User talk:Jonney2000

External ballistics
Hi, Thanks for your edits and providing refs regarding the Pejsa model. They clarify this rather complex model to the general shooting public and point out the practical pros and cons of this model.--Francis Flinch (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Pejsa is not that easy to understand. It took me about a year to understand his model well. I added a few more things give it a look over. Jonney2000 (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * When editing always think Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and not an university library. Wikipedia readers are not to be expected to posses or have read books or having any (advanced) knowledge background regarding article topics. Wikipedia strives to keep the terminology in articles as consistent as possible and original research is not allowed. So please try to avoid the (exact) terminology Dr. Pejsa used in his book like N or (complex) math. I know it is not easy for an editor to write about a subject like external ballistics in a way most readers can understand (most of) the text. I think the pros of the Pejsa model in the supersonic flight regime do justify its rather extended paragraph in the external ballistics article, so feel free to keep improving Wikipedia.--Francis Flinch (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please use retardation coefficient instead of retard coefficient. Retard is often used as offensive slang for a person considered to be foolish or socially inept. Retardation is often used in a deceleration context. I tried to clean up the references. There is nowadays a tendency to use radar data for long range bullet flight predictions. I even suspect Doppler radar measurements results are used to "fine tune" "bullet profiles" in some software for extreme range usage without much exposure. Though suboptimal, the use of a factory provided G1 ballistic coefficient and N = 0.5 combined with the Pejsa model gives fine predictions for the vast majority of rifle shooters as can be seen in the table that compares the predictions obtained by 4 differing prediction methods. The bullet drop differences from Mach 2.4 to Mach 1.2 bullet velocity between the Doppler radar aided and the suboptimally applied Pejsa methods are within a few bullet diameters. Such minor deviations are irrelevant for practical rifle shooting, since the deviations are within the error budget.Francis Flinch (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Pejsa’s model has applications beyond sports shooting. For example ballistics of tank cannons etc, this is because it does not use a BC. For engineers it’s important to understand how a model works when picking a ballistics model. You can definitely use Doppler radar measurements to improve the fit of the Pejsa model.Jonney2000 (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The truth is projectiles are not that sensitive to changes in the drag curve within the supersonic range. As can be seen from the use of fixed drag curves models. The Pejsa’s model or G7 is almost certainly better than the standard G1 model just because the shape of the drag curve is better for modern bullets. I would hesitate to call Pejsa’s model more advanced. More advanced in my mind would be models with higher degrees of freedom. Jonney2000 (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

DisplayPort‎ and DisplayID
Hello there! Just as a small suggestion, it would be really great if you could expand the DisplayID article as well... Currently, the DisplayPort‎ section is providing a very good summary, and all further expansions would be much more suitable for the DisplayID article itself. Hope you agree. &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

sources, cirp.org
Hi Jonney, I see you're doing some work on the history of circumcision. Just wanted to let you know that you shouldn't be using "cirp.org" as a source for anything, it's a self-published activist website and so doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable source. If you see cirp.org anywhere please take it out and replace with a legit source, or mark with a relevant sourcing tag. I've done some work in this area, let me know if you need help finding sources for stuff, I'll try to help out. Thanks... 02:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok I used that source in two places. I needed a source for the date when Rabbinic Judaism made its circumcision requirements stricter. They gave a date of 140 CE which sounds right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_male_circumcision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversies

I only use it for the date 140 AD.Jonney2000 (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Will look... Did you try Encyclopedia Judaica?    03:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Zad68 did you already changed both sources? Jonney2000 (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC) I have a copy of Encyclopedia Judaica from the 1970’s I could look thought if it still needs a better one. Jonney2000 (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

External ballistics and references deduplication
Hello there! Just a small suggestion regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=External_ballistics&diff=591834418&oldid=587584165 your edits] on the External ballistics article: you can omit the  parameters from   templates, and instead place   templates after   tags. That way even more references could be deduplicated. Hope it makes sense. &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, documentation of the rp template states no prefixes should be used, so it would be simply  or. &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I will look into it. Jonney2000 (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit Summary
Would you please start using Edit Summaries? Editor2020 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Learn to use compare selected revisions. But ok I will try. Jonney2000 (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Origins of Rabbinic Judaism
It looks like I was outvoted. :).Editor2020 (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Righteous Priest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canaanite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=598298571 your edit] to Metatron may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * quote|... the Talmud states, it was proved to Elisha that Metatron could not be a second deity by

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=599902536 your edit] to Son of God may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Weasel words
Just for the record, I'm not sure just what "weasel words" you actually removed here, but yes the understanding was new, theological (though not an entire "new theology"), and definitely distinct from Judaism. If it's important to you to say so explicitly, I have no objection. I'm also not sure why you think the new understanding came so exclusively from Psalm 110 as to claim "evolved around". That seems a big stretch, as recognition of Christ's deity required a great deal of confirmation and support in order to develop. Psalm 110 just is too thin by itself to support such an idea alone. So, I would argue those words are too much, but I'm not inclined to petty disputes and will let it go. There is no need to be touchy. Evensteven (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the source is talking about trinity christianity being based largely on 110. Jonney2000 (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was guessing it might be. That does mean the source is not really addressing the same topic as the article. Its application to the article does need to be kept with bounds of the correct topic. Evensteven (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Why don’t you look over the state of the article as it stands and see what you think? Jonney2000 (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=633058922 your edit] to Righteous Priest may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ] like Melchizedek. He supported this by claiming that his father was of Judah, his mother of [Tribe of Levi|Levi]  and his wife of the Kohen.  He also identified himself as the

Re G4 on User:Aaronshavit/Allegations_of_Zionism_and_racism
Where was this page deleted prior? NativeForeigner Talk 10:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, G4 does not apply to usespace copies. NativeForeigner Talk 10:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, it does. That must have been old policy. Somehow I missed it in the template as well, it's too late... NativeForeigner Talk 10:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Given this barnstar, it would be a pity to see you abandon the project. I appreciated the work you did on Paul Wexler, whose bio I thought of writing, but was too busy to get round to it. Take a summer break, rest on your laurels, and if you feel like returning, just take it easy, watching a few pages, and improving them desultorily. This place is not the domain of wiki-or workholics, but of everyone who, adds anything from a stray bit/byte of info, to the rampaging addict of extensive article drafting.Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A word
I love you jonney. Your edits are so refreshing. And I envy your discipline.--Monochrome _ Monitor  01:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

khazar hypothesis
i'm sorry, I didn't understand your edit summary. What do you mean by "Sources Eldad ha-Dani > Prester John > Matthew Paris > Giles Fletcher "?--Monochrome _ Monitor  01:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up
Can he seriously get me sanctioned for that? Seems like a major Chilling effect right there.--Monochrome _ Monitor  19:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, he can and I have seen it happen. Especially to pro-Israel editors as you seem to be.


 * Some editors are professionals in this subject area and will be offended by your remarks. It is crucial that you maintain professionalism at all times as if you were a diplomat in the UN.


 * You should strike your comments.Jonney2000 (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you insinuating with "professional"?--Monochrome _ Monitor  02:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Nothing bad that’s for sure, only good for our fellow editors. Anything that will further the already excellent collegial environment is only for the good.


 * I don’t want to be dragged into your unwinnable fights. So can you learn some tact? Think about your edits more.


 * Since you’re interested in Gilad Atzmon you may find this of interest and it all ties in.Jonney2000 (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-united-against-knowledge.html

Khazar theory
Nishidani keeps changing the tone- ie adding that the khazar theory comes from "jewish traditions" and medieval documents when the medieval documents are the traditions. He got me sanctioned in this area for six months so please help maintain the status quo.--Monochrome _ Monitor  03:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That again is in violation of your sanction, and your other undertaking. Please take a rest. The 'status quo' you talk about is the page as you, breaking a former 'status quo', reedited it. As to the point, there are numerous sources stating that Jewish traditions conserved the memory or myth or whatever it was, mentioned in the medieval documents, which are not only Jewish. It stuck in diasporic tradition because it kept the flame of possibility that it was still somewhere possible to revive a Hebrew state which would put an end to exile, to harassment, and be a light unto the nations, and in that sense helped the birth of Zionism. If you are going to spend 2 months off these topics, and 6 months of Khazars examining with a sense of panic whatever I do as an editor, as if the world hung on your praetorian presence in correcting them, neither Wikipedia nor yourself are likely to draw any advantage from the anxiety.Nishidani (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When you say traditions this a reference to the The Book of Tradition? The corpus of Jewish literature is massive it would be better to just say Jewish textual sources.Jonney2000 (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've read several times books referring to the news or rumours of a Jewish kingdom in the East as sustaining the hopes of the diaspora. it predates actually the Hasdai correspondence since he spoke of 'traditions' circulating in Spanish communities of just such a 'reality', and scholars usually attribute this to other texts that mention Khazar students in, I think, Toledo. That some such tradition was current can be shown indirectly from the urgency with which Christian theological bigots in early medieval times challenged this 'hearsay' since, were there in fact a Jewish kingdom, that would have undermined a theological reading that stressed God's punishing the Jews for their disobedience by denying them their homeland (a thing taken over of course from those Jews within early Christianity who used an argument we later find also in rabbinical tradition, hence the occasional rulings against returning to Israel).
 * I've no fixation about this, and you're welcome (it hardly needs be said, since it is the exercise of the same right I avail myself of) to edit in what you think best. I think the evidence for a distinction between a tradition, and the medieval documents by Hasdai et al., attested widely, and that is why I made that adjustment. One could write a small expansion of this in that article. I haven't because as it stands, the text is fairly long. If you want the exact source I read some years ago, which I retain fragmentarily in my memory, I'll try and turn it up.Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A Jewish Tradition to me mean something that has divine authority (halakha) from the Rabbis. I think most Jews would read it that way.Jonney2000 (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I would disagree. Rabbis do not control Jewish traditions, which go way beyond religious disputes, - suffice it to note differences in ritual, liturgical and even legal practice among the various kinds of Judaism -Mizrachi, Sephardic, Ashkenazi, Karaite, that reflect different historical traditions - any more than priests control Catholic traditions (an Irish tradition has it Christ was the only man who measured exactly 6 foot in height - an aunt, travelling in Italy found practices so different she came back swearing Romans were not Catholic because they didn't share Irish traditions; or Imams determine what is an Islamic tradition - traditions are whatever exists in a given culture, as handed down, by whomsoever. Joshua Trachtenberg's Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk Religion, Behrman's Jewish Book House 1939, Meridian Reprint 1961:'The two thousand years since have seen a steady expansion and development of its inner life. new religious concepts were advanced, the old were elaborated, and always the effort has been to make these something more than concepts, to weave them into the pattern of daily life, so that a Jew might live his religion. This was the sadly misunderstood "legalism" of Judaism. But alongside this formal development there was a constant elaboration of what we may call "folk religion" - ideas and practices that never met with the whole-hearted approval of the religious leaders, but which enjoyed such wide popularity that they could not be altogether excluded from the field of religion. p.vii) Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree 100% about the wandering jew bullshit (a belief which incidentally helped to motivate catholic anti-semitic anti-zionism). But I wouldn't call it "jewish tradition" (also the "tradition" is the khazar kingdom being jewish, not ashkenazim being khazars) Jewish tradition in my view has a rabbinic connotation. "The sages say"... --Monochrome _ Monitor  01:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
Hello, Jonney2000. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Since you were involved in the discussion, I'm alerting you to the conversation on the noticeboard regarding Hamas/Likud. Drsmoo (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Ofir
I am disappointed to see you join the editors who revert me on sight, each with a different pretext. Ofir is bilingual in Hebrew and English and I can see no evidence that anyone has contested his competence in translating a quite straightforward piece of Hebrew prose.Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This would create a very bad precedent. Translations are tricky using some random blogger is not good.Jonney2000 (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He's not a random blogger: he is a published writer and journalist, and we accept translations from wiki editors who are known to be competent bilingually. The only serious objection would be if someone checking both texts found his version deceptive. No one has.Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please revisit
Please revisit the Rfc on Jewish diaspora and amend your opinion to reflect what you think of my alternative proposal. Debresser (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hikaye
Hi. On 3/1/2017 you removed the text on Palestinian Hikaye from the "Palestinians" article because of copyright issues. Right now there's a paragraph with no content there. Maybe you know a way out? I had no idea what the Hikaye, let alone the Palestinian Hikaye is, and while me, as an editor, had access to the data in the history versions, most users don't. Thanks! PS: I don't know anything about your work on WP, and I've strongly diminished my edits out of time concerns, so I understand those, but when I do have time, I try never to remove a bit of good info for whatever reason. Again, IF I find the time, I look for better sources and put it back in in a more acceptable manner and shape. Do you think you could do that? Thanks again. Arminden (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Johannes Wahlström for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Johannes Wahlström is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Johannes Wahlström until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shrike (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Your edit in "Palestine (region)"
User:Jonney2000, I thought that it was only fair of me to tell you that when writing, "Louis H. Feldman, disputing with Robinson, etc.," the sense there was not that Feldman writes explicitly that he is in opposition to Robinson's stated views, but that, after reading both men's statements, Louis H. Feldman holds views that are different from those of Robinson. This has nothing to do with WP:OR. Perhaps, though, I could have avoided confusion altogether by simply writing: "Louis H. Feldman, whose view differs from that of Robinson, etc." Be well.Davidbena (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Beit Hanina, etc
As for this; it is really very simple: I use the words ARIJ use, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * segregation is racism do you see the POV issue? Using POV sources is one thing but Wiki must be written in NPOV.Jonney2000 (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well try passing through this a few times...Also, please see Talk:Jabel_Mukaber, cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Racism
Jonney. If you every have the slightest impression I imply you are 'a racist Zionist or just stupid', you should notify me immediately, if not indeed make a formal complaint. I am entitled to think that Zionism lends itself to racism - its practical architect, Arthur Ruppin, according to an abundance of recent Israeli scholarship (here, here, here, to cite just a few examples), grounded everything in terms of 19th century racial ideas - but I know (and admire) many Zionists (David Dean Shulman) or Uri Avnery who are/were neither stupid nor racist. To the contrary. An ideology is one thing, behavior another. To take an extreme instance, I've even known fascists who hid Jews in their homes when the genocidal round-ups began. I find ideologies repellent, not people who, for an infinite variety of reasons, identify with one or another aspect of the ideology in question. Ideologies are conceptually stupid, in my view, but the history of the world is one of very intelligent, even deeply humane people, creating or subscribing to them (Christianity to start with), mainly because, paradoxically, they can bring out the best or the worst in people, depending on context.Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not on wiki to make complaints. Are you sure that you are being truthful to yourself when you say that you have no ideology. I never took you for a nihilist. Are you sure that it is not just other people who are too different from you ideologically which repels you? Jonney2000 (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If I implied (which I don't think I did) that I was immune to ideology, and was devoid of its traces, then I would be unwittingly revealing myself to be a narcissist. In growing out of childhood, one is given a choice: to find one's own voice, or continue to recite the songs of one's choral infancy. Even the most radical solipsist, however dedicated to rooting out the received opinions he has imbibed. will find, to her dying day, the murmuring chorus of the world within. Of course, 'ideology' which is the unthought (das Ungedachte) is present in man by the very nature of socialization: becoming a member of a  community means absorbing, via language, manners, instilled norms of behaviour and trains of thought, a mode of being that is 'communal'. That is what the anthropologists call culture. The process of civilization (essentially science, art and the institutional representation of individual dignity) emerges when the habits of such primary drilling encounter a sense of unease in our experience, as we try to reason out why we, individually, can't quite feel at home in the domesticated world of feelings and beliefs which everyone else seems to accept as normative. Thus understood, 'ideology' is whatever collective feeling or belief  stops us from perceiving differences as legitimate forms of being alternative to our own, and which, rather, brands difference as deviance. It is anything that 'collectivizes' the 'other' in the act of affirming one's identity as part of a group. To borrow Martin Buber's terms loosely, ideology is what transforms each potential du (thou) from a relational presence to a petrified 'it'.
 * I've lived in communities with a praeternatural sense of being different from me, perceived as the odd outsider. And on every occasion when fluency in the language and the natural bonds of a friendship strengthened to allow a deeper conversation than mere courteous exchanges or requests for information, the 'other' has, on listening to me, say, recount the death of my father or other such intimate matters, exclaimed with a smile masking a kind of bewildered disorientation:'Oh (Nishi), you are just like us.' No, not at all: on that occasion, my interlocutor just realized he was not one of them (any more than I was one of his them) - a collectivity nurtured on a profound sense of communal difference from others, - but an individual. My problems with this endless nagging and haggling over edits in the I/P area lie essentially in this: a struggle to disentangle myself, and perhaps my interlocutors, from the warp and weft of perceptions that set up an 'us/them' set of oppositions. I approach this from a key passage in Plato's Laws (dialogue)934e- It is a very long 'dialogue' which minutely regulates every aspect of a person's public and private life in order to ensure the seamless functionality of a 'community', even down to legislating what can and cannot be said. Whomever a magistrate deems to have violated this code of respectful speech shall be banished that same day from his homeland (ἐξείργειν ἐκ τῆς χώρας τὸ παράπαν αὐθημερόν). The moment of its writing commonly marks the birth of Western totalitarianism. Unwittingly Wikipedia has inscribed this into its basic principles: speech monitoring has become the primary criterion for determining whether or note whether an editor is adequate to the 'community'. The other issue, whether the editor is useful to the primary end of constructing an encyclopedia, drops from view. The moment the most recent complaint was made, (it's called death by a thousand cuts) I bet myself that the odds were 95% that some pettifogging technical ground would be found for sanctioning me, and that after exhaustively writing 700 articles from scratch over a year and a half, the presence of an epithet like 'moronic' to characterize what is an obnoxiously racist statement would find someone ready to think I hurt someone's feelings, and thus am a devastating presence here. Well, so be it. At my age, I should move out of this rut, fascinating and creative as it has proven to be, and hoe new pastures. To that end, I have anticipated the likely result by making what will probably be my last edit, on the mokusatsu article - killing something with silence. In any case, best regards Jonney.    Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * When I said I did not want you sanctioned I meant it, you have done a lot of good work. Wikipedia is always going to be a very flawed project.Jonney2000 (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

My talk
That’s a false flag meant to cause issues on this project. Thank you for mentioning it but Primefac was correct to react the way he did, and I’d seen it before. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)