fascinating to observe the utterly dysfunctional δυσκρασὶα (the inexorable discrepancy between ingredients forced to assume a form of amalgamation) between a modernist project pinioned on secular rationality, and an identitarian value base drawing on an ethics that is devoid of any purchase on logical principles. But, it's late here, and the ghosts of the antipodes are murmuring discontent over this whiteman's distraction. . .
As for Leonard Cohen, he's never been on my radar: I read several poems in the 60s that seemed pretty much in line with a lot of bad work of that period. Several songs remain in memory, but, again, so do a thousand others from that golden age. I guess I'll have to review my prejudices by getting some time to relisten to part of his corpus on youtube.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. Very insightful, as always. I am still in the process of reading and re-reading your comment and trying to understand all the very interesting nuances, issues, complexities and insights. I will comment further in the future.
Your comment motivated me to read the WP article on Israel Shahak. (I was not previously aware of the work of this wonderful, amazing human being, thanks for bringing his work to my attention.) I don't know when is the last time you may have read the WP article, but I've read it for the first time, and to me, it reads mostly (although not entirely) as an WP:Attack page on Shahak and his work. I looked briefly at the history page, and it appears that several editors whom the community has recently determined to be highly disruptive or otherwise very problematic (e.g. the blocked sockpuppet Epson Salts and several other civil POV pushers) have basically turned the article into (largely, although not entirely) a piece of crap. I don't have the time to work on the article to bring it into compliance with WP policies, I am wondering if you, or anybody who reads this comment, may hopefully have the time, motivation and inclination to improve the article to make it adhere to NPOV (and other policies), because in its current form, this article is a disgrace to WP.
Thanks for sharing some of your perspectives on Leonard Cohen. Your ideas are thought-provoking.
On a somewhat different topic, I highly recommend these two recent, insightful interviews with economist/ historian Michael Hudson: Part 1 and part 2.
Last but not least, the puppies send their love to their grandpa Nishidani. Ijon Tichy (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Off to Germany again, and rushing to get a few notes into a backlog of stubs I have material for but haven' had much time to work on. I tried to edit the Shahak article into some semblance of neutrality some years ago but was hindered by an admin at that time distinguished for his brilliant wikilawyering on behalf of the cause. Shahak was an exceptionally insightful and erudite man. Our User:RolandR knew him personally and can attest to his humanity. You can download both his books from the net, even though unfortunately some copies are on anti-Semitic sites, but that will tell you nothing in itself. I recommend a close reading of them: to me they read like a version of Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies, a formative book for me as a youth, with Plato being replaced by rabbinical tradition. There was nothing new here: what Shahak did regarding the ghetto mentality of the arbitrators of the rabbinical chain of tradition has been done hundreds of times by scholars working on the irrationality of Christianity. One should be careful here: it is one thing to make a metacritique of a specific cultural code or intellectual tradition, another to dismiss its varied members as all implicated in a delusional system of collective scotoma. Marx, it is only slowing emerging, had a prescient intuition into the core end logic of capitalism, and found many eminent, deeply humane acolytes. Attempts to legislate his worldview into a political programme where, were, predictably (as he himself foresaw in 1854,) a disaster. That is true of all the Abrahamic (and other) religions: it's a paradox of humanistic, as opposed to scientific thought, that genuine wisdom and profound readings of human nature came bubble up from thinkers whose overall weltanschauung is irrational. One sees that studying the anthropology of 'primitive' tribes - it's a good exercise to absorb the ethnography of a 'backward' people sufficiently to assimilate their basic rules, and then walk round any city streets and gaze into the faces, minds ands manners of our fellow citizens, and suddenly twig how bizarre we are, how random and contingent our ostensible metropolitan 'rationality' is. One can learn from that rabbi or this imam, or Pope Francesco, or the present Dalai Lama, things that a hyper-rationalist or scientist knows nothing of, though from a higher perspectival angle, science, and the rules of logical method, must rule our better wits, with religion, and much philosophy deriving from it, merely a camouflaged echo of an ancient ghost-dance (there's a great book on this by Weston La Barre).
Nuzzle the pups. Best Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
ps. that ostensible disproof by Immanuel Jakobovits is of course a spectacular lie: the situation generally was as Shahak said it was, regardless of the incident. One can ascertain this very simply, by googling the relevant topic. Unfortunately, at least at that time I edited, there seemed to be no RS connecting the ban with the Shahak incident, and a lot of malicious recycling of the pseudo-rebuttal.Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I've lived in Jerusalem for a number of years, and yes, you are right, the situation was, generally, as Shahak described it. Ijon Tichy (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Does Chinese Civilization Come From Ancient Egypt?, Foreign Policy (magazine). "A new study has energized a century-long debate at the heart of China's national identity." Ijon Tichy (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The only interesting datum there is Sun Weidong's note that the chemical composition of ancient Chinese bronzes resembles that of Egyptian bronzes. The rest is pretty weird. In ancient cultures metal-working was a closely guarded secret, and figures with mastery of it were regarded as shamanic, men of power and dangerous, so diffusion wasn't rapid unless the craftsmen migrated, or were captured, and sent elsewhere. There was an Indo-European element in western China, and one theory,very minoritarian, holds that the Shang were not speakers of a Sinic language, as were the later Zhou. But the idea of a Hyksos link looks wild. Strange things do happen, though. The 'isolated' aaboriginal peoples of northern Australia were bartering trepan they fished for goods with sailors for the north and it ended up in the fish markets of imperial China. In any case, controversies that wash every idea about the past in the lyes of nationalism are not worth following. I'll try a thought experiment tonight, and mentally transmit two juicy vitaminized biscuits to your pups. If they don't end up in there, put it down to the waning powers of their senescent grandpa. Have a great festive season. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and, following up on Leonard Cohen, I found his line:'Everyone knows the war is over/Everyone knows the good guys lost' instantly memorable (particularly in the aftermath of the victory (if predictable, as I argued with some US friends much to their disbelief, or rather conviction I was just being geriatrically contrarian, not only in terms of Murphy's law) of that wanker with the dopey haircut.Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Greetings Nish. I liked the brief (4:30 min) analysis of Leonard Cohen's work. Cohen was right, the losers on both sides of practically every war in the last 12,000 years of human history are well known in advance even before the war begins: it's mostly the bottom 90% [in income and wealth] of the population on all sides, while the top 1% smile all the way to the bank. I am not an expert in poetry and you may be right and Cohen may have been a mediocre poet, but he was right about the fact that the vast majority of the global human population is (and has almost always been) basically completely, thoroughly fucked and will likely remain fucked for many more years and decades. Human so-called 'society' is completely insane and has been so for the last 12,000 years. On the other hand we are also completely sane and rational at the same time. (I am slowly discovering that almost all great, complex, multi-layered truths in life are a paradox. Often, both the very complex thing/ topic/ item/ issue and its exact opposite are true and correct at the same time, at least to some degree ...) We can't even bring ourselves to talk about - and more importantly, make big decisions and commitments about - the big problems that are slowly but steadily destroying our lives - e.g. gross human overpopulation, massive overconsumption, enormous inequality/ inequity, Intensive animal farming, global warming/ environmental destruction/ loss of biodiversity, and much more ... At the same time, life is still beautiful and offers many good and enjoyable things e.g. love, friendship, enjoyable work, pursuit of beauty, art, science, pursuit of novel physical, emotional and intellectual adventure/ exploration/ knowledge, pursuit of excellence, and many more pleasurable and enjoyable and deeply satisfying relationships and activities ... In short, life is a piece of excrement and a piece of paradise, and everything in-between, all at the same time ...
Wishing you and yours good health and continued happiness. And keep up the good work on Wikipedia.
The pups received the biscuits and quickly wolfed them down and licked their lips afterwards. They asked me to relay a big thank-you to grandpa Nish. (I dressed them in their Santa Claus outfits and took them to the giant park nearby on both Saturday and Sunday, to the delight of many small children [and a few adults too] ...)
Joyful tidings, Ijon Tichy (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a pretty modern thing to think of the poor being the victims of war while the elite profit and survive. Ever since homo sapiens insipiens has ruled the roost, at least down to WW1 and even 2, war was thought excellent for character-forming and a practical way to master the more intricate details of how to muster and therefore master the masses, even if the cost was substantial. A significant part of the ruling elite's rising generation of young men were mowed down in WW1. George Bush Jr.,'s family got things 'right', you funnel Nazi funds to safe havens, and pull strings so that your sons don't serve, but that only signifies something new.
I guess I'm a poetry rigorist. Apart from Shakespeare and a few others, most of the best poets are lucky, as Auden said, to ratchet up a score of poems that will outlive the ages. If you look at wonderful songs for their verbal poetry, many are total duds, though Christopher Ricks has made a great case for Dylan as a poet. Music's metrical baton can tap dull words into memorably orchestrated lyric. I read Cohen's lyrics in print, before listening to them, and that put me off, ,but I realize this was unfair, a prejudice. Sung, they exude a different, moving resonance to what they look like on the printed page. I recite stuff in the shower every morning, just to wake up by refreshing my mind with lyrics, and today sang von Eichendorff's "Mondnacht"
Es war, als hätt' der Himmel
Die Erde still geküßt,
Daß sie im Blütenschimmer
Von ihm nun träumen müßt'.


Die Luft ging durch die Felder,
Die Ähren wogten sacht,
Es rauschten leis die Wälder,
So sternklar war die Nacht.


Und meine Seele spannte
Weit ihre Flügel aus,
Flog durch die stillen Lande,
Als flöge sie nach Haus.
I learnt it as a boy because a German classmate who was, on casual acquaintance, a pretty normal happy-go-lucky 'petty bourgeois', stopped me one day and asked me what I got out of reading. he was puzzled by my anomalous presence in a college for drop-outs (I'd been expelled from an expensive college for subverting their culture and ruining their Catholic value system . I'd spend most time in class reading books and ignoring the teachers). Over a coffee we had a chat, I mentioned poetry, and he finally twigged. 'yeah I know what you mean. My granddad taught me this poem (then recited) and I think the last four lines the most breathlessly beautiful thing I've ever known.' In fact it was the only poem he knew, he was intent on a career in business. Nothing wrong with that, but if one does, one should recall how Wallace Stevens and T.S. Eliot handled it: diligent paperwork by day, and then, strolling home, down to lights out, the inner world where things make real, i.e. perplexing sense.
This utterly took me by surprise and rid me of whatever supercilious sense of being different might have lurked in me, Whatever stupidity the daily tsunami of global and provincial nonsense throws one's way, such things remind us of the reclusive adamantine potential for refinement in mankind, resonant in lyric, music, acts of empathy, courage, philosophical intuitions, scientific intelligence. It's not an elite thing: that kid's remark showed it's there, deep down, waiting to thrum if the right person can get past our mental messiness and touch the deeper chords. One story of Osip Mandelstam's final days in the gulag has him cared for by thugs, who were enchanted as, dying, he recited fables and poems for them. Today stacking timber that had just been culled from a distant wood and offloaded at my place, I noted these ants, wandering about dazed along the logs. Obviously clueless as to what had happened to their environment, thrown out of kilter from their daily round on the forest floor. I thought, spontaneously:焚き物にだれずに迷う森の蟻 (takimono ni/darezu ni mayou/mori no ari), i.e. 'On the firewood/unflaggingly, their way lost, they stray (perplexed)/the forest ants') Not much chop as a haiku, but more or less, we are the ants, much as you say, in a stripped and bulldozed woodland.
I'm meandering, which is natural enough, given the afternoon of hard 'yakka'. Delighted by the vignette of the santa pups. My family prevailed on me the other night to dress up as Santa Claus because a 3 year old niece, hugely bright, was convinced someone really would knock on the door and bring in presents. I did so, cushions on the stomach, a flowing beard, and, sneaking out back, banged on the door, and chuffed and huffed in with a tired limp, gasping from fatigue, handed over a bag of goodies, and then collapsed, sprawling, on a couch. She really was taken in, 'Oh poor Santa. He's so tired'. So I snored for 10 seconds, and then jumped up:' Must be off, all those kiddies in Africa are waiting for me too. An easier leg to do: no bloody soot or chimneys', and off I trundled.
Best regards and auguries for a good new year, even after the deadshit hits the fan on 20 Jan. Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the beautiful poem, and for your comments. Your words are inspiring and encouraging.
Wishing you a full and quick recovery.
The pups send their love to Grandpa Nishidani. One of them is sleeping in my lap right now, the other is sleeping at my feet. Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Nish, how are you? I hope you are doing well. Best, Ijon Tichy (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I've been inactive. Diagnosed as suffering from herpes. The medico said it hurts like a dog's bite, but, having been bitten that way, I never felt much pain, and don't now. Once in Paris, coming out of a restaurant, I saw a beautiful Alsatian and bent down to have a chat with it. It jumped at me and snapped at my face, its spittle on my cheek. I stayed steady, didn't retreat, but just kept murmuring dogtalk to it. It quietened down immediately, wagged its tail, and allowed itself to be patted. Which reminds me, give the pups a St Valentine's caress (or chocolate) from gramps! Cheers, IT! And thanks for the note, as always.Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Wishing you a quick and full recovery. Indeed, the pups and I are enjoying Valentine's day. The pups are sending their affections to their grandpa Nish. Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Ditto here. John Carter (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nish, how have you been? I hope all is well with you and yours. Ijon Tichy (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm always well. (I think those will fit for my last words, if I have time to utter such things before I kick the bucket:)) It's spring, and the tomatoes are flowering, while, in another garden the 'angel's breasts' or 'Our Lady's jasmine,(dogwood, or mock orange hardly describe them, are in full flower, wafting their scents over the house. Coming through Stansted yesterday, I picked up Scientific American, rummaging past all of the silly newspapers and magazines, for something to read on the flight back. Were there no science, or such popular weeklies like that, or New Scientist one might suffer from migraines, since the intrusiveness of nonsense has reached pandemic proportions, and, sitting in lounges or on trains, I kept counting who was reading a book or serious magazine, and who was thumbing an Ipad, and the latter kept winning hand or thumbs down. In any case, there's a good article in it How to Build a Dog, on a genetic experiment conducting over 58 generations to breed canine traits into a species of fox. (May 62-67) An astonishing story but, before I allowed myself to be swept away in admirations, I thought analogously of what would happen selecting these traits for humans, . . a dystopian utopia of quiet unaggressive folks? or fawning puppets? as the undomesticated natures (mine for one) were bred out. Well, bref, it may save foxes in a world that regards them as predators of food we think we have exclusive rights to, but the fox that is the glory of our countrysides, legends and stories, will disappear, a deeply unhappy thought. Best Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Nish I hope you will re-consider your decision to retire from WP. I would like to remind you of several things.

It is important to always maintain a sense of humor about life in general and WP in particular. Yes, we should take our work on WP very seriously, but when we lose our sense of humor, we greatly increase the likelihood we will become burned out.

Ignorance is infinite, while patience is not. Over the last five years I have seen numerous cases where highly productive, policy-compliant WP editors (such as yourself) lost patience with the unchecked flow of ignorance and POV-pushing, at which point these great editors were sanctioned for incivility.

Thousands of people around the world read your work every day and rely on you for high-quality, accurate, reliable and truthful information. Moreover, several dozens of productive WP editors are inspired and motivated by your work on the project every day.

I hope you will take a Wikibreak. Take as much time as you feel may be necessary to re-balance and re-center yourself, and then come back to the project. The pups and I send our love. Ijon Tichy (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic.       posted on AN/I by admin Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

April 2017

Please do not attack other editors, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Same with this. Thank you. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Cyrus the Penner (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Worth noting that Cyrus the Penner was blocked for sockpuppetry within a week of this message. --NSH001 (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Cyrus the Penner why did you need to warn him several hours after the fact? And how is pointing out a bias in editing a personal attack? I do not think legitimate concerns should be swept aside with a warning template.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I did not see the attacks until several hours after the fact, of course. And a consistent failure to assume good faith and claiming edits are being made out of bias (which is completely subjective, by the way) constitutes personal attacks in my book. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Well if an editor (I won't throw out names) refuses to understand policies on recent news and does not examine the merits (or lack thereof) of a topic that could be placed in a list, it becomes difficult to assume good faith.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Can't say I agree... I agree with his reasoning that these incidents always somehow find their way back into media coverage because of their motive and nature, thus solidifying notability. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
That runs against WP:CRYSTAL. For this kind of news, the criterion must be durability in coverage, something that cannot be known when articles are created a few hours after an otherwise relatively commonplace event has occurred. If it is a major attack, notability is assured. If it is just one of many tragic moments in local history, one should not gaze into the crystal ball and predict its 'notability' will solidify over time. This is elementary, and is observed by all established editors on one side (this has been discussed often and the counsel to refrain from imitating bad practice has been adopted), and systematically ignored by editors on the other. Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Let me redirect you to this. And we also have WP:CRIME, which says, "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act." Cyrus the Penner (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not a 'high profile criminal act'. It looks like a tragic outbreak of maniacal violence by a psychotic individual, immediately framed by the usual media as part of a terrorism pattern, before the details began to emerge.Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Special Barnstar
Hi Nishidani, I'm really sorry to see the note on your user page. I'm going to miss your posts and your superb "syllogistic thinking"! All the best to you, SarahSV (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Sarah. Thanks for the balmstar, citing one of the damning diffs, snippeted out of all context, which got me a month in porridge! I’d just like to clarify. Not syllogistic logic. The arguments I make in talk page disputes, when not clarifying the usage of terms, frequently adopt the rhetoric of analogy, where the analogy drawn assumes that there is a tacit identity between two separate discourses otherwise not apparent to one’s interlocutor. That identity is verified or fails when the common propositional form is elicited, and examined for its bridging cogency. No one questioned in this regard wants to go that far. My familiarity with the topic can be verified (by those who know my identity): I was asked to translate a book on an obscure nook of formal logic last year, and did so to help a friend. It is coming out in Germany latter this year. Wikipedia is a culture, and like all cultures, its codes may be internally coherent, but not logically cogent: there is too much room for subjective calls.

Still, this is all historical ('hysterical', in the comical sense). Since I keep getting reported on, to me, contextually misread trivia, and the bans are growing lengthier, clearly a formal permaban, as opposed to the informal permaban as now exists, is just round the corner, so the fiduciary contract between myself and the encyclopedia is broken, and it saves everyone a lot of bother (tedious wikisoapdramas) if I simply anticipate my retirement, voluntarily, by a year. I do somewhat regret that this means my project together with NSH001 to endow wikipedia with its first(?) complete field coverage (of aboriginal tribes) all under the same format, template and high sourcing bar will stop 400 short of the end (at 180) as a consequence, but one can’t have it both ways. It's a structural exigency people like yourself, with the due expertise, should raise eventually as something to be encouraged. Best wishes for the project, but, more importantly, your life in these troubled times, Sarah.Nishidani (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I may be about to retire myself, Nishidani. I honestly can't see it leading to a permanban in your case. People value you too highly. But I'm sorry you were upset by it all. SarahSV (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

A month will pass. Come back when its over; you are needed. Meanwhile, your ban doesn't cover aboriginal tribes so what is your excuse for slowing down there? Zerotalk 13:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

What Kingsindian say here, is very true. On Wikipedia everything is allowed....and nothing is allowed. I have seen admins wrangle for days over at AE giving an editor with a 7 year clean record, no blocks, his first block for an obvious violation. I got my first block after 10 year clean record...the whole of 3 minutes after I was reported to 3RR ..by an obvious sock, who could not hide his schadenfreude...and the block record stays, as arb.com people say "I was blocked by mistake, too, but that has never been used agains me!"
Idiots.
It is used agains me. My second bloc was from a crat, and to such elevated entities WP:AGF apparently does not apply.
I think the worst mistake of Wikipedia is that admins are give "life" powers. Until we get a system where admins are elected for a limited period, say 4 years, Wikipedia will be a place run by petty dictators with time to spare.
Why I stay? I noticed several years ago that journalists were starting to quote ....indirectly...from stuff I had added to Wikipedia. Early on, it was typically 1945 data, etc. (Well, theoretically they could have dug that out themselves....ha!) These last couple of years I have seen academic articles about places...that, oh so incidentally, mention exactly the same sources that I have put into an article.... Heh.
And that is about time!! Look at how, say Taibe, Galilee was started....lots of articles were like that. The general knowledge about Palestine the last 1500 years have been absolutely horrendous. Even the, shall we say, academic knowledge. I have been reading Frantzman phD thesis lately, (see User:Huldra/Frantzman) ...if I had done equally bad work on Wikipedia I would have been banned years ago (hopefully!)
But I see the day is coming.... 5 years from now, 10 year from now, when every 1596 tax data, every 1799 Jacotin note, every Guerin and SWP references, every Socin and Hartmann data, every Schumacher, every 1922, 1931 and 1945 data will be in the Palestinian village/town articles. And then never again can places with thousands of years of documented history been said to be "established in 1920 by the Bedouin".
Then I will retire.
Until then, I ...as the expression goes about politicians around my place making seriously painful compromises...:I "swallow camels whole", for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Every single day I edit here.
Now, back to work on my Palestinian villages. And you, Sir, should be back to your aboriginal tribes, Huldra (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC) (PS Kudos to Sarah, the barnstar is much deserved!)


  • Seriously? You quit your painful enjoyment here just because you don't fit into this environment of utterly idiotic political correct nothing but useful to some brain farts who have nothing better to do than spreading their irrelevance all over the place to the pleasure of themselves and some agenda driven brain dead assholes? I sure do understand but the little difference you made here is missed big time and you should think more of pleasing yourself instead of those little, worse than a disease spreading cockroach creatures that make life on this planet more hell than hell ever possible could be. Little lies accumulate quite quickly while their proportional damage is enormous and since we're not living in an era of enlightenment (contrary to what some might think) every tiny little shiny light is unique and irreplaceable. Just a reminder of what I'm sure you already know. Take care, --TMCk (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Archiving

Welcome back, old chap. You've been missed!

Anyhow, now that you're back, I've restored the previous settings for the archive bot.

It is possible, if you really wish, to stop a specific section from being archived (I'm doing this for the long LHT clutter thread on my own talk page, at least for now), but in your case I strongly recommend against it, because your talk page is already pushing the limits on size and number of threads. Instead, I think you should just let the bot do its work in the normal manner. You can always put a link to an archived thread on your main user page, possibly with an excerpt or explanation. Regards, NSH001 (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Letting a 'bot do its work in the normal manner' is a phrasing that convinces me, if only because bot means also 'bottom', and I'm all for regular evacuation, and it excludes the other implication of 'bot', a cadger.Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

AE comments

Hi. May I suggest some "Best Practices" for AE statements?

  • Nobody reads 90% of what people write at AE. Therefore, statements must be short.
  • Nobody reads the disputes between people who are not a party to the request.
  • The more one writes, the more it can (and will) be used against oneself.

So, I suggest that you simply ignore what NMMNG is saying at the AE request. Nobody is going to read it. And if anyone does, it's likely to hurt you as much as him: admins will think that "these people can't get along with each other. Let's ban both of them".

If you want to complain about NMMNG, just open a separate request. Or you could just ignore them. I have told NMMNG the same thing, but they don't listen. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You're quite right. I should stop thinking and behaving as if Wikipedia were an exemplary arena for the deployment of what Habermas called kommunikative Rationalität, esp. within the I/P death zone's basso ostinato of unkommunikative Nationalität. That kind of persistent fishing expedition, baited with just enough sneering to get under the WP:AGF radar while sufficiently rude ('your claim is self-serving falsehood,') to elicit a countering response (which in turn will be parsed to find evidence of a WP:AGF violation thitherto lacking) should be passed over in silence. It's just that while sympathetic to admins - it's tough wading through such motherlodes of unfocused discursive drift- I've seen enough judgements that are 'humoural' rather than policy-based or internally coherent, to think at times a further word of clarification is needed. by the way, having to reread through the history of my engagements with this case, I realized that it was correct to suspend. Wordsmith didn't think much of the plaintiff's evidence but went back and noticed I had unduly 'personalized' things once or twice by saying things like "from your nationalist perspective" and "the usual Israeli POV pushers." Apparently, however, this is more offensive that language that implies to most readers that someone is an anti-Semite. What is crushing evidence for a sanction in one case, is piddling in the other. Still, I'll take your and the other chap's advice to 'shut up'.Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I note in the meantime the case is closed. Back to serious editing.Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Chosen and Excluded – The Hate on Jews in Europe

Hi Nish,

Hope you are fine and happy to see you back :-)

If and when you have time, could you please introduce in English in this article the material that can be found in French here ?

You will understand in reading the article and the content that should be added...

Pluto2012 (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to get round to it tomorrow. I've looked at the section (a lot of those adjectives can go of course. Responses should have a conceptual value, I think) By the way, the English title is flawed. You can't say 'Hatred on Jews' in English (as opposed to Hass auf in German, which is normal but where auf = gegen. You must write 'hatred of Jews.' (cf. FrenchHaine des Juifs ) Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I've checked it all out. I had a nice afternoon in the virtual company of a deeply intelligent man, Shahak. To have one's ears tuned to that kind of toxic agitprop is depressing. I don't even know if it's worth the bother to improve a page that was brain-dead on birth: the French page is far better.Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry too much.
The idea was just to neutralize the English version with these 3 scholars.
DE, EN and FR articles are just depressing and b***sh**. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit late, but must get a certain backlog of work, private and otherwise done, before I pass the translation on. Sorry for the delay.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Good job, brave knight! AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps 'Good night, brave jobber' would be closer! Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't remember what article takes this kind of opinion on for its topic.-

Philip Weiss, YT, Reuters, Economist journalists self-censor reports from Israel so as not to be ‘savagely targeted’-John Lyons,' Mondoweiss July 26, 2017, reporting on John Lyons's new book, Balcony Over Jerusalem: A Middle East Memoir. HarperCollins 2017. Those self-censoring mainstream sites are what wiki qualifies as RS, those that fail to self-censor, like +972 magazine etc., are automatically removed if introduced, consolidating WP:Systemic bias. A similar logic operates here. If you try to edit the Palestinian realities of a double POV narrative, likely as not, the logic of targeting is inevitable.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Lake Bumbunga

See your diff here. Are you sure it's Lake Bumbunga (near Lochiel, Mid North)? I would love it to be but very little is known about the indigenous history of the lake and it's a long was away from Ngarkat lands. Are you sure the Pink Lake story is not about some other lake nearer to the riverlands where the Ngarkat and various Narrindjeri tribes might realistically have clashed? Donama (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks indeed for this note, of critical acumen. It's refreshing to realize not only that these obscure articles are read, but that they are combed through with care. I'm still shaking off cobwebs on an empty stomach growling for breakfast abroad, but a quick answer is this. The source is an academic specialist,Jessica Weir who in turn relied upon what the published a Ngarrindjeri elder Matt Rigney told her. I myself sat on that bit of info for a few days- it did look a bit far out of Ngarkat territory, but here we just have to follow what RS tell us. Unfortunately Rigney can't be contacted for further details, he passed away in August 2011, two years after Weir's book. It's true also that traditional lore can muddle names and places, and we need endless crosschecking. I'll handle this by adding attribution when I've had some tucker. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, that is the Wikipedia approach and fair enough. I expect it will continue to bug me though, because it just doesn't make sense. The fact that there's being so much more information added to Wikipedia about SA's indigenous peoples, or generated in academia in the first place to support that, is what's really important so I'll try to just let it go for now! Thanks for your good work! Donama (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a final note. Distances don't mean much in mythic or legendary story. You can find the story of David and Goliath in the Iliad, which locates it in southern Greece, and in the Bible which locates it in the Middle East. Both refer to a battle at the river Jordan. The battle of Troy as described didn't necessarily 'take place' at Schliemann's Troy. For all we know it may relocate legends associated with the Lycian/Carian coast. All I think Rigney's remark tells us is that he heard s legend in which his tribe fought the distant (and much feared) Ngarkat. The Ngarkat functioned in several contiguous tribes as a bogey to spook their children. Obviously that is not the cause of the pinkness. And perhaps the Ngarkat were chosen because the Ngarrindjeri became tribally inclusive, and story-tellers might not have wished to offend recently incorporated groups, etc.etc. Myths are not based on facts. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

AE

Reported here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

As is usual, another example of Much Doodoo about Nu-ffink.Nishidani (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Et tu, Brute?

Do you feel like offering an opinion about this addition to Et tu, Brute? There is a fuss at ANI but that is not relevant. This is just a thought–I'm not asking you to have a look, I just thought you might like a change. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You suggest that for a change?!! The assassination of Caesar was almost identical to the assassination of the two soldiers at 2000 Ramallah lynching, a mob stabs one or two people to death. I'll chuck a shufti at the page.Nishidani (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I've made a few changes. Now all I have to do is see if someone can see evidence in the edits for reporting me to AE, which is now a popular video being regularly replayed in this joint.Nishidani (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
LOL, I didn't think about that angle. One of the protagonists on the talk page is now in serious trouble at ANI. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. Johnuniq (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Your edit on Bardi people

Hi,

I reverted your edit on Bardi people, as you removed a chunk of text without any explanation. If it does need to be removed, by all means do so, but please can you include your reasons in the edit summary? Cheers! Stephen! Coming... 13:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Nishidani. You have new messages at Sjb72's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Nishidani. You have new messages at Sjb72's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Nishidani. You have new messages at Sjb72's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI stuff

Hi. I suggest not replying to everyone who shows up at ANI. In particular, you should ignore Shrike and Nihlus Kryik. They have a right to express their uninformed opinions, just like anyone else; that is the nature of ANI. The tangent spawned by this remark of Shrike and your subsequent reply is needlessly distracting and will come to nothing, at least nothing good.

The main thing to understand is that nobody reads 90% of what is written there, at least not with any degree of care. You have one or two chances to make your point. Subsequent discussion just blends into the background noise, and is more likely to hurt you than help you.

What is likely to happen in these cases is that some passing admin will not read the whole thing carefully and say: "where there is smoke there is fire" and hand out sanctions like candy. Alternatively, the whole thing will be closed with some meaningless and boilerplate closing statement which will be appealed to by various actors in some future case.

If this sounds too cynical, I can assure you that it is not. ANI is virtually useless to handle long-term contributors. There is one case where this general pattern is violated: if one or more of the parties have past sanctions; in which case, they are pummeled regardless of the facts. (I once did an small informal study of ANI which reached this conclusion.)

For the general problem of NMMNG, I suggest simply ignoring them. Just don't reply to their points. At all. There are usually more good-faith interlocutors on the page who you can discuss with. (It's a pity that Wikipedia does not have a "mute" button like Twitter.) Either NMMNG will get bored and reduce their sniping; or if they continue their low level sniping, you would have a solid future case. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kingsindian here. I tried to read both the AN/I discussion and the article talk page as much possible, but it is difficult to reach a coherent solution when the presentation is all over the place. My impression is that there isn't a convincing case at this moment to warn the editor in question, and a warning may not be helpful to resolve your situation. Alex ShihTalk 15:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not my situation, actually. I'm not upset by that nonsense. I just dislike being taken to AE every time I make a minor slip or have used 'biting' language, while fishing expeditions, baited with the usual personal insinuations, and intended to elicit more material from me on the expectation I'll act in kind, are ignored. Nonetheless 謝謝你花很多你寶貴的時間. Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh thanks, 閣下會說中文? Anyway, hope everything goes well. Alex ShihTalk 16:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
愚老可以慢慢讀古典中文. . Whoops, just chucked up. Too much cake and ale on my nephew's first birthday yesterday finally hitting home. Otherwise, everything is hunky-dory. Cheers Alex.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Reconsideration

The aforementioned decision looks like a 'hissy fit', as young people used to say. Giving aboriginal societies their due should take precedence over some egotistic standing on one's dignity in the face of judgments I find deplorable. My premise was that I was being denied my natural right to edit I/P articles, and that, if that right was denied me, I would not supply the 400 remaining articles I am preparing on Aboriginal societies. Some arbitrators think the former is just my personal take and that I deserved a month's suspension for expostulative language. Well, I'll drop the expostulative language, and return to the I/P area alone, and see if I run up against the tagteaming revert pattern that exasperated me earlier. If this fails to eventuate, and I can work there with equanimity, then I'll take it I was mistaken, and resume my project on the comprehensive coverage of Australian tribal societies (but only on that condition). I will list the I/P pages I work on here, as editorial interventions dictate.Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This was immediately commented on, with an alerting link to another user here and a follow up denial of WP:AGF here and elicited a personal attack against me by the other editor.

Nish, ignore both of them. Completely and utterly useless to spend a brain cycle on them. So, please, dont, your remaining brain cycles can be put to so much better use. nableezy - 15:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
And if there is some egregious edit that one of them happens to make, try not to be baited into giving what may be called a dressing down with colorful language on the talk page. Just let me know about it. nableezy - 15:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course. But it helps to keep one's records in order, like noting that your remarks aboveare already giving rise to a theory we are organizing a conspiracy. Yawn. Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Wtf cares. Im serious, let me know when theres something as bad as say calling unnamed editors "anti-Jewish". Those are things that somebody who has repeatedly taken others to AE for personal attacks should know better than to do, and it should result in a ban. Now this is likely not your preferred genre of music, and it is actually one of his shittier songs, but I find it cathartic to sing along to the chorus. nableezy - 16:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, I've always had problems with the ambiguities of the expletive 'Fuck you' and its passive variant, 'Get fucked'. In one sense, telling the world to 'get fucked' is tantamount to asking everyone to 'get laid'. I think this a friendly augury - meaning, if everyone got a 'piece', there'd be more peace. I'm sure someone has done a learned grammatical analysis for some linguistics journal on the semantic complexities of the words, but if they haven't, once I'm through with wikiwork, it is one of hundreds of topics I'd like to write about. Subtextually, the preceding signals:'Don't worry about me.' I never have, because that particular burden is something a lot of other people who (don't) know me do, quite pointlessly.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I very much look forward to seeing you investigate this further. For now though, for the rest of us, just ignore what isnt directly related to the content. nableezy - 19:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
No. I asked the editor to retract his statement. He struck it out. Today he reintroduced it, insinuating I was not only anti-Jewish but also anti-Israeli, adding insult to injury My water-off-a-duck's back taciturnity in the face of a motherlode of this kind of sniping for a decade, i.e. rarely troubling AN/I and AE with reports, but just telling provocators to get stuffed, led to my being in turn suspended for a day and then a month when my remonstrative language was cited as a bad attitude. To not report this kind of atmospheric niggling, if it persists, while I watch my p's and q's, is to encourage it. That said, I'm focused on content. I'm here for the pleasure of editing, nothing else.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I see that, and I agree. Im just saying you are much better off doing what you did now, that is ask the person to retract it and not respond to the personal attack otherwise, and if it continues to report it. Dont allow him to bait you into making disparaging remarks against him. Thats all he is doing, trying to wind you up with personal attacks so that he can report you if you make one. nableezy - 19:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani. Welcome back. I really like the talk you emailed me: I always enjoy a good story with personal anecdotes and it was rather humourous in places.

If you have any issues with opening RfCs or arguing about fine points of Wikipedia bureaucracy which no sane person would want to get involved in, but are sometimes necessary, feel free to ping me. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Very glad to read you again :) --TMCk (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

12 July

16 July.

  • Timeline of anti-Zionism‎. I was instantly reverted when I removed some recent trivia totally out of keeping with the contents of the page (I wrote about 95% of the entries, basically an annotated list of all Jewish thinkers, writers etc who have taken an anti-Zionist position. The page is deemed 'ridiculous').Nishidani (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Nishidani (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

23/28 July

Duly reverted the day after
I reintroduced it after some days. and again, after a day's wait the same editor removed it mentioning WP:COMMONNAME, a policy which refers to the 'title of an article, not to its content. If so then the revert is a case of a policy-wise false edit summary.I.e.
No need to include both, this is the WP:COMMONNAME for English. Saying 1 billion people call it that is meaningless as its a different language. The whole article is a POV attack piece.Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 2017 Halamish stabbing attack Editors have restored the content of all material I removed on policy grounds and because the material introduced was using 'is expected' in the contextual sense of 'Israel sources have speculated', making a conjecture into a neutral generalization. NPOV abuse.
  • Hilltop Youth. Material, which the reverting editor did not contest as RS-sourced was steady trimmed over several edits. I noticed this today, and restored the deleted material. Undid revision 792912511 by Nishidani (talk) BLPCRIME vio vs Ettinger, and also wrong on some details, you can only state what he was covicted for. This is a false edit summary, since it was a blanket revert changing (a) 'in the view of hilltop youth' into 'the ideology of' and erasing the fact that Hilltop Youth have been compared to ISIS, which has nothing to do with a WP:BLP/Crime issue. The editor involved has been the highest reverter of my few edits, before the sanction, and afterwards.Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

13/14 August

Raul Hilberg

Dear Sir. Thank you for the grammar lesson. I am capable of distinguishing between "whom" and "which." But this does not clarify the object of the verb "disliked." It merely makes it appear that the wrong word has been used to refer to the antecedent "Jews." Even if the word "which" were enough to tell the reader to jump back one more antecedent noun, the reader then gets to the noun "destruction," not to the noun "term," which is the actual object of the verb "disliked." The sentence must be improved. If you have a better improvement, please propose it. But please do not leave future readers to puzzle over this sentence several times trying to decipher its meaning. 68.100.9.169 (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Readers are expected to have a basic knowledge of English. How on earth one can construe that sentence the way you did is beyond me, and probably beyond the several thousand people who read that, and didn't pull up in surprise, since it was first composed some years ago. Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

please

be a bit more careful with your marvelous aboriginal article creations - this talk page suggests you should know to add categories to pages, and take care with correct regions, and even the talk page tags - but there is something very creepy about this talk page, cannot put my finger on it - but simply, in my case asking for your help as you create, to tend to the details as well would be very helpful, thanks JarrahTree 10:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a reasonable expectation, which I appreciate. I'm old and racing against time, however. I have an acute bot and its master to take care of most errors. This induces complacency. But since I'm doing 600 articles basically alone, error-creep is natural. I trust it to wikipedians to spend just a few minutes on any of these pages picking up and correcting any errors the bot and co., miss. It's not erxhausting reading a hundred pages a day to sythesize, or spending hours to find just some datum that is relevant. But it's a touch tiring to feel any slip tells against my carefulness. It's the text I care about: all the other wiki machinery is, well, for wikipedians to adjust. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
JarrahTree, Nishidani is already doing more than enough. One point to be corrected, Nishi, is that my assistant is very definitely a script, and not a bot (she would never get bot approval, as everything she does needs manual review). She's very clever, though. Now I could add things like using Aus English to her tasks, but prefer not to, since I would have to remember to turn it off for non-Aus pages. Jarrah, you could always use AWB to add the "Use Australian English" template to these articles. I'd probably do that anyway, but only when Nishidani has finished all his creations. Similarly for the talk page banners. --NSH001 (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
NSH it is obviuos you are indeed a good helper and an astute one... to your credit!
Being a mac user, AWB is irrelevent... the following message is what almost was an edit conflict, addressed to nishidani:
oh well even creepier - a truly disassociated editor - with disinterest in wiki machinery - and sharing space with others - as wikipedians - wow you should get some sort of honorific statue with eastern european overtones - but the project of 600 articles alone suggests either a disinterest in, or no faith in gaining co-operation - interestingly the dominant overtone of the specificity of required reading - if it is the fact... then the capacity of the relevant project to show any appreciation or even comprehension of the astonishing gap that you are in reality filling in suggests that where you are topic banned is indeed a crowded house of voices of contestation, while that which your are now improving is an almost literally an empty one - the disinterest is strong as the sound of the wind that encountered at points in the mid west (western australia) and on the extreme south east - nothing comes from nothing in truly shakespearian terms - the wind is from nothing going nowhere - it was worth being a bit part to hear that being said from lear to cordelia 8 nights in a row JarrahTree 12:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I've noticed a rise in people visiting pages just done, and editing for errors, style etc., like yourself, so that's quite comforting. The hard thing about these articles is ferreting out reliable information, because the ones that exist are pretty crummy generally. The information is, almost invariably, out there, it's just time-consuming to find. Sometimes it takes upwards of 30 minutes/ an hour just to get to a journal, browse through to some page number, work out (cf. biodiversity) how to download the article excerpted,- after which, reading up is a breeze that sweeps away the mechanical attrition of scouring or flicking though 800 page volumes to find the sought-for article. Anyway, for the moment, I'm uploading links to all the relevant sources you find in Norman Tindale's footnotes to each tribe, so that anyone, well, anyone who can access jstor, can open up the sources and read for themselves, and build the pages. If that doesn't happen in the meantime, fingers-crossed, I'll go back as time allows, and make précis of each article's content, as I did at Birpai yesterday. It's shit prose, of course, because, instead of writing off memory, one has to paraphrase, which means renunciation of any virtue in the stylistic recreation of absorbed material. That would be a third stage: finish the survey, click through and reread each source, and then rewrite each article for harmonic prose, without feeling the pressure of strict textual accuracy hanging over one's head.Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I think this discussion could expand considerably - (thanks for your explanation) - probably best to leave most of what I wanted to say out for the moment - please dont feel obligated to fix things up in the minutiae - I have more paper versions than will ever get into jstor or google - either here or within a days visit to up to a range of repositories anything difficult - for what that is worth (not as good as being on the ground at Aitsis, but then its either in the state or in the NSW...JarrahTree 12:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Good'oh. Bob's your uncle.Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
In my case always a cousin - that can get the remaining braincells remember the Berndt lecturing on kinship, and so on JarrahTree 12:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Sitting on the swan river plain at night in rainy weather suffering from extremely bad unpleasant jet lag and other issues it is relief to think there is even recognition of the old huff huff (Berndts students nick name for him) may he rest... etc, multiple stubs are always appreciated... you'd be amused, my fathers collection had tindales/spencer and baldwin/bates a whole range of obscure... all gone - along with real captain cook, and so on - JarrahTree 9:12 pm, Yesterday (UTC+8)
One of the things I miss these days is Berndt's great book on the Yaralde. I've just done the Djaui stub, which could easily be expanded to 10,000 kb in a few hours. I should explain why I stub quite often. Most of these articles are built on snippety comments in sources that deal with several tribes, so until one can get down stubs that include the range of groups in a territory, it is pointless focusing on one. If, on the other hand, one has a set of thematically/tribally similar stubs on hand, one can use the one source on several pages, as one reads it. Thus one has to set up Umiida Yawijibaya and Unggaranggu at a minimum before seriously rolling up one's sleeves. I'll try and do those three today, if I get time from putting up the Gija stub. regards Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
It gets weirder, but things I would not like to share in open space - (in Montreal, then one day in New York and back in f-ing Perth, it is not a pleasant transition) not helped by the mysterious bad vibes of Doha airport, or of the creepy movies in the 24 hours in the air - roger watters from pink floyd latest misery guts blithering antipathy that I can so easily relate to as the acoustic... sigh JarrahTree 09:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Bad vibes at Doha? You should have taken the Dubai airport route. One place in the area where, upstairs, you can get a fucken beer to break the boredom without being beheaded as an infidel.Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Usual is Dubai, also I dont do alcohol when flying - all to do with the late douglas adams and the infernal Gargle_Blaster#Pan-Galactic_Gargle_Blaster - as adams is quoted - the laws of physics and international treaties...prevent... JarrahTree 11:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Ngarinjin

Material you included in your initial revision of the above article appears to have been copied from Tindale's Aboriginal Tribes of Australia (1974). This was picked up by a bot and reported as a potential copyright violation, as the same content is reproduced online here. It was copyvio at the time you created the page, but you've since edited it and now it is copyright compliant. But in the future, please don't add copyright content to this wiki, not even temporarily for editing. Please do your amendments before you save the page, or use an external editor. This is the second time I have had to ask you to do this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, do you ever imagine that things can happen beyond one's control, i.e. that someone can have 9 pages open, with a draft on one,-which has been placed there because from the file to completing the wiki reformulation of a text is a matter of minutes - and several women just happen to wander joyously in my study and ask if I might replay for the little boy the inimitable Jay Siegel and the Tokens' version of The Lion Sleeps Tonight, the voice-over used in the cartoon version which, some days earlier, I had thought of playing when he was having a teething tantrum no one could soothe for a half an hour. It had worked like a miracle so I did so, and, yielding my seat, went off to make a cuppa while the child suddenly glued his eyes to the screen and began to sway and clap his hands together with his aunts. When I got back, he was happy, as were the aunts, and 4 hours work was wiped out because one of the aunts had in the meantime, trying to replay the tune, touched the wrong key, sending the draft into cyber space, and wiped out 3 other files? Jeezus, shit happens. And bots are morons that require oversight. This has nothing to do with intentions.Damn it. Now I guess I'll have to to soothe my own nerves at being hauled over the coals again by listening to the Gilgamesh Epic.Nishidani (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Nishidani, some of the older revisions of the article needed to be revdeled to fix the copyright problems. WP is rather touchy about copyright, and WP:CCI is perpetually backlogged. So just be a bit more careful in the future. One doesn't want to get in trouble over a trifle. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
My life here increasingly consists of getting into troubles over trifles, in which the running assumption is I'm a careless editor. One editor has even made it a life task to niggle at 'stuff' to prove this. If you do 2-3 articles on obscure topic a day for a year, slip-ups will occur by the logic of probability. All it needs is a courteous note. Manners and familiarity with an editor's work can save a lot of time. I'm tempted to note down hereonin each time I've had to rewrite patent copyright plastering all over these articles that the bot has not picked up. It's a daily occurrence, spotting copyright violations, and fixing them by careful paraphrase. Go figure. Nishidani (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
不要在意。Alex ShihTalk 08:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
非常感謝你.Nishidani (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Just a note, by way of coincidence. I race to set up articles, their linked reading list, and then return every now and then, depending on reading to begin 'thickening' them. I had a letter from a relative working near the Worimi recently, and thought I'd better check it. Just stubbed, and still poor. I checked through and the first thing I noticed was the kind of endemic plagiarism, with pseudo-sourcing, that bots never pick up. I.e.
The wiki article had:
SOLDIERS Point is a special place for cultural, spiritual and historic reasons pre-dating white settlement (for) .. The Worimi people. (dead link)
The ostensible source was Port Stephens Examiner 2016, p. 15. this.
It was a false link, the date was wrong as well. On nabbing the real source the wiki sentence turned out to be lifted straight out of Sam Norris, State government recognises Aborginal significance of Soldiers Point land,' Port Stephen Examiner.4 July 2016
Soldiers Point was a special place for cultural, spiritual and historic reasons to the Worimi people.
Another fudge bots never pick up is unlinked sourcing, hundreds of articles in the areas I start to revise cite books or articles, without a link, and you are supposed to take it all on trust. You get off scot-free if you do that. If, as I do, you strive to link every statement to a directly verifiable page source, the bot will buttonhole you once in a fucking blue moon, yeah. But no bot picks up the massive crapsheets and motherlodes of pseudo- or 'trust-me' sourcing one finds on Wikipedia.
It's good that people look over one's shoulder, excellent. But nudges and comic prompts are more than sufficient to get me to address any problem. I don't need to be templated with a remonstration.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Here is the documentation for the bot that is currently in use. What it is doing is taking all new additions over a certain size and comparing to documents already available online. (It is not checking extant content; while this is possible to do, it would be prohibitively expensive and not very practical, as there's so many Wikipedia mirrors. So there's plenty of copyvio that remains undetected, that's for certain.) Copyright violations are found regardless of whether or not you cite your source, as it's not using the cited sources to do its search; it's checking against the Web as a whole, including archived content and old, hard-to-find versions of web pages. Items that have a match over the given threshold are reported at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en for assessment. There's typically 60 to 100 or even more cases to be checked each day. Please in the future do not add copyright material to this wiki, not at all, not even temporarily. If I discover it I am obliged to act on it by performing revision deletion and issuing you a warning. Neither of my warnings were templates, they were purpose-written notes, so sorry. Copyright violations are not a trifle, they're not a joke, so please don't do it any more. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
How rude ('please do not accidentally and unintentionally do this/that'). Sigh. Note to self. Write a manual on tonal resonance in Wikipedia's 'neutral' voice.Nishidani (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

(2) Another one the bot apparently didn't pick up.

  • Barkindji. [[User:| Pennyw]] added the following:
'In geographical terms, the homelands of the Barkindji extended from what is now Wentworth in the Riverina Bioregion, northward through the Murray Darling Depression Bioregion and into the Darling Riverine Plains Bioregion beyond Wilcannia. Barkindji homelands were known to extend into Queensland via the Paroo due to the friendly relations they had with the Parundji people of the Darling Riverine Plains Bioregion.'
The source introduced states
'The homelands of the Barkindji extended from what is now Wentworth in the Riverina Bioregion, northward through the Murray Darling Depression Bioregion and into the Darling Riverine Plains Bioregion beyond Wilcannia (HO and DUAP 1996). Barkindji homelands were known to extend into Queensland via the Paroo due to the friendly relations they had with the Parundji people of the Darling Riverine Plains Bioregion (HO and DUAP 1996).'
removed Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge?

Hi, Nishidani, thank you for taking off the above plagiarism - I'm pretty inexperienced and got distracted from paraphrasing it by worrying about whether the two pages 1. Paakantyi 2. Barkindji should be merged. What do you think? I was waiting on a Wikipedia helper for technical help, and, as I said to him, the one starting with 'p' seems to be more modern and have official approval: http://glottolog.org/resource/reference/id/500712

but the people themselves would mostly use Barkindji - for example, the people's Facebook page is called "BARKINDJI (PAAKANTYI) PEOPLE" I only went to the Barkindji page to fix a small error under the 'History' section, and now I'm getting quite confused :) ! Many thanks Pennyw (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

No probs, Pennyw. When quickly reviewing those two pages, I realized there was a conflict, so I began to fix the Paakantyi article, leaving the Barkindji alone, except for rapid reformatting, assisted by the meticulously sedulous benevolence of NSH001. There's a substantial problem created by name overlap for anyone taking on these articles: as you can see in any article, there are many alternative names for every group, and often one has Buckley's chance of sighting a pre-existing article under another name, as one starts a new article. Thinking 'P' I didn't see 'B', in short. My fault. In any case, you're right, the Barkindji stuff has to be moved over, but very carefully, because each source has to be controlled, since both newspaper articles and government handout info sheets on the web rely on interviews with detribalized informants who often express an aggregate identity that is not quite aware, at times, of the historical differences. Here for example you have 4 realities potentially bundled into one, the Parrintyi, the (southern) Paakantyi, the Wanyiwalku-Pantyikali, (moving northwest from the Jitajita boundaries) and also the Paaruntyi. Sorting that out was required before I, for one, tackled the reduplicative rebus. Don't worry about being 'confused', even experts are. All help is welcome. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Mineng and Maia

This addition to Mineng doesn't make sense. Should it be in a "See also" section? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Quite right, thanks. When I set up a new page I type in the Aboriginal name link it and see what it produces, i.e., whether there is a disambiguation page or an already existing page on them. Normally there isn't, and a blank page opens up to write down the details, in which case there is no need to return to the other page and eliminate the trial link. Maia had many possibilities on the disambiguation page, it was late, and I forgot to check back on the Mineng page to erase it. Fixed. Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishidani/Archive_23&oldid=1079466283"