User talk:Nishidani/Archive 20

Another example of NPOV parity dismissal in article creation
Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) = a stub describing Arabs as terrorists. How much reduplicative stubs do we need, esp when apparently created by sleeper socks?Nishidani (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the main problem is that there is no page detailing the tensions around Al-Aqsa and many recent events. See also The_Third_intifada. I have been thinking for a fair bit about creating a page about this, but in its absence, all we are going to get are WP:MEMORIAL pages or POV travesties like the above. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 08:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it was created just for nuisance value, 3 days ago. It is a list of complaints about Palestinians, was then posted as the Main article link on the List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015 from which I removed it.  Obviously you can't have a stub as the Main aerticle of what is itself a very comprehensive main article on events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of course if a general intifada does recur, one will deal with it. I prefer to (a) list relevant events as they occur (b) wait for reflective, detached reports from analysts for the kind of overview that allows one to make an article, and not a list.Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that ideally one should wait a bit before creating an article. The problem is that WP has a long-standing tension in both trying to cover "breaking news" stuff and being encyclopaedic. See for instance the comments in a DRV I opened here. One can't really change the general culture. Unless there is an article dealing with the recent events I expect such travesties to recur periodically. As an aside, how did you find the article? Is it is some category? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If the article you're referring to is Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015), I found it when User:Triggerhippie4 inserted it as the main article for List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015, which I edit several times a day. triggerhippie's handle is a give-away signature for an old sockmeister, by the way.Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

NMMNG and WP:AE
From what I understand NMMNG is allowed to participate in WP:AE when it directly concerns them, so they are not immune from WP:AE complaints. However, it is probably for the best that you struck it out in this particular case, because the issue under consideration has nothing to do with them. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As said, I don't understand the rules. The number of people popping up to do reverts these days is quite notable, quite a few are the same chaps burning up their throw-away account registrations, as at Intifada. CheersNishidani (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted
Hi Nishidani. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015):
I've done a major cleanup of the article and altered some tags. I overwrote your edits in the meantime, by mistake, but just a heads up its not a war.Lihaas (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. But I was going to tweak my edits, which would have looked like this:

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) refers to events that occurred in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2015. In October, there was an escalation in violence as a part of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an uptick similar to roughly the same period in 2014. On the Palestinian side, in the first two weeks of October 13 cases of stabbing, stoning cars and vehicle ramming occurred against Israelis. throwing Molotov cocktails and stones in clashes with Israeli police in East Jerusalem and the West Bank have been frequent. Shin Bet has called this "terror of the people". Palestinians complain of practices of house demolitions, arrests and imprisonment of minors, expropriation of Palestinian land, Israeli settlement building, road networks built exclusively for Israeli settlers, curfews and collective punishment, the closure of their holy sites to Palestinians, and outright murders of civilians by both the IDF and settlers.

Since the beginning of October, according to the Red Crescent Society, 32 Palestinians have been shot dead in Israel and the Palestinian territories, 17 of whom have been killed during demonstrations. In the same period, over 360 Palestinians have been wounded by live fire, 932 with rubber-coated steel bullets, and 2,365 have suffered problems from tear gas inhalation. 7 Israelis have been killed, predominantly in East Jerusalem. Amnesty International has stated that, in some instances Israeli forces have engaged in extrajudicial killings of unarmed civilians, a tactic which Israeli politicians are openly endorsing as a response to Palestinians merely suspected by police of terrorist intentions, Human Rights Watch, raising the possibility that Israel may be engaged in violations of international law, has expressed concern over what it calls Israel's "indiscriminate and even deliberate" shooting of protesters. Of 13 incidents where Palestinians either stabbed or were suspected of stabbing Israelis, in at least 2 cases, suspects were gunned down when no threat existed and the suspects could have been arrested easily, according to B'tselem. In September and October a drastic escalation of violence occurred, sparking fears of a Third Intifada. In the mean time, an uprise was also occurring in the Gaza Strip, as since June 2015, the number of rockets fired into Israel has increased to 4 rockets a month.

Now that 1R is engaged, I can't fix it. This article was born dead, and should be elided, in any case.Nishidani (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think there was a war to revert so the 1RR hasn't yet happened. Alternatively I could revert myself which doesn't really matter/count.
 * You could also put your suggested version on the talk page.Lihaas (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

on wiki
on wiki,please refer to me DGG, to avoid confusion.  DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, information you add on Michael Ben-Ari keep get deleted along with the information on Eli Yishai, Omri Sharon and many others anything you do to stop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.160.171 (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 20 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=686705128 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F686705128%7CWikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard%5D%5D Ask for help])


 * Mornin' Nishidani, not really worth the effort to fix it (being a talk page), but I ignored my own advice and fixed it anyway. --NSH002 (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, N. Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Laurens
FYI. He is not very optimistic... Pluto2012 (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * He's a realist, which means he is one of the few people who understand the obvious, and draw the necessary pessimistic conclusions. It is symbolically and politically impossible for Israel to disengage from the occupation in any resolutive sense, and therefore, unless there is a miracle, violence there will be endemic for the forseeable future (particularly since today we learn that the Holocaust was invented by a Palestinian, and every historian knows less than Israel's PM. One cannot negotiate in principle with a people who invented 'The Final Solution'.). Thanks for the tip-off on his conclusive volume. I will get it promptly. Best Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And after 10 hours of picking olives, I open up the Internet and read that [ Netanyahu, with whom peace is supposed to be negotiated, believes Hitler was persuaded by a Palestinian to conduct the Holocaust].

Hi
Hi Nishidani, I hope you well. Information you add on Michael Ben-Ari page keep get deleted along with the information on Eli Yishai, Omri Sharon and many others anything you do to stop this? 81.132.160.171 (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there's nothing that can be done. I appear to be one of those editors of long experience half of whose edits are automatically reverted, both by people who should know better, and by the usual team of sockpuppets, meatpuppets and IP blow-ins. Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank for kind reply. Oh that is shame, good luck to you, your intention seem very good. 81.132.160.171 (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is already a request at WP:RFPP regarding Michael Ben-Ari. It should get sorted out soon. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 19:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence
You have been involved in prior discussions involving several of the individuals who have made comments in the request for this case, and it is worth noting that one or more other individuals than the initial number named have requested that they be made parties. Any evidence you would see fit to present would presumably be welcome. John Carter (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This time is different?
See this. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 19:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's not a bad field report. Things have always gotten worse, and that is      the predictable outcome of the basic logic governing the area since 1917. The point is, there is no internal solution available to Israel, in the sense that, psephologically, the government you have is the only kind of majority you will get, a combination of settlers, religious constituencies, and the Russian community that has a zero-grade understanding of the region's history and thinks of Palestinians as Chechens. As Uri Avnery wrote, what you have is a small time rerun of the Prussian model, the Eastern march settlers made a military that took over the state, and imposed its will on Germany at large. The core was redefined by its periphery, an old historical mechanism, with however (something he didn't bring out) the added complication that the periphery here is colonial, and imposing the perpetuity of a colonial destiny on the state. As with the United States, an intelligent foreign policy is no longer available. The options are limited to apartheid, ostracism as bantistanization proceeds, or peace, and peace has never been a serious prospect because any viable peace  requires that Israel lose assets, physical and symbolic, in exchange for what? Nothing. The Palestinians can only offer to lay down their arms, i.e. stones, in exchange for getting back 90% of their territory. That's a good deal for Palestinians, but politically, for any Israeli politician, it would be signing one's death sentence to underwrite any such  accord. With an IDF as powerful as it is, that is not 'rational': the only beneficiary of such a peace would be Palestine from a rightwing political perspective. 'Dunam by dunam' has been the fundamental slogan of Zionism, and it has worked. Things that were absolutely unacceptable in the civilized world some decades ago, and which brought down colonial states, are now read briefly as being intrinsic to the conflict, necessary and indeed done with the best moral intentions as the maintenance of civic order. No amount of shahidism will change that: if anything, it only feeds the prejudice that the Palestinians need, in the best ambiguous valency of the phrase, to be 'put down'. What began as an ambitious project of secular nation building will end up, if the demographers are correct, as a fundamentalist deconstruction of the founders' vision, into some tertium quid, and the probable reabsorption of secular expats back into the world their kin had good reason to flee once, but which no longer entails the genocidal anti-Semitism which created the Jewish state in the first place.Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Norman G. Finkelstein, Mouin Rabbani andJamie Stern-Weiner, Is This the Third Palestinian Intifada? 21 October 2015.Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This page contains a fair number of media reports on the conflict. It might be too much to take in at once, though. The site has a weekly roundup of media relating to the conflict. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 20:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks indeed. Apropos of which, this incident, caught on video, is interesting. A settler attacks a noted rabbi with a knife, and, rather than being shot, will get off, as police dismissed Ascherman's thrashing as a provocation by the victim. Stabbing's seriousness depends, like stone-throwing, on the ethnicity of the stabber.Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a small request and advice
Please, when editing, avoide using swear or rude words such as "Shit". I presonaly swear alot, regardless of the language I speak, but here in Wikipedia I think users at least should avoide directly writing the words. "what the fuck" → "what the f". Up to you to avoid it and if not, I will not report you for this. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think 'shit' a fairly objective description of the state of that article. Mind you, excremental may have been more advisable. Still, I'll do my best in the future, by way of collegial compromise, to try to remember to write 'scorotic', a suitably obscure neologism that came to mind from classical Greek: it would mean 'shitty', but no one will twig at the vulgarity, unless they are unfortunate enough to follow my remarks in this neck of the wikiwoodpile (of . . .:) Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In the end all the swear words have innocent meanings, it's just that I think words that has a consensus of being "rude" should be avoided in Wikipedia.. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the violence in language I read on Wikipedia, and I read it everyday in numerous edit summaries or comments, lacks swear words. In context, the reality edited, the smoothest phrasing can be obscene. I can smell hate and contempt in sentences that might strike others as perfectly comforming to the best usage suggested in G.C. Davy's Christian Gentleman. Iago never swore, and gently nudged with the courtier's cautious syntax, a good man to kill his own wife. That concerns me infinitely more than turpiloquy.  Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind me dropping in. I personally agree with the idea that foul language should be avoided. However, as far as reporting foul language is concerned, let me assure you that it is allowed on Wikipedia. Even admins use it, and that includes on WP:ANI itself. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOR
Hello, Nishidani. I have some hope that my criticism of you not withstanding, you will perhaps endorse my proposal, which I just now made on WP:NOR. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I could write a few psychological treatises on things like this. It is not courteous to write that I engage in lobbying, challenge my good faith, and then ask me straight away to approve of one of your proposals. Obviously, if, like the usual fellow who spends most of his time throwing innuendos in the wake of every edit I make, you believe I am devious, it is quite pointless asking me to endorse anything, if only because my endorsement would only be read as insincere. Sometimes one imagines oneself as Dr Freud watching kiddies in the sandpit.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's just say, that it is a good thing we are not psychologists. And yes, saying something untactful and then asking that same person to agree with me, is something that I am prone to do. :) Debresser (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

pov pushing on ghouta chemical attacks
if the news that the turkish govt. had a demonstrable hand in the attacks, that the UN concluded was conducted with sarin from Syrian regime stocks, then it will be very widely reported in reliable sources. I am sick of blatant pov pushers whining about 'abuse' when all they do is push their Putinist Fascist Fringe views on to articles. If this sensational news is backed up plausibly, it will find its way to reliable sources. The worst abuse is by those who turn wikipedia articles into versions of RT. o.k?
 * What do you mean by reliable sources? You may question if you like Today's Zaman generally. But is it your view that a member of the Turkish Parliament, standing for the Republican People's Party did not hold a press conference on 20 October, or allow himself to be interviewed by that paper, and never stated what he was reported as stating? In short, are you saying that this article run by Today's Zaman is a complete fabrication, and if so, when will Eren Erdem sue the paper for fabricating stories? Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Erdem: 'It appears the sarin gas it used was made in Turkey and several documents confirming this will be presented next week.' - He is saying something very different to the UN report, which said the sarin bore the hallmarks of syrian regime stocks.  He says he'll present the  documents confirming next week. So maybe there will be sensational developments next week. I never said they invented what this idiot said.  if he can back up his words it will resonate far wider than  Todays Zaman and would deserve to be mentioned in the wikipedia article. In the lead in fact. IF.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.16.97 (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So you confirm that the words reported by a Turkish parliamentarian were his? If so, then what is the objection to reporting them in this article. I don't know what the truth is. Wikipedia merely asks us to report relevant views, and this is one such POV. Your remarks look like you think you know where the truth lies, and this is not what is asked of us as editors.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * its undue - I mean where would it stop if wikipedia didn't have some concern for UNDUE. Why can't you wait until at least next week to see how he follows up his sensational finds in the documents he has? Whats your rush? Why not wait to get the details. 'several documents confirming this will be presented next week.' Your haste looks  like you think you know this is important already for the article, inexact and unwidely reported as it is,  but a care for UNDUE is asked of us as editors.  Sarin is not even a gas - honestly the wikipedia article should wait until he provides more detail - he may just be an ignorant fascist-ic, Putin-ist, Baathist tosser. Ever considered that Nishidani? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.16.97 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you should reread and parse closely WP:Due. The stated public view of a national politician on a subject like this is due, by definition. Undue would be to make a section out of a mere sentence. As to waiting, I haven't been impatient there. I don't know what all those political adjectives mean. I spoke at length some days ago to a refugee couple from Homs. If you think this is a black and white story, you're deeply mistaken. Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * no, I don't think its black and white, I"m not 12. You want to quote every national politician who has spoken about Ghouta? bonkers. You are cherry picking and impatient and I can guess its because you want to push this fringe view because you are pro-Assad regime.  Its not black and white to me, but probably is to you.  (I saw this on twitter - 'Will you publish the "Erdogan-#Sarin" file  @erenerdemnet? Details and facts are crucial!')  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.16.97 (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, your objection is all attitude, slightly paranoid in my regard and have a political commitment to one side )I don't).Nishidani (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, your insistence is all hot air - if it is more widely reported on it would have better claim to be included - to date its made Todays Zaman only I believe, and Zero Hedge. if your insistence isn't ideological bias, and you say it isn't, then its just stupid. Its undue. 92.3.31.250 (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You have no idea of wiki policies, and you have openly declared you have a particular belief in who is right and who is wrong politically. Every side there is toxic, no one has clean hands, is what I believe, if I must declare an opinion. As for the edit, you are simply strongarming the matter. It's pointless you insisting on coming back on this: your use of adjectives and personal attacks mean that dialogue is a waste of time. Goodbye Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * so is that it on ghouta chemical attacks also? 'no one has clean hands' - Nevertheless, the ghouta chemical attacks were either the work of the regime and its allies or not. they are equally at fault, doesn't work really for the sarin attacks of August 2013. and all the evidence from the experts has pointed one way. And all the fringe nutcases have spread disinformation. And your pov pushing and undue cherry picking  skews the article bit by bit if unchallenged. Your 'plague on both their houses' philosophy that you say is yours, 'every side is toxic' is not a good attitude to bring to this subject where the informed scrupulous opinion  as reported in RS is all on one side,   and all the mindless  'mintpress' (the saudis did it) fascist fantasists, and sectarian monomanes,  are on the other. Now that opinion is already represented, but why seek to overbalance its weight with every spurious 'claim' unearthed in however obscure and isolated a news source? Goodbye.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.31.250 (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I.e. you don't like the Alawites or Shia.Nishidani (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * what? - you really are rabid sectarian aren't you? If anyone dares think it likely the Assad regime was responsible for Ghouta, -like AkeSellstrom, who said theories pushing rebel responsibility were poor, - they must necessarily hate Shia? Deplorable sectarian nonsense. 92.3.6.6 (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This dude was indeff'd for acting like a crazy person on all Syria related articles for years. -Darouet (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * darouet- the believer in mintpress - calling me crazy - what a horrible world wikipedia is with all its sanctimonious game-players and pov. pushers. wikipedia deserves you darouet - good luck dude - keep up the good work for the mintpress 'worldview' and all its wonderful reliable reportage. 92.3.6.6 (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for that info—not very surprising. --NSH001 (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * just saw your proposal to rework the lead of Jews. Mazel tov: the lead is insulting and a disaster... though I suspect you'll get a lot of push back. I hope you succeed in improving the article. -Darouet (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No intention of working that lead. My hope is that someone out there will see that that statement is a public embarrassment, and fix it without my presence being too intrusive. What we get on Wikipedia in these things is diametrically opposed to the trenchant intelligence we all know is a hallmark of the modern Jewish tradition, and I'm sure guys from that community will get round to fixing it.Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani: worth re-reading Cobban's notes on Syria, makes a change to read someone who actually knows about the subject, and has written several books on the region: http://justworldnews.org/?cat=15 I'm hoping she might provide an update, but she seems to be busy with her business. --NSH001 (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that N. She is, indeed, an excellent analyst, I'd lost track of her. I heard Romano Prodi some time ago remark that the EEC heads read the American assault on Iraq in 2003, as the first move in a pincer plan to squeeze the Ukraine off from the Russian sphere of influence, or rather that the ECC directorate understood that this was how Russian intelligence interpreted the move. (I hope my memory is not playing me false). If so, then the Russian response in Syria, securing also a base in the Mediterranean but also making a large number of regional alliances from Iran through to Syria to exploit the follies of Western policy, and undermine the perceived megastrategic 'logic' behind this chaotic madness, shows more geopolitical nous than the rest. Obviously the U.S. Saudi deal to deflate the price of oil, and therefore weaken Russia's foreign currency reserves, also enters the picture. Pity the man in the desert caught up in this clash between Washington's bevy of militaristic airheads, Saudi Arabia's Wahhabite fundamentalists, Turkey's islamonationalist megalomaniacs, and Russia's kleptocratic operators.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well Putin comes across as a sound chess player, compared to the careless, high-risk gambling, poker players in Washington (careless both in the sense of inability to play the "game", and lack of care for their thousands of victims). I'm horrified by Putin's bombing in Syria, but I can see the cold logic behind it. Yes, I've read about the pincer theory re Ukraine (can't remember where, but it was some articles about the débacle there). Very likely since the demise of the Soviet Union. But Cobban notes Washington's disastrous yearning to get rid of Assad père et fils goes back at least to the 1970s. I think it very unlikely that Assad was responsible for the Ghouta attacks (why would he want to do the one thing guaranteed to trigger a US/NATO military attack, and for little or no military benefit), but establishing who really did do it, and how, is much more difficult. --NSH001 (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * American policy analysts who are of the realist school are not lacking . They occupy a lot of prestigious posts, and are never listened to (Stephen Walt etc.). Any way. the minimum one could hope for is that the Chilcot Inquiry provides enough evidence to get Mr Blair up before a tribunal for war crimes. He wouldn't have troubling mounting a legal defence with http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11670425/Revealed-Tony-Blair-worth-a-staggering-60m.html £60 million in his private kitty. Most of that accumulated as the state he helped destroy, before the sanctions reputed to have to best universal health care system in the Middle East, went bankrupt. A whole arc of countries reduced to murder and poverty as the architects run to the bank. Fucked if I know how they get away with it, or how it sits on his 'Catholic' conscience (Tony Abbot's preaching to Europe to adopt his turn-them-all-away-migrants policy flies directly in the face of Pope Francis. Well, that is not so illogical. Francis is a literal Catholic: he just put a hostel for clochards up, and toilet and showering facilities on the Vatican's prime real estate, and ordered every parish, monastery, and church to fork out and give sanctuary to Muslim refugees. In my district we are taking in Syrians)Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Fucked if I know how they get away with it". I have the same feeling when I look at the Tony Blair article, and see it only has a small section on "Accusations of war crimes", and nothing at all in the lead on his war crimes – the defining feature of his premiership – or how he is loathed and despised by the majority of his own party. Not surprising that Corbyn won so convincingly. Just seen this article by Felicity Arbuthnot: Tony Blair: Is the Legal Net Tightening?, but I still doubt he will ever be held to account. Thanks for the info on Francis, I wasn't aware of that, some light in the darkness at least. --NSH001 (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Chilcot's just put it off for another year of course, so it looks like it is being well organized to get him off. I just happened to listen to this on the infamous dismissal of the legitimately elected Whitlam government in 1975, one of the few radical experiments in modern democracy. The truth will out, with a delay rate of several decades. By then of course taking the person to court is ruled out, since they've usually expired. So his family got £60 million in assets, an those fatally stupid decisions by a dopey know-it-all cost Great Britain at a rough calculation £45 billion to date. No wonder they have to downsize social services to make up the losses. Pope Francis had a tiff a month ago. He went out to get some specs near the Piazza del Popolo, and the optometrist was so honoured he waived the fee, and the Pope forked out, insisting he pay, like anyone else. Nice bloke. I wish we secularists had people of that quality in the political world.-Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Horrifying stuff re Whitlam. Yes, a decent society needs politicians driven by honesty and compassion, and Corbyn comes pretty close, I think (no-one's perfect). But honest and compassionate people are what the system is designed to quash. I've only met Corbyn once, when he gave a talk many years ago at Dorking FMH, and spoke personally to people afterwards. He impressed me then with his knowledge and intelligence. Big mistake if his party tries to rubbish the SNP in Scotland (but there's a lot of bad blood there), since Corbyn needs to build alliances with SNP, Greens and others, even some Tory MPs. I'm quite hopeful about our new Tory MP who, unlike his predecessors, does seem to have a conscience, and regardless of conscience it may well be possible to persuade Tories to vote against Trident (£100 billion, though I've seen one estimate of £170-£180 billion) on financial grounds. The £45 bn you mention is bad enough, but doesn't explain the size of the debt. The real reason for the huge debt is the cost of the bankers' bailouts, and the huge but hidden cost of the underpricing of risk due to the implicit govt guarantee to the banks, coupled with the removal of regulation. The latter is hard to believe for someone like me with an actuarial background. Nor does the £45bn explain the cuts to benefits, which is a political decision to transfer wealth to the rich (who have influence) at the expense of the poor (who don't), using nonsense economics as a pretext. --NSH001 (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

how are you
How are you brother? It has been along time since first talk between us I wish all your daily life events best. I want to wish you happy new year (2016 Year) and i wish i am not late for that message because we as arabs don't celebrate in new year oftenly. Regards--مصعب (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * By all reports, I am well, perhaps in better fettle than the outside world I have to keep reading about although, with justice to humility, I should add a phrase that comes to mind from Lord Jim, i.e., I have 'enough confidential information about myself to harrow my own soul till the end of my appointed time.' (I never celebrate birthdays (particularly after my mother died on my own), New Years or anything really. Every day should celebrate the minor miracle of our being dust endowed with consciousness, if we manage to shake off (intifada) the grime of bulldust that hits us on reading the news.My very best wishes for all of your days, and those of those you know.Nishidani (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Silat ad-Dhahr
Remember to pull your finger out and see if you can look at this at Talk:Silat ad-Dhahr, you swine.Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Huldra. Now it didn't take much of my presence on Wikipedia to convince at least half of the IP editors I was a fuckwit, they were convinced of that even before I showed up. But I am, and as proof, can't find the Latin sources on that page. So if you could squeeze the bean and 'link me to the pages, I 'll chuck a dull-eyed shufti over the grey matter and see what I can do. By the way, there's a misprint. Conder, 'Norman Palestine' should almost certainly be, Norman Finkelstein surely?:-)
 * For some reason your "ping" did not work. (I think you have to just write User:Huldra for that) And I don´t think Conder, 1890 wrote about Norman Finkelstein, no, ;P. As for Latin sources, try  Röhricht, 1893, RHH, pp. 150-1, #565 and Röhricht, 1893, RHH, p. 151, #566.
 * Also, French writer Clermont-Ganneau, 1888, p. 331 is used in both references, Huldra (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "For some reason your "ping" did not work" - typing a user name, in any form, will generate a ping, but only if it's done in an edit that carries a ~ sig at the same time. Now you know! --NSH001 (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ping only works if the diff with the ping contains a signature. If you forgot to ping the first time but signed it, add the ping, remove your signature and sign again. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 01:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Just found that WP:PING is not  red-linked... Oh, BTW, Nishidani: :Silat ad-Dhahr is up for DYK...lots of eyes will be on that article soon, I suspect.  Huldra (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, making quince jam, pomegranate wine etc is time-consuming. I'll see if I can fix things today.
 * Sounds lovely! And thank you for your edits! You added "Arab chroniclers called it Silat ad-Dhahr to distinguish it from another homonymous Silat (Silet) northwest of Jenin.(p.331)"....which p. 331 does it refer to? Huldra (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Clermont-Ganneau's French text which you quote down below. 'Nite!.Nishidani (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sleep well! Huldra (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Who wastes the night sleeping. It's for reading, silly. That's why the night is 'good', no more having to sieve bullshit or discuss the obvious with airheads. I'm rereading all of Conrad's novels.Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ...;) Heart of Darkness, comes to mind, editing the I/P area, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please express your opinion on a different name for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2015)
I have offered a new name: "2015 Palestinian unrest" Explaination to this, regarding concerns brought up by other users is the the offer's section. Please express your opinion on this name. There is no use answering me here, it's better to answer me here: talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2015) --Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani likes to insult people instead of being scholarly, i.e telling people to 'f***-off' for no reason
I.e. posting this at the top of my page, instead of in the proper place, where I have now relocated it.

Nishidani, I do not appreciate your comment which told me to 'f***-off' when undoing my researched and non-biased addition to the Shakespeare authorship page. I think you were under the impression I was an anti-stratfordian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.220.47.162 (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No. At sight I realized you knew nothing about the topic, which is a trait shared by anti-Stratfordians and the world generally.Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What exactly was wrong with it? I used references. Sorry for my babyish joke posting it at the top of your page. But I wanted everyone to see how unscholarly you had been. You gave no justification for your deletion and simply told me to f*** -off. Is this really appropriate?

I have actually now deleted my input as you suggested, because I noticed that it came under another section (although a separate sub-heading would probably be better). I did this no thanks to your disgusting attitude. I have, however, added a section on Italy, which is an important part of the debate which has not been mentioned. I imagine you will try to delete this too, and probably with swearwords, brutishness and no reasoning.
 * Brutishness? 'O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts', eheu, alas!Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015. Teaching Granny to suck eggs
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Amin al-Husseini. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't pepper this page with insipid templates. As to the al-Husseini page, examine the history. If you have already done so, you have selectively misread it, ignoring the reverts by several others, (User:7uperWikipedan, rightly topic banned and a sock, for example) and overestimating the significance of 2 reverts in 3 days, against User:Bad Dryer, whose elisions directly violated a vast 16 vs.4 RS/N consensus.Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't warn 7uperWikipedan because he's already banned from the article. I warned every other editor who has recently reverted. You seem to be arguing that your edit warring isn't disruptive, because your position in the content dispute is right and your opponents are wrong. However, edit warring is always wrong. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverting is a right, and sometimes a duty, to be judiciously used. I exercised it. If you can see any evidence I am a congenitial or persistent edit-warrior (a characteristic of those I revert if you check their records) you've got better eyes than I.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words
Thanks, Nish, for the kind words about my help with the SAQ article. Next to Tom, you of course deserve the most credit for participating in the Sisyphean task of getting and keeping that article where it is. And then Paul Barlow (R.I.P.). The others you mention I consider to have been the "second tier" of supporters (in which I am proud to be included), and to that list I would like to add Xover, who I am glad to see is back (after dropping out for a while), ably helping with all Shakespeare-related matters. Regards, Alan W (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Tom rode the prime herd of words: I was one of the horse wranglers, but without those like yourself, Johnuniq, Bishonen, Xover, Peter Farey and a few others riding shotgun and securing the key logistics, it would have, as in the past, been rustled to extinction before getting into the FA corral. (Yeah, I read Jake Logan's Roughrider last night. Nowhere near the Nobel level of Cormac McCarthy's western epic, but a good read for a lazy day off). Thanks, Alan.Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

An ethnography of Wikipedia
And now for something completely different. I have lately been interested in how Wikipedia works behind the scenes, and I found this to be a fairly serious and detailed look at the issues, both philosophical and practical. My general aversion to philosophy was overcome by the other aspects, and I found it quite insightful generally. I have only skimmed it, but it might be useful in getting some insight into the intractable nature of many of the wiki-conflicts. The chapter on "The Challenges of Consensus" is simultaneously humorous and serious (in the sense of serious discussion of real issues). Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks indeed. I'm busy redrafting the Islamofascism article so won't have time for a day or two to read it closely, but it certainly looks interesting. As to ethnographical aspects, I don't think of conflicts here that way. I'm always reminded of what my Russian teachers, exiles from 1917, taught us about conversing with folks on visit our way, sailors, businessmen, etc., from the Soviet Union, i.e., that their upfront conversation would be a mix of clichés regarding history and culture grubbed up from a primary and secondary school curriculum thoroughly soaked in a nationalist reading of their world, much of which they wouldn't repeat amongst friends and in the family, but a makeshift rhetoric for defensive purposes, employed within earshot of outsiders. What they really knew in practical terms wouldn't emerge, and one had to learn to read between the lines and navigate the tedious flow of hackneyed official points of view. This is exactly what you get all too often in the I side of the I/P zone (probably because one simply doesn't get many representatives of that community's larger constituencies here, understandably): Zionism in general (there have been and still are great Zionists whose positive approach to the state stops at the 1967 borders, and opens up in libraries, Noam Chomsky, the utterly neglected Georges Tamarin, David Dean Shulman, Avishai Margalit, Nahum Goldmann, Uri Avnery, just a few of an egregious caste of thousands) is an ideology like any other, intensely nationalistic, thoroughly obtuse and irritably at odds with information that might disturb the serenity of its unbelievably silly rewriting of the past, or of Judaism and the diaspora. An ideological mindcast is impermeable to any information that might disturb its self-assuredness, and rather than evaluate fresh perspectives, it is furnished with an impressive array of mental-military defense mechanisms, most of them honed to zero in on other people's ostensible (here 'non-Jewish' editors') motives. It takes only one edit exchange to twig if the editor in question is open-minded and committed to a popperian open society, or here to defend his country's official (political) perspective, his society, his ideology at whatever cost to credibility, facts and, worst of all, the state of knowledge in his country's towers of higher learning. All the rest is just basically a pantomime of assuming good faith. Good faith ain't the problem - indeed it is absurd to demand of editors to act counterfactually with editors who are stubbornly wedded to a belief those who contradict them are in bad faith. The rule should be: if you meet a dickhead, watch your p's and q's and stay focused on the issues. I don't mind suspiciousness and bad manners -water off a duck's back - but the profound hatred of learning or investigating anything that might upset what you were told when you were in nappies or as a boy scout, is the primary nuisance. No joy, just a simmering odium for anything that discomforts one's complacency. And, . .I detect a fragrant curry from the kitchen, and am obliged to investigate appetites deeper than, alas, book knowledge itself.Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As to an aversion to philosophy, I don't believe you. Didn't you quote Keynes's famous words somewhere some time back:'Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”. Alfred North Whitehead said European philosophy was just a footnote to Plato, and most of what we think is the drugged residue of influential thinking disproven as theory, but surviving in the inefficient market place of consumer ideas. Philosophy is simply a matter of clear thinking and the precise, witting use of terms as we would have them mean, not what they appear to mean when we spout them unreflectively. I see no evidence here that you are, in that sense, averse to philosophy: to the contrary. (It's a chicken and rice curry, in any case, and won't be served for another half hour). Philosophy is just a form of mental hygiene. Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree generally, my point was about philosophy by itself. Basically every philosophical idea I have ever read is embedded in problems of politics, economics and science, almost as a side-effect of them. I am ok with such philosophical discussions. Whenever I try to read some "pure" (relatively speaking) philosophical texts, I find that I simply can't handle a high level of abstraction consistently. I always need concrete instances to help me make sense of stuff. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 17:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well you're bound to have read Isaiah Berlin's only really readable book The Hedgehog and the Fox so I won't recommend it, other than noting you're now self-defined as cognitively alopexic (i.e. ἀλώπηξ no allusion intended to Ninja turtle types).Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever read anything by Isaiah Berlin. I vaguely remember some stuff, but it was mostly truism and hot air (maybe I'm remembering wrongly). Also see this review of a George Scialabba book which discusses Berlin among others. Also, this Scialabba review of Berlin's book. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 02:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't missed much in not reading him . He was an extremely intelligent gossip and networker, deeply well-read etc but a windbag, with one or two useful insights, that weren't quite new. But the essay I suggested is light, fast reading, a compact edition would run to 70 pages (my old 1957 edition to 153 odd pages) and can be read in an hour, without strain or sweat. It elaborates on a Greek adage, and the binary division of intellectual casts of mind (Tolstoi-Dostoievksy, Plato-Aristotle, Herodotus-Thucydides etc., gave a nice rule-of-thumb. At least, I began to take more interest in it when I came across E. T. Bell's summary in the 2nd vol of his Men of Mathematics (1937) of the modern world's split in mathematical types (George Cantor vs. L. E. J. Brouwer as illustrated in the Brouwer–Hilbert controversy) (Bell. Vol.2, Pelican 1953 pp.632ff.), and the way George Steiner deployed it with close heuristic acumen in his Tolstoy or Dostoevsky: An Essay in Contrast (1960), this time (he's a bit of a theory poacher) with acknowledgement (pp.228,242-243). All 50's generation, old fogey stuff though, and perhaps dated, in these post-Derridean times.Nishidani (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Najati Sidqi - DYK
Just got in and saw your note on 's page. I was thinking of nominating it, but there's no hurry since we have 7 days from date of creation, and I like to get such articles to as high a standard as possible within the allowed time limit. I'll certainly nominate it if no-one else does. Meanwhile there are some over-long sections that ought to be split up into smaller sections (and I never like "Biography" sections anyway, since the whole article is really itself the biography). Priority was first to correct all the little spelling and other slip ups, now mostly done (but I bet there's still one or two lurking there), so I'm now pondering how edit it for better style and "flow". Cheers, and thanks for the good job you did creating this one. --NSH001 (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When I asked you to do the footnote, for example, I was put off by the apparent discovery that we had no article on a very important figure, Khalil Baydas. In a few spare hours, I did a draft. Only by pure chance did I find out that an article does exist on him Khalil Beidas, and I'll now link the mention of him to that page. But the Beidas article (a) should have the name changed to Baydas, since that is the more common transcription and (b) it is completely devoid of notes, being a translation from the Arabic wiki. Since I have 20 odd sources on him, I will now attend to the latter, and thoroughly document and expand the page. Your assistance has, as always, been indispensable. And I can only justify my time-consuming importunity as a way of helping that knee mend, by forcing you to sit down for a while and fix the old codger's fuckups!Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well dammit, one of them invisible things dislineates Aida Imangulieva's book. I've tried several times, reread your advice but nuffen doen, it won't go into military parade vertical allineation. The second mystery is that I've bookmarked Khalil Beidas on my watchlist, and it absolutely refuses to appear there, despite removing/adding/checking several times! Go figure! I think I'll do something simpler than mastering the intricate esoterica of wiki formatting, something like learning Tocharian, or doing a master's degree in quantum mechanics. . .Nishidani (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Duly fixed, problem was exactly the same as before. If it happens again, you can see what I mean by putting the cursor to the immediate right of the asterisk. Then press cursor-left key: cursor moves to the other side of the asterisk, as you would expect. Then cursor-left key again: nothing appears to happen! That's because you've moved it over the invisible character. Cursor-left key again, and you move to the end of the previous line, as you would expect. To get rid of the little blighter, just blast it out of existence by using the delete or backspace key over where it's hiding (i.e., the place where the cursor didn't move). Simples! Sorry I can't help over the watchlist problem, as I can't see your watchlist. You could always try asking at WP:VP(T) if the problem persists. --NSH001 (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You should be ldelighted to know, as I certainly was to discover this morning, that your four edits to that page had the inadvertent result of fixing the watchlist problem. I'll look into which one did the magic, and let you know. As always, I'm deeply indebted to your generous exhaustion of personal time to fix my fuckups. Thanks, N. Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt my edits had anything to do with it. My best guess is that at some time in the past you set your watchlist to "hide" your own edits; since all the recent edits there (at the time of your complaint) were yours, then naturally you wouldn't see them (unless you'd also set it to show edits for a ridiculously long period). Regards --NSH001 (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Grammar
Regarding your edit summary. If you compare the previous version, you can see it was more than just a grammar issue. Anyways, if I would have understood the meaning, I would have rewritten it myself. Since I didn't, I am glad you rewrote it, but the edit summary was unnecessarily offensive. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * C'mon. No offense meant. We collaborate here, and given the fact that I've had extremely limited time to catch up with many edits, I've been editing in haste, and that was one example. Since I'm a known nutter for precision of this kind, all anyone who knows me need do is drop a note here and tell me to pull my finger out. I'd have made an instant correction. reverting in my book, unless solidly reasoned, is lazy, and though your grievance was legitimate technically, it was not a sensible strategy for the page's well being. Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On might argue, that editors making sloppy edits (spelling mistakes, unclear) are even worse for a page's well-being. That is most certainly my point of view, and I think such edits should be reverted. Hopefully, the effect will be an improvement of such editors' edits. Debresser (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll call a spade a spade.
 * "According to Weiss the yeshiva received $27,000 from the fund in 2007 and 2008.[8] The report of (the yeshiva) being subsidized by on(e) office in a New York Tex(t)ile company was confirmed by investigative reporter Uri Blau in 2015"
 * This is not 'ungrammatical': it is colloquial and has two self-evident misspellings, relying on the reader contextualizing 'report' as referring to Weiss's article, as it logically must. If one reverted, rather than improved, the damaged, sloppy flow and syntax of articles, most of these I/P screeds, patched up by editors who don't read the page, would be mutilated. The only thing wrong was stylistic, and that you could not see the clear meaning is probably due to the fact that you are not a native speaker of English, and didn't trouble to read the lead. To repeat, if there is some ambiguity in one of my edits and you don't know how to fix it, do the collegial thing, and ask me to elucidate. Reverting the like is a sign of incompetence, laziness or a failure to construe the intent of the passage.Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ignoring your allusion to English not being my native language, which has nothing to do with the fact that you wrote or copied a sentence that was ill-constructed and included mistakes, I respectfully disagree with your opinion about reverting. If I know how to rewrite a sentence, I usually do so, but when I don't, first thing is to remove the nonsensical sentence from the article. Debresser (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is one of your habits, to revert automatically without thinking. As I said, do me the courtesy of asking me when in doubt about one of my edits. I've linked  courtesy, in case you fail to grasp what it means.Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Stalking
Are you stalking me, or was this page on your watchlist? Debresser (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Jewish Underground page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=696654814 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F696654814%7CJewish Underground%5D%5D Ask for help])

Not enough Japanese drink today!
Not enough Japanese drink today! Have some sake, Nishidani! Bishonen &#124; talk 21:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC).
 * Harry's gaiters, as soldiers stationed in Tokyo in the late 40s used to put it!Nishidani (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

A christmas kitten for you!
Pretend it has like a little santa hat. Anyway, thank you for always assuming good faith in me even though we disagree about some things... and have a happy new year!

--Monochrome _ Monitor  19:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC) 
 * Very sweet of you, dear! Disagreement is the salt of any good relationship, virtual or otherwise, and is not a problem, but an ernest of sincerity. I don't celebrate Christmas, except at the eating trough, though I will say that, as my wife, a devout woman, took up her annual Christmas cake, baked especially for them, to the Franciscan friars near us, they asked her to say a prayer, at which I of course maintain my silence. But at the end, on request, they had me recite the Hebrew prayer of thanksgiving for a meal. They provide temporary asylum for a young Syrian family of refugees.  Good fellows. The cake was a depiction of the nativity, and everything has to be eaten, down to the crib. My very best wishes for a happy and productive New Year, esp. in your studies and life. It goes without saying that if you need any help in this neck of the wiki woods, drop me a note. Regards  Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I assumed you were somewhat observant because you said you were Irish Catholic. Anyway, lovely story. Thanks! --Monochrome _ Monitor  20:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh no. I came out of an Irish Catholic background, as Moses came out of Egypt, losing his Egyptian character in the process. But the early Bible stories left me with nightmares, that only passed when I came across, at 8, the Iliad and the Odyssey and, took to the imaginative landscape of ancient Greece like a fish to water. There at least, one knew that the stories were make-believe. I'm a pagan, and regard all thought and cultural systems as ideological straightjackets unless, finding oneself swaddled in one or another, one works out, Houdini-like, a Penelopean method of unraveling the threads of bondage, in order to reweave the skeins into a woof and weft more consonant with one's nature, melding the protean malleability of infantile curiosity and the germinal slant of one's formative years. I've never understood anti-Semitism (well, I have. It's a form of paranoid schizophrenia, patently, and that is something clinically understood) because anyone like myself born and reared within the European world, by the seminal origins of Christianity in Judaism, is conceptually heir to Judaism, and to have an animosity for the latter is to disavow what is instinct in the cast of Western civilization, even if, from a Jewish perspective, it is an heretical deviation. One is the sum of one's past, small and large. Like all good sons (bad pun) maturity requires a certain Oedipal revolt against what the sum of the past would lay down for you as your fate, in order to emerge from the 'nightmare of history' (Ulysses) by making its antic/frantic patterns heuristically open to personal revision, rather than acquiesce in any one tradition, and by endorsing it, wrap oneself up in an, ultimately, arbitrary symbolic system no better or worse than any other of the thousands forged by man over time.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as a pendant, I happened on two articles that underwrite this from a 'Jewish' perspective. The 'Jewishness' of goys in J.J. Goldberg, 'Why Donald Trump's 'Schlonged' Doesn't Matter — and Why That Fact Matters,' The Forward December 24 2015 (A Catholic boy in a Jewish majority area innocently replying to a query about his religion by stating he was 'goyish' and (2)Richard Falk, 'A Christmas message in dark times,' Mondoweiss 25 December 2015, only marred somewhat by St. Augustine's presence, a great autobiographer but detrimental philosophically (after all, he believed male 'erections' began with the 'Fall') which may work out in quantum physics but looks like a counterfactual paradox in our fleshy Newtonian world. (Redeemed by his spelling 'Magi' as 'Maji', a slip which of course had the delicious poignancy of those fond misprisions that mark a not quite complete mastery of the other's codes!) In both, one's primary 'tribal' culture does not exclude a profound sense of belonging also to the other's world. Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Paul Barlow's Million Award
Hello there, Nish. Idly browsing some talk pages, I was given pause when I noticed that the Millon Award you so kindly bestowed posthumously on Paul Barlow was awarded for his edits to William Shakespeare. But he was also instrumental in bringing the Shakespeare authorship question to Featured Article status, and the percentage of his edits to the latter article was much greater (about 4% vs. about .7% to the William Shakespeare). If you had your reasons for choosing one over the other, fine. But in case this was an unintentional name switch, I thought I would call it to your attention. Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Then again, I don't know if the SAQ got enough page views to qualify. Very hard to determine that (seems to require making some list of top 5000 most-viewed articles). The important thing, I suppose, is that we remember Paul and his sterling contributions here. I miss him every day I access this site. If there were more currently active Wikipedians like Paul, this would be a far better place. As you know very well. Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As usual you are correct in the details. I did look and noticed that the SAQ page on a monthly average, by simple multiplication, gets 300,000 hits annually which converts to 1,000,000 over 3 years. Nothing like Shakespeare, but when you consider how few readers the average scholarly work gets (back in the 70s, one was 'successful' academically if 500 copies were sold over a few years), that is still an extremely high figure. We're peons, mercurial amanuenses, dragomanic engineers doing the synaptic bridgework roping up the recondite crevasses of the unaccessed rockface of scholarship down to the broad public in the plains (mixed metaphors!!), who are somewhat reluctant to scale the rockface given the ominous fatigue-load apparent in the voluminous prospect. In terms of the kind of frequency of mention used by publishing houses these days to boost or burn and author (they even monitor Twitter and Facebook mentions of a new book, and if you are not tweeted about and touted quickly, I'm told, the contracts die as quick as the ink dries) that number for the SAQ is exceptionally good and consoling. I think it has effectively buried the screwball, let me say the Will'o the wispocracy's pretensions to hog the publicitarian limelight with their fringe discourse on the Great Conspiracy. Paul elsewhere was very intent on dispelling the larger myths that blind the public and manipulate genuine, inchoate curiosity down the barren byways of speculative flimflamery. But, aside from all that, I recall the whole arc of composition, with its colourful gallimaufry of diversely motivated, but acutely perceptive figures, (esp. towards the end rather than when it was just a rerun of revert shootouts at the OK Corral) as a very encouraging experience of an intelligent working 'community' (a word I dislike generally) harnessed to an ideal of enlightenment, and seamlessly laboring to achieve an ideal of informed discourse, something which, in the world, is, to these greying eyes,  rather rare these days. Cheers, pal. Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Whew! You have indeed got your metaphor mixer running full blast. But after several rereadings, I think I grok your drift. Sometimes I think that the remnants of an ideal scholarly "community" are among us Wikipedians. There is satisfaction in roping those crevasses and bridging those synapses (you do have a way with words), and perhaps it is enough if we find "fit audience, though few". Not always as few as we might think, either, as your calculation of the SAQ readership shows. Enjoy this holiday period in the mode of your choosing, Nish! Regards, Alan W (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahimè,these ritual holiday periods in Italy never allow a 'mode of choosing'. From Christmas Eve to the Epiphany, one is required to don the nosebag and munch through a routine of fare, as each family in the clan fusses to outclass Trimalchio in slapping up a lucullean 'do', lunch, supper, dinner, and, at midnight, a plate of pasta to ease one's postprandial languor into the arms of Morpheus, or more infernally, towards a somnambular waddling like Ciacco through the retching slush of an intestinal nightmare. It's a trencherman's paradise, of course, but one bridles at the lack of choice. Rebuffing food is a snub to the host - and it's poor form to be nudged to chip in on the pleasantries of convivial yarning over the banquet, when the foison only prompts one to think of hungry masses dieting to  ensure that those last dollars will buy them a place in the next waterlogged fishing boat towards either Europe or a winedark grave. Now, that written, I've checked to see if the point of the exercise, of not mixing metaphors this time, worked. It appears okay. The compositional difference must be due to the fact that the first drift you had to sweat seven shirts to 'grok' was written at speed, as She Who Must Be Obeyed gonged me for tiffins, i.e. written rumpolescamente on an empty stomach (think of Virgil's gurgite vasto rari edentes), while I've just wound up this piece after the repletion of dinner. Shakespeare is our superior because he could write in any style while dining off the smell of an oilrag, and with this, best wishes for this festive period and the New Year, Alan. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten you lived in Italy now. Never been there, but I grew up among many of Italian ancestry and their food, still among my favorite cuisines. And I understand, a cultural thing, you can't politely just pick and choose or refuse. Does sound like a bit much at holiday time over there. As for your mixing of metaphors (and one might argue you have done it again, what with "waddling" through "slush" of an "intestinal" "nightmare"), I never meant to criticize. If Shakespeare can mix metaphors, who am I to complain when you do? That, with your endless web of allusions spanning cultures, languages, and centuries, and so on, always provides me with an agreeable and amusing mind stretch. For now, I'll just wish you digestive peace! --Alan W (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That Ciacco allusion was an example of what Sterne would have called 'the superfetation of a rantipole brain' rather than a mixed metaphor. With 'somnambular' I happened to be thinking, at the same time as I was imagining the glutton Ciacco's domain in the Inferno, of one of the great lines in Vergil's otherwise stupid poem, Ibant obscuri sola sub nocte per umbram/Perque domos Ditis vacuas et inania regna. I find myself occasionally writing here like that only because I find the strain of the Ayn Randian objectivist prose required for Wikipedia a coercive menace to the natural bent of my own mind, and indulge myself in an exuberant clatter of metaphors and analogies prophylactically in order to ward off a gradual domestication of my imagination to a neutral and to me, neutered, syntax. There's no reason why the two can't live in convivial coexistence in the one brain, but unfortunately I find in editing properly that I develop a habit of repressing spontaneous associations that I would otherwise use in my private world, and I find duty threatening playfulness, to the detriment of the latter. Thank goodness there are sharp minds in here that can cut to the chase and tame the wilder side of my rambling nonsensical herdplay! Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A reminder of how costive my own prose has become after nearly twelve years of Wikipedia editing. Ah, well, I have a role to play that fits in here, and I can make myself useful. Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's my page, and I have the last word here! No, no. Your prose has been sharp, precise and focused throughout the SAQ work, as befits your literary interests. There's just, just a touch of fatigue visible on the Hazlitt page, more than comprehensible because with 40% of the edits, you shouldered a large part of the burden there. He's a wonderful writer, and the article does him justice. Perhaps in the New Year, if you don't grudge me a light intrusion, we might look at it together. Payback, I hope, for the close work you did on the Shakespeare AQ. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for adding a bit more, but (1) thanks for the kind words and (2) another pair of eyes focused on the Hazlitt page (or any page I've contributed to substantially; actually, regarding "William Hazlitt", measured by quantity of text, my contribution is 80%) would be very welcome, especially when they are eyes such as yours. But I want to make clear that (3) when it comes to Hazlitt, it's no burden. Hazlitt is my all-time favorite "nonfiction prose" writer. ("Wonderful writer"? I'll say!) I've read just about every word he is known to have written, as well as most of the criticism and biographies. Purely a labor of love. Again, though, as I learned well in my years as a book editor, a second or third pair of eyes, with a different perspective, and of course the right attitude, can only help. All the Hazlitt-related pages are on my watchlist, as is your talk page, and of course my own, so I'll see when you are able and ready to take a look at it, to whatever extent you choose. Thanks again. --Alan W (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking overnight that my suggestion must sound more than a tad narcissistically self-promotional: what I meant was we should try and ring in some of the old textpoker gang that lassoed in the membra disiecta of Shakespearean scholarship (I don't think we need Bishzilla to ride herd necessarily - it's less wrought by grubstaking carpetbaggers and rustlers- but we could ask!). I'm thinking of Tom, Johnuniq, Xover (already present) and the likes  . . In any case, I was astounded to see that the article had a lowly B rating, and reckoned with a little teamwork, we might just prod your work, quickly past GA, into the FA corral. Practically, for the moment, I suggest you, as the resident Hazlitt authority,  ride shotgun as consecutively I and any other interested ringer, combs over the text making emendments (I think of just tightening the prose for the moment), with you then adopting or excising whatever you think useful. Tom's no doubt busy making Indian dances as a prophylactic against incumbent tornados, and that means he's probably stoked up on peyotl but I'm sure he can find the time to tinker. User:Johnuniq's invariably helpful with his technical insights, and if he can join the muster, all the better. That work definitely is within FA reach with a good collegial will, and whatever the others do, I'll try to get round to a provisory recension in the next few days, on the premise that you know the subject, have the right editorial judgement to see what is an improvement and discard any wanking misprision an outsider might  inadvertently add. Sounds like a nice way to work off the mental flab clotting the neurons after the last hectic days of snuffling the fodder in forcefeeding fashion in the Italian Christmas trough!Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to run it through GA nomination as a warm-up exercise I'm game to review it (I've had occasion to do a few recently so I'm familiar with the process). I haven't edited the article and am only (very) superficially familiar with Hazlitt, so there should be no COI-type concerns. But, of course, keep in mind that the criteria for GA are barely above high school essay-level (unlike the FA criteria), so there's limited direct value in it. The main benefit is mostly that there's a process-type expectation at FA review that a candidate there has been through both GA and PR, presumably because it's an indication for the reviewers that the article isn't entirely half-baked. --Xover (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. Give it a day or two, and then go for it. I was disappointed to see that B-article grading, it was almost offensive given we have an Hazlitt expert on it who's invested a huge amount of effort on making it so informative. I am absolutely out of my depth with all wiki procedures, GA/FA etc., which you and others show a professional mastery of, so I'd just be happy to be there, and adjust with Alan and others, the text wherever someone deeply familiar with these processes sets out the criteria required and so far lacking, etc.Nishidani (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yikes Nish, you lost me at gallimaufry but as it is gluttony season I read and relished it all. Characters of Shakespear's Plays is detailed! Who knows what interesting things I might have learned if I hadn't got lost in the computer universe. For more festive cheer, have a very quick look at Chaneyverse which documents an elaborate series of hoax articles—it's wonderful how creative people can be! Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 'gallimaufry' popped up because it was a culinary term in keeping with the gluttony of what my father used to call 'the silly season'. I used it in the sense of 'hodge-podge'. It used to be fairly common in the late 50s and 60s but then disappeared from the radar. It's one of the words Shakespeare was indebted to Rabelais for (la Gualimaffree des bigotz (Gargantua & Rabelais Bk.2, ch.7, loosely translated by the otherwise wonderful, and sadly forgotten polyglot translator J. M. Cohen as 'the Omnium-gatherum of bigots' Penguin ed.1957 p.190, but better glossed as pot pourri by French commentators on that hilarious text:'le pot pourri de toutes sortes de superstitions pratiquées par les faux dévots', which to borrow loosely from Christopher Marlowe means 'a ragout of every kind of superstition practiced by 'religious caterpillars'), hypocritical practitioners of religious flimflamery, which segues neatly into what Warren Chaney appears to be doing. Nice name, obviously derived (in homage) from Lon Chaney, whose protean ability to morph into any shape was celebrated in a Hollywood anecdote about a woman, I vaguely remember, put out of sorts by the sight of a cockroach in the studios, and being told to calm down. It was probably just Lon Chaney developing a new disguise.'Warren' fits that too, a nominal identity as intricate as a rabbit's warren. Nishidani (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Khazars
Four times today you have neglected my es statements. Your rv-motivations are beside the point. On top of that, mirroring the situation, you accuse me of being ignorant (PA). Instead, you better try to understand & respond to my points raised. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reimagine the situation from someone else's perspective. 3 times you walked into an article and excised material, ignoring that on both occasions the sentences summarized per WP:LEDE the sections lower down the page. Your edit summaries were consecutively opinionated, and patently uninformed since you challenged the RS used to source both statements, and they are impeccable.

(1) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khazars&diff=696966386&oldid=696906661 hypothetical theory that is not often supported etc: too fringe to be in the lede. awkward wording] (2) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khazars&diff=696977498&oldid=696974544 his "association" is secondary at best (but more like gossip by association). Fringe, sourced maybe but not a R(!)S. Has little text in article too. So no need to be in lede.] (3) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khazars&diff=696980275&oldid=696979987 as already said in my es's: may be documented, but that's not assuring RS and eliminating FRINGE. Still gossip (see also sentence vagueness), still no)]
 * I responded in my revert precisely to this. WP:LEDE sums up the section at bottom page. The theory was widespread
 * Here you excise a second sentence, and again, your edit makes an assumption contradicted by numerous secondary sources used on the page. You claim (a) Davies, Alan (1992). "The Keegstra Affair". In Davies, Alan. Antisemitism in Canada: History and Interpretation. Wilfrid Laurier University Press. pp. 227–248. ISBN 978-0-889-20216-0. And Vogt, Judith (1975). "Left‐wing " anti‐Zionism " in Norway". Patterns of Prejudice 9 (6): 15–q8. doi:10.1080/0031322X.1975.9969275. are not ‘RS’. By what token?
 * I replied at this point that you are clearly unfamiliar with the issues. You have made 0.06% of the total edits to the article, and there is no record of your presence on the talk page. You dismiss as not RS 2 sources that self-evidently fit those criteria governing good sourcing. You're an experienced and productive editor, and you should know that when the several stable contributors who built the page have defended these sentences against constant IP tampering and removalists, the sentences you challenge have a consensus and are stable in the article, and that on such occasions the proper thing is to raise any query about them on the talk page. Such time-attrition would drive better men than me to drink (Where's that old bottle of 月桂冠 sake?, now that I think of it.)Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your ownership is deluding you and ending up uncivil towards me. -DePiep (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wrote most of it, but there are enough strong editors active there to ensure that I don't abuse the construction by personal bias. I don't have an ownership problem, which you are confusing with the knowledge an editor gains over several months by close study of scores of complex variegated source materials, and which enables one to see whether a novel contribution is firmly grounded in scholarship, or a misprision.
 * What we do on Wikipedia is very fragile, and given the instability of an electronic medium, which the caprices of adventitious mutations under the protocols of perennial review render even more labile, even an optimist must allow that the virtual prospect of the encyclopedia's metropolitan landscape, fashioned from the best materials, and with hardy banausic craftsmanship, is liable to decay over time and like,
 * ''The cloud-capp'd tow'rs, the gorgeous palaces,


 * ''The solemn temples, the great globe itself,


 * ''Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,


 * ''And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,


 * Leave not a rack behind.
 * In the interim however, one trusts in the regard of fellow artisans, whose competence is there to correct flawed brickwork and repair shonky worksmanship. When I've done a lot of work on an article, I know that, nonetheless, that is no warrant for regarding it as a personal fiefdom. I also know however, a lot of editing here is careless. Even had I a certain proprietorial attitude here, I would still be guided by an alertness to Prospero's words.
 * ''Let me not


 * ''Since I have my dukedom got


 * ''And pardon'd the deceiver, dwell


 * ''In this bare island by your spell;


 * But release me from my bands


 * With the help of your good hands
 * I.e.whatever pride one might unconsciously entertain in the quality of one's work, it must be informed by an awareness that this place is collegial, and that good hands will ensure that the main editor is not a captive of his emotional investment in the hard labour of article construction. Concretely, you edited out successively two parts in the lead that for some years every hardbitten IP editor or man with a private take on Khazar theory has taken exception to, and every other editor who has been there from the start has systematically restored because there is a consensus as to their adequacy as a summary of the state of the art. You have a very good record, and there is nothing personal in my stating that you were showing an unfamiliarity with the topic and the text's history. No one, bar Zero, is infallible here.Nishidani (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delusion, I said. -DePiep (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Question mark?
You speak japanese, correcto? Or have some understanding of it above mere Anglos? I'm wondering cause there's something I'd like a legitimate translation of, since the google translate seems rather odd. --Monochrome _ Monitor  20:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, young woman, ya wanna complicate my gasping over flu' and make this New Year's eve even more toilsome than these puckered lungs are allowing? Really! Ask Hijiri! he owes me one, and I only pretend to know furren lankwitches to console myself for never learnen em.Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh no! Feel better! I'm alone this NYE as well, but that's because I didn't make plans... Anyway I am recovering from a recent surgery, so I suppose it's best to stay sedentary. I feel like an idiot because it look me at least ten seconds to figure out what you meant by "furren lankwitches", I legitimately thought it was some kind of Tuetonic cuisine. --Monochrome _ Monitor  01:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll ping him/her. Hello there! I'm wondering why does the Japanese article on Jews link to the Bank of England in the lede? Google translate doesn't offer a lot of answers. --Monochrome _ Monitor  01:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Monochrome Monitor: I emailed you. While I am definitely amping up my editing activity related to the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Jewish literature, as well as early (Jewish) Christianity, I'm not interested in getting into the whole mess of what the word "Jew" means in 2016, or anything related to the I/P conflict, for the time being. Also, I'm a "him" -- "Hijiri" as a real name is only for girls, but the same character can also be a boy's name, and that's entirely peripheral to why I use it.
 * @Nishidani: Don't take the above to mean my debt to you is paid, or that you can't ask me for assistance if there are any more obvious trolls in the I/P area. ANI is still on my watchlist, anyway, and I'm apparently more willing than most to read up on the dispute and do my homework before weighing in on those kind of threads. ;-)
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't I/P! This is possible wikiracism. Thanks anyway though. --Monochrome _ Monitor  03:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Shows what I know. Why I don't want to get involved. And like I said in the email, I have no interest in Japanese Wikipedia. While they have their equivalent of WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, they certainly don't enforce it anywhere near as effectively as here -- and even en.wiki still leaves a lot to be desired on that front. Complaining about "wikiracism" on Japanese Wikipedia is like complaining about "reddiracism" on Reddit, "4characism" on 4Chan, and so on: it exists, by necessity, because the internet is awash with both genuine racists who don't feel comfortable expressing their views in the real world and trolls who may or may not genuinely believe that "the Jews control the media" but are really only saying it for shits and giggles. If someone adds text like that to the lede of the English Wikipedia article on Jewish people, then we can complain. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a rather defeatist attitude, no? Populism on wikipedia is one thing but racism is another. --Monochrome _ Monitor  08:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good attitude for you to take. But it's an English Wikipedia attitude. Seriously, on English Wikipedia, if you find a user who consistently violates our core content policies (V and NOR, mainly) and revert a bunch of their edits that follow the same pattern, you can get blocked or banned for "harassment"; on Japanese Wikipedia, if you make edits that conform to V and NOR, you can get blocked or banned for "harassment by implication", because on Japanese Wikipedia you are expected to violate V and NOR. The Japanese versions of these policies are straight translations of the English ones, but on Japanese ANI if you quote these policies to the admins' faces you will be told that you are "misinterpreting" them.
 * For example, yesterday I found that our article on Alexander VI is both incredibly poorly written and essentially unsourced, and many of the inline citations bear no resemblance to the prose to which they are attached. On English Wikipedia, I can fix the problem myself and unless the article has OWN problems I won't face any backlash, but if I tried to figure out who was responsible for the sorry state of the article, and when I did I noticed they had done the same job on hundreds of other articles, if I reverted them or posted on ANI, I would face repercussions; on Japanese Wikipedia, fixing the problem myself with no further action can be seen as harassment.
 * Just ... stay the hell away from Japanese Wikipedia ... it's not worth it.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Might I ask why japanese wikipedia is so terrible? Is it just neglected, or is it a cultural thing? --Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  08:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, if you're interested in the history of Early Christianity, James Tabor is a great source. With a great blog! --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome  _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  08:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've looked. Yes, the last paragraph of the lead contained an anti-Semitic innuendo, apart from being totally inept (Hofjuden in the Bank of England controlling the global economy as an object of ongoing research!) I've removed it. By coincidence I just got round to reading C. P. Snow's Strangers and Brothers in sequence, having only read a few of them before, and am wading through the 3rd volume, The Conscience of the Rich which is a deeply empathetic description of the March Jewish banking family (though it looks very much like a rewrite of Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited, with Jews as an aristocratic minority replacing the Catholic Marchmain family: Charles March a remake of Sebastian Flyte, just as the Ist novel essentially plagiarizes, with topical variations D. H. Lawrence's Sons and Lovers) and a few other distinguished novels from 1910-1917.(English antipathy to Catholics and Irish was not unlike the strain of anti-Semitism, perhaps worse in some regards since Benjamin Disraeli could become a PM, but no Catholic, even from the nobility, could entertain such an aspiration. That is one of the reasons why I raise my eyebrows when I observe a tendency to reread Jewish history in the light of a unique victimhood of persecution, given my background) There was an upsurge in imported anti-Semitic literature in the 1930s and 1980s in Japan. The practical effect of the former was that, by a very complex train of events, it actually may have been one of several factors conducive to saving many of the Jews who ended up in Harbin and Shanghai, and later in Kōbe, thanks to Chiune Sugihara, the reasoning perhaps being that if the Jewish conspiracy were correct, then preserving refugee victims of Nazi insanity could prove to be an important card in future negotiations (with the Jacob Schiff story in mind). The latter phenomenon blew over pretty quickly and was basically a profitable publishing scam, translating Japan's chronic economic frictions with the U.S. into a Jewish conspiracy. The outrageousness of this adopted paranoia is best illustrated by the fact that Jacob Schiff saved Japan's arse from bankrupcy and defeat in the end negotiations for the Russo-Japanese War because he had relatives, if I recall correctly,who had been massacred in the Kishinev pogrom. The Russians had the upper hand since Japan consistently failed to get a loan to tide it over a deep financial crisis until a settlement could be made. That decisive intervention is well remembered in Japan, that at a critical juncture in its modernizing process, the country, isolated and desperate, found a friendly hand extended  only from a Jewish banker.Nishidani (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case, I haven't bookmarked the Japanese page, but will be interested to hear if my obligatory removal of that paranoid claptrap is accepted, or reverted. I'm not going to editwar if it is reverted, but someone there ought to be notified that the rubbish is unacceptable if it is restored.Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the difference is a Jew can convert (as Disraeli did) and remain a Jew, but a catholic cannot. The funny thing is I started looking on japanese wikipedia for an article on Chiune Sugihara, but arrived at Jews. Weird coincidence! Agree on the persecution. Jews have been persecuted quite a bit, but it's only maladaptive to consider them, or any people for that matter, as permanent passive victims. This sets a rather self-destructive, though likely well-intentioned, standard of behavior for Jews which has been particularly harmful to Israel, who seeks to actively avoid further persecution. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  18:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A Catholic in the traditional view can renounce his 'faith' but, having been baptized, the rite's effect is, in one theological position supported by Cardinal Newman, indelible. Newman's exposition is very similar to Rashi's. It was quite dangerous for Jews at times to have Catholic household help in Italy at least: you might just get a pious woman to secretly baptise one of your kids, and the damage was done: Edgardo Mortara. Baptism in that sense is the Catholic version of the Jewish laws of identity through blood (or 'seed'), which of course explains little in terms of the manifold dissonances among Jews, if they are ever bored enough to get a barren fixation on the concept, about what constitutes their common identity. There's no principle that covers all cases. Bruno Hussar was accepted as a Jew though a convert to Catholicism, while Oswald Rufeisen was rejected as a Jew, in secular terms, because he converted to Catholicism. Both are religious doctrines and, of course, make little sense in terms of the complexities of historical identities.Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I love how you used "baptism" as a verb. There are similarities but the key difference is there is no ethnic or national component to catholicism, at least anymore than there is to protestantism. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  03:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I am an anti-essentialist pagan:Catholics, Protestants, Jews etc., are as they do (i.e. individuals before they are pinned like butterflies into a taxonomic ethnic grid), which in practice has almost nothing to do with the various belief systems within, in multiple subcultures, each of them, and which at the most superficial level, are used to define them.Terence Tao and Albert Einstein share an identity much deeper that either has, respectively, to Mou Zongsan and Yosef Qafih (Einstein once expressed a sense of affinity to Yemeni music,). Ethnicity is the lowest of common denominators.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Note to self
The en dash (–) is slightly wider than the hyphen (-) but narrower than the em dash (—). The typical computer keyboard lacks a dedicated key for the en dash, though most word processors provide a means for its insertion.
 * Not to mention minus (−) for negative numbers! And em dashes should not have spaces around them, and many other fascinating rules. Johnuniq (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All sources consulted in the meantime, dear chap, fail to include the neglected 'dicky dash', a motherly word for a wee chap's whistle. Being mostly, in those 'tender' years pendant, it probably should be the technical sobriquet for | - -:)Nishidani (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

How could you cease to mucking on Israel?
Continue your beloved work here: List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016 (Don't take it personal)--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ? (a) It's drudgery. (b) I didn't start these articles: dozens of POV pushers began writing scores of articles on Palestinian terrorism or rockets or whatever. In 1914 Sept-October, seeing the proliferation of one party pseudo histories lists of 'incidents', whose obvious purpose was to whinge about and promote a sense of unique national victimization, inflicted on a colonial power, while remaining utterly insouciant of the numerous reports (usually swept under the mainstream carpet) of what the IDF et al, do on a daily basis, I decided to ensure that violence on both sides was duly and clinically reported, including at last what Israel does in its colonies. This upset a lot of people. I've continued the series out of duty, not out of interest. And 'mucking on' Israel is bad idiomatic usage apart from being a misreading of what I do, i.e. registering what Israel does, and Palestine does, in the conflict.Nishidani (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, I made the same mistake you did, but I think what Bolter really means is that he wants you to work on his rival article. Whatever he means, I've nominated it for deletion: Articles for deletion/List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016 --NSH001 (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Correction accepted. I've found Bolter a very decent and reasonable editor in a difficult area. My apologies, B. Thank goodness in these geriatric years, I have caretakers around (like my wife who trails me with a scoop to pick up the odd bits and ends that keep falling off (no problem) and soiling the house (a huge problem). The two articles are complementary.Nishidani (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoops! No. The parallel article Bolter made Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015–present) which I initially tried to tinker with, is irremediably flawed by the fact that it is Israelocentric, listing predominantly attacks on Israel, and (this is the effect of using a 'terrorism' definition for violent content) systematically ignoring the structural violence of Israel's occupation. Since it has that flaw, I decided to leave it to its own fate, and do what should be done with all of these conflict articles, namely, just list every episode of violence in a broad and inclusive sense (home demolitions, gassing children's schools, stealing property, denying water rights, driving people out of their homes, looting houses under the pretext of search-and-arrest missions, etc.etc.) That's the only way neutrality can be achieved. Of the 140 odd incidents of Palestinian 'terrorism', the statistical breakdown of analysts is suggesting that at a very minimum 30% consist of Israeli soldiers shooting people suspected of posing a threat for which there is scant evidence, and of the 70% remaining, a large number are equivocal, i.e. someone brandishing a screwdriver or razor several yards from a military outpost in the territories, and being shot dead as a terrorist (the Ferguson syndrome). The article you draw my attention to should be eliminated.Nishidani (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Many belong in short to this category.
 * Let me tell you a true story that happened in Gaza, not far from my parish. A boy of sixteen, who was living with his large family without work, going out one day, saw his sister begging at the entrance to a mosque. He went back home, wrote a brief letter to the father and mother, then went to attack an Israeli frontier post. He went to face death. Three hours later he was brought back on a stretcher, dead. Then they discovered the letter he had written: «Father, mother, I love you. I wanted to live for Palestine, but I have avenged you. I have endangered my life, I have killed myself so as to spare a piece of bread for one of my brothers. Now you are no longer ten, but are nine. Now you can feed everybody in the family». This is not the story of one person alone, there are others, each day. Was that young man a terrorist? In the Occupied Territories we are up against a historical crime against a whole people, mainly children, women, the elderly, all innocent and punished because they live in Gaza. Who has the responsibility for protect ing them from the captivity imposed today by the State of Israel? Many Palestinian by now see no other alternative than between slavery and death.Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I.e., many of the reported 'terroristic' attacks are forms of suicide by cop. I'm sure analysts will get round to providing a competent survey of the phenomenon, but so far all we have is a mass of press reports bundling everything up into 'terror', which is, in any case, a very problematical category to apply mechanically.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Should I laugh at what I just did, anyway my bad, you already made an article for that.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We all slip up, and my lapses are the despair of many, not least of whom, myself. No problem.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

1RR
Your recent whitewashing edit on Ezra Nawi broke the 1RR restriction on that article. Kindly undo it. Bad Dryer (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of your intervening intervening edit, which used the word 'brag' in the source, but not neutral, while copying, and ruining the template of, the highly critical source I added (Leibovitz is one of the most intemperately hostile sources around and shouldn't be used in any serious work, but unfortunately he is reliably published and his distortions must be registered. I will note that rather than looking into what my edits were doing, you interrupted them to stop them by making any further work a violation of 1R as is typical of your probably sock puppet past (personal view, not proven, but I know that voice). You didn't note that the edit I added clarifies that the Palestinian law, according to Edo Konrad, is not against selling land to 'Jews' (as dozens of sources are now hysterically repeating, while ignoring that Israel repeatedly refuses to alienate, or even lease, what it calls its state land to non-Jews) but to Israelis. Perhaps he is wrong, and if so further sources will clarify that, but his point remains crucial at this stage, until controverted. What is certain is that your disruptive, distorting, and unbalanced edit now removes an important clarification since I am obliged to revert, which means returning the text to the inept and incorrect, dysfunctional template and all, which you copied and pasted. You know, as well as I do, that the material I added will be restored by myself tomorrow, unless some wise spirit intervenes to undo your gamesmanship's aim in the meantime.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Muhammad Najati Sidqi
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week&thinsp;: nominations needed!
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Just had a look at your nom in the archives, and can't believe I didn't congratulate you then! I must have been away, or busy, or something. Anyway here's my congratulations now, super-well-deserved for all the hard word you do. I might even make an exception, and give you another barnstar... Long live old rascals! --NSH002 (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Though as a night-owl, barnstars are fine, at this stage, when 'second childishness and mere oblivion' ratchets up its logic (note my frequent typing errors!-some think it's Alzheimer's, but actually I never read what I write at speed on a shonky keyboard until it goes up, and even then I don't tinker much except to elide the more egregious mistakes) I think a 'bairnstar' is all that I should earn in the future:).
 * It embarrassed me, actually, just popping up out of the blue. I don't even know who nominated me. Since a request for assistance has been made, and I have been a beneficiary, I feel an obligation to come up with something. I think a principle of par condicio should operate here for me, and that I should try to think of excellent editors who disagree with me in terms of POV but who are scrupulous in applying policy: I'm minded to put down the names of User:Greyshark09, User:WarKosign and User:Irondome for consideration. I don't follow their work, but Greyshark has a useful specialization in historical geography,WarKosign on difficult  articles, is meticulous in observing policy and reading sources closely; IronDome is omniscient about WW2, but plays a very important role in helping other editors. If you have any suggestions put them down here, and, when I've thought over this more, I'll drop a submission. Cheers N.Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well the editor who comes immediately to mind is Avi, than whom there is no-one more scrupulous in said area. Superb at keeping order in contentious discussions, and an example to all for civility. BTW it's supposed to be a surprise and you've just notified all 3 of those blue links above. Cheers! NSH001 (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fucked up again? Apologies to all. Forgot about that linking. Avi, yes, 'ancestors' in Latin, and we could spring it on him without linking the name, perhaps with the Vergilian words that always spring to mind when I see his monicker,
 * genus immortale manet, multosque per annos 
 * stat fortuna domus, et avi numerantur avorum (Georgics, IV 208-209)
 * Which with a little unpoetic license roughly runs:
 * (The noble line (genus) remains immortal, for many years
 * The family fortunes stand, from forefathers back to forefathers)
 * which comes naturally to mind because that line-stopping long+dactyl and spondee -multosque per annos- cross resonates with the diaspora of the Trojans as they battled the enmity of Juno and the vicissitudes of misfortune in order to shore themselves on a new homeland (Aeneid, Liber 1,31:'multosque per annos errabant, acti fatis' -'driven by fate, they wandered for many years').  The surprise too works, because it's Pesach which he's celebrating in Israel, (undoubtedly offline,) as long as he doesn't venture into the West Bank (Canada Park).:) Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That you inadvertently pinged those three doesn't preclude your nominating them, of course. And possibly might be willing to co-nominate Avi with you, if that is what you decide? Regards, NSH001 (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already gone ahead. I mentioned you. I hate to disturb our raghead jihadi acquaintance on a matter like this:). You could second it, if you like. Or rather, I should second you because it was your idea. I'll archive this in a day or two, to avoid Avi seeing it if he ever checks in here on getting back. Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I just saw and is not well known as a criterion, which might bar Avi. So I think we need to rally in a few supporters on this to argue if necessary, to surmount the technical objections that might arise, that Avi's work in the I/P zone is not well known (but much appreciated), and under stress of fatigue. If that Chicago lout can drop his falafel and look into this desperate point, it would be helpful.Nishidani (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the editor in question is an Administrator which would prevent the nomination. Sorry. It's the one rule at EotW that is written in stone. But....rules are meant to be broken! I will comment at the Nomination page and refer to this discussion and we will see where it goes. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  22:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record
Apropos Sir Joseph commenting on the indefinite block on User:Bad Dryer.


 * I expect this will be removed, but since you also, the third person here, keep asserting falsehoods in my regard I would note, as a European, that you are wrong in asserting:
 * "There is no such thing as consensual sex with a 15 year old"
 * "repeating the claim that at 15 you can have consensual sex with an adult is ludicrous."
 * See to the contrary Ages of consent in Europe
 * Personally, I think sex before 18 is deeply misguided (which makes me wildly out of touch with contemporary attitudes), and that adults who sleep with anyone under that age are indulging in an exploitation of a power advantage that is profoundly detrimental to the teenager, totally unacceptable and worthy of sanction. You won't believe this, of course.Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Can I just say that I think it's foolish to get sucked into some kind of content or "what he said" discussion on the talk page of a blocked editor? Drmies (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I wrote when that matter was under appeal, and 3 editors were and one still is, repeating an injurious slur about what they take/took to be my personal beliefs. But you are quite right. I'll archive this manually ASAP. Thanks for the advice.Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

About numbers in the Israeli-Palestinian list
Please see WP:NUMERAL. In general, 1-9 should be spelled one-nine, numbers up to nine can be spelled both ways (17 or seventeen). Thanks.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hazlitt article
Things were drifting far afield, what with "gallimaufry" and so on, and this no longer pertains to Paul and the Million Award, so I'll start this new section.

Thanks, Nish, for that fine beginning. I think most of your edits are good, and glad to have 'em. Just fixed one typo. But I will have to go through it all again. Some of what you improved was just material predating my beginnings with the article, which I tended to leave alone. But you have also improved some of my wording, and thanks. Of course any contributions by Xover and Johnuniq would be helpful, even in providing more pairs of eyes not necessarily belonging to anyone who knows much in particular about Hazlitt. But another Wikipedian who is also especially interested in Hazlitt is Celuici, who wrote most of two worthy articles on Hazlitt's father and brother, and with whom I have fruitfully collaborated in the past. I'll drop a note on his talk page.

Oh, and as for ramping this up to GA status, I never tried for that before mainly because I had long intended to beef up at least one or two later sections, mostly "Posthumous Reputation", first. The latter is not just inadequate, it's plain wrong at times, but it would take some bit of work to set it straight, and I kept putting that off (while working on plenty of other Hazlitt-related material here).

To be oontinued ... --Alan W (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My idea was just to run once through the article, for some simple suggestions, to get my feel for it organized. Please be tough here if I overstep anywhere. Though I read two works by Hazlitt donkeys' ages ago, as you can see from some of the book sources I cite, I have better collections on Coleridge in particular, for that period (I think Hazlitt's analysis  beginning 'the subtlety of his tact . . .' one of the most prescient and trenchant observations ever made on STC). Let's think of this as an, at least, three month work stretch, so that no one feels there's a rush to tinker everywhere. I hate deadlines. Tom and I gave the SAQ preliminary draft a good 6 months' workover, before we angled around for FA help. If we can get more numbers from the start, it should be a more fluent process, particularly if the experts on GA/FA tell us what needs to be done. Perhaps Xover could drop some indications on the talk page?, where we can shift perhaps this conversation in duke horse.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, Hazlitt's review of The Statesman's Manual, etc., in the Edinburgh Review. Haven't read that one in a while. But his summary review of Coleridge's career in The Spirit of the Age, eight years later, I highly recommend that one if you haven't read it (if you have, you'll understand what I'm saying). A perfect balance of rhapsodic admiration and razor-sharp, unrelenting critical scrutiny. There was someone who didn't have to be reminded to "be tough"; yet, as Lamb, who knew Hazlitt better than anyone, and knew Coleridge well too, remarked about a similar instance of Hazlitt's "tough love" of Coleridge, there's a "respect shines through the disrespect".


 * Anyway, I'm with you about deadlines. I work slowly, deliberately; but I'm stubborn, too, and I do finish eventually. I see you have added the first comment in years on the article's talk page. I'll take a look at that now. --Alan W (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A bit more time right now than I had expected, so I'll mention this. I see you have been citing the Wu bio of Hazlitt, and perhaps you have been reading it at length. It's good in some ways, and Wu can be a sound scholar. But he does let his imagination run wild at times, and he stages certain scenes that no one possibly could be sure ever happened exactly as presented. He should have been more explicit in such cases and pointed out that a given scene was his re-creation of what likely or possibly happened, and nothing at all verifiable now. I think the man (still very much alive, and I offer the disclaimer that this is just my own opinion, etc.) is a frustrated novelist. Just a caveat. --Alan W (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're calling the shots, pal. I didn't know that, but, in any case, I'm editing only with provisory suggestions, and you should jump at anything that doesn't square with the scholarship you've mastered. I did however think that the 'mishap' of him putting the hard word on the wrong woman should be contextualized. I have to really make an effort to find some Pom of distinction who didn't screw in the Stews, the Mews, or have a quickie knee-trembler against the walls of the Mall or St. Paul's, and it's only fair to state that Hazlitt's burying the bishop in those quarters wasn't exceptional. What was exceptional, hence his 'modernism' was his readiness to come clean on the dirty side of everyman's life. Chop anything I do as you will, no worries. Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing to chop at this point. As I said, I think what you added about prostitution in that period and Hazlitt's propensity to "come clean" is all very good, and it is supported, in a general way, by other biographers and historians. I was just issuing the caveat for any possible future use of Wu. I recall one passage where Hazlitt, dissatisfied with things he is writing, is depicted as crumpling the pages and tossing them one by one in the fire. I really don't think there is any evidence such a thing ever happened, though of course it could have. Just an example of a place where I think Wu really crossed some invisible line that true scholars should not cross (and there was no specific warning that this was just a "dramatization" or anything like that, unless I'm forgetting now).


 * Before I read what you just wrote above, I was composing the following addition: Second thoughts about "run in" vs. "run on". Looked at it again, and it was not "run on the family" but "run on his mother's side of the family". I must have been thinking of "on this side" vs. "on that side". I'll let it remain as is ("run in" now) for a while and see if it still looks OK. Might well be all right as is.


 * Also, after reading that about the quickie knee-trembler, I think you should be the one writing a novel based on Hazlitt's life. Good one. It'd be hilarious, anyway.--Alan W (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see you're now laid up with the flu. Ugh. I'm a bit under the weather myself. While you're recovering, I made a few tweaks of my own, including tweaks of your tweaks. Feel better! --Alan W (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good, you must be recovering. At least you've retained enough of your mental acuity to have made some good edits. I did rework some of them, though. If you'll pardon my saying so, I think your diction was getting just a wee bit stilted at times (trying to be as impartial as I can, I will also say that you also smoothed out some of my awkwardnesses and made some excellent improvements).


 * Oh, also, glad to see you found this recent book by Burley. I was unaware of that one and will want to read it one of these days. While I'm thinking of it, I will mention also that I thought it advisable to remove the direct Web links. The regular citations are enough. Books on Google Books that are in copyright are usually just "previews", with only selected pages, and what those pages are could change at random, so there is never a guarantee that someone who clicks the link will see the intended contents. When I tried the last one, I got some notice (in Italian!) that the page was not available, but I was not at all surprised. Continue to feel better. --Alan W (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite(w)ri(gh)(t)e)! Once you dropped that ironical contrafactual bit about your writing costively, -talking about throwing down the gauntlet! - I couldn't withstand the temptation to show you what constipated style can be!! I link to what I edit in on google books fully aware that this is not necessary for the final article, but direct evidence to you of the source page so you can check and review it. They are meant to be excised once that supervision is done. As to google books, if the page doesn't come up, you can make it do so often by replacing 'it' in the url with 'de' (German ) or 'fr'(French etc. The Web links are as useless as tits on a bull (though in these postmodernist times, that's beginning to sound  archly out of whack with the tenor of the times or Zeitgeist)!Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the implied compliment, but in my case I meant that the right words just don't come as I need them. You never seem to have that problem. A flood of the right words, wrong words, any words you want seem to come at your bidding. I'm a bit comforted though when I see that even Hazlitt couldn't immediately call up the best words. In that he disagreed with Cobbett, who contended that the first word that comes is always the best. In my own case, I suppose I should just be content with what skills I have and put them to best use. I know (I confess immodestly) that I'm pretty good at some things, so I just do those things. And if at times some felicitous phrasing comes to mind also, so much the better.


 * As for the Google Books links, yes, I figured out something like what you said, and I was able to view the cited material. Always good to double-check where possible. Anyway, just as I thought, your perspective has proved very helpful, and we're moving along nicely. And as for "tits on a bull", well, yes, nowadays you never know what would-be transsexual bulls you might have offended. (Note to the Wiki-police/censors: just some private jesting on a talk page; I would never put anything like this into article space.) Hope you're recovering well from your bout of the flu, and, again, to be continued (not the flu, hopefully, but our co-editing of course). --Alan W (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. I have a foolproof fool's technique for whipping flu'. I just smoke the bastards out! Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting, Alan, to see a mention of Fives, as if it required a gloss, and as though Hazlitt's 'play(ing) it with savage intensity, dashing around the court like a madman,' were peculiar. It was called, simply, 'handball', a fixture of our intensive sports curriculum at the public school I went to as a child, which was furnished with 4 courts. One great advantage of proficiency gained by intense play on the courts was that it rendered one's fingers and palms tough enough to withstand the  'best of six' thrashings with a cane or a 'gat' (a piece of flexible wire in a tube embedded  in rubber lining and then sewn up on four sides with strips of leather. One could dispense with the standard prophylactic of chalking the palms before 'copping a hiding' (caning). The usual inventiveness of boys transformed this standard punishment into a competition: a £5 prize was ponied up, a stake being won by the boy who managed to top the list as the most 'gatted' kid every term. My cousin always won, not least because he was a fine handball player.Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding GA nomination… The GA process has a few steps, but most of them are usually done by a bot. So a brief description of it would be as follows: The two big pain points of the GA process are that waiting for someone to review the article can take several months, and since anyone can, and often do, review GA nominees your odds of getting a decent review are not optimal (and while you can renominate immediately, you then face a new months-long wait for a review). And the big downside to the GA process is that the criteria are very lax such that even a good review that sticks to just the criteria will not give you a lot of useful feedback. For example, I'd guesstimate that William Hazlitt would be passed essentially as is by something like 3 of every 4 reviewers, with only token review comments.
 * 1) Whoever wants to act as nominator adds  to the top of the article's talk page
 * 2) The bot picks up the edit and adds it to the list of nominated articles at WP:GAN
 * 3) Someone decides to review the article and creates a review subpage (will be at Talk:William_Hazlitt/GA1)
 * 4) The reviewer goes through the article evaluating it against the GA criteria and leaves pass/fail status as well as other review comments
 * 5) The nominator then has (typically) 7 days to address the issues identified by the reviewer (but the reviewer has significant latitude to exceed the 7 days suggested timeframe)
 * 6) Once all issues have been addressed (in the reviewer's opinion), the article is passed and listed as a GA

What I was suggesting, then, was that, since it's sort of expected that an article pass through GA and PR before being nominated as a FA, one of you could nominate it for GA and I could step in to do the review (thus avoiding the waiting) and make it a thorough review (thus avoiding the minimal review problem) that would hopefully be of some use in improving the article. Since I haven't edited the article I should be free of any conflict of interest that would otherwise have prevented me from doing the review. Once I'd done the review I'd probably have to be considered too involved to be considered uninvolved at FA, and so once the GA nom was completed I'd be free to help out directly. A sort of "two birds with one stone" approach on the road to FA, in other words. --Xover (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that clarification, Xover. We're still in the early stages of working it over, which should take some time, mainly. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, Xover, and for the offer of help when we get to the GA stage. This'll take a while, though.


 * Nish: once again you have dug up more books that I'll want to read eventually. Good to see that one of our contemporaries appreciates Hazlitt's critique of Malthus, which seems to me to have been way ahead of its time. Once again, in The Spirit of the Age, Hazlitt presents a more balanced view, allowing that Malthus performed a useful service in noting, contrary to the prevailing earlier view, that population increase was not always an unmitigated blessing; but he still sees right through Malthus's "sycophancy", and regrets that Malthus did not address the problem more fairly. Also, I see that now it's not only we two who are going over this article but now Carbon Caryatid has joined in. Hazlitt certainly deserves the attention.


 * Oh, and that about Hazlitt's handball playing, it appears that he mostly played a variant where racquets were used. But he was for a time an avid follower of fives and wrote (in Grayling's words) an "affectionate obituary" of the celebrated player John Cavanagh for The Examiner, later added to his essay "The Indian Jugglers". Also amusing to hear your recollections of your education and recreation of those days, including the sadistic recreation of the schoolmasters at the boys' expense. It was also just "handball" in this country in my own early years, presumably descended from the earlier "fives". --Alan W (talk)
 * The schoolmasters weren't sadistic, save for 2, a headmaster, and one who was a stamp thief. The others were just trying to rein in the wild spirits of tough kids, who got maids pregnant, stole wine reserved for saying mass, tried to hang an umpire who'd made a wrong call in a football match, etc.etc. No one I recall of hundreds, ever held the beatings against them: most of them were for known infringements of the rules. The college was dominated by a sense of fair play, and the poor and rich mingled as equals: snobbery or ethnic and class discrimination unknown. Now it is a high-price college for the sons of doctors and lawyers, who would sue or litigate at the slightest complaint from their offspring. In sport we were unbeatable: the modern record is mediocre. A different culture, and I feel lucky to have gone there.Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying—and for shining a spotlight on a vanished era, in a country and culture remote from my own (but not so remote that I can't feel some connection or appreciate what you've recounted). I too feel, though there were many differences, that I am old enough to have been far better educated than most of the young folk growing up today, except maybe some of those with unlimited reserves of family money to pay the outrageous sums that a good education costs these days. --Alan W (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Your latest round of edits is fine, though at times a bit challenging. My major quibble is that you, via Barker, misread Hazlitt's reading of Wordsworth's poetry with respect to the poet's "egotism". Egotism was a good thing when it clothed the landscape, etc., with the poet's thoughts and feelings. This actually enabled Wordsworth to create a new kind of poetry, in Hazlitt's view. It was when the egotism led to smug moralizing, preaching, and so on that Hazlitt drew the line. Here again, Bromwich's account of Hazlitt on The Excursion is splendid, more than 26 pages on this topic alone.

Again, you remind me of the Hazlitt material I have not yet read. Metaphysical Hazlitt sits on my shelves, as yet unread, but I'll get to it one of these days. Regards, Alan W (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted! I'm a relative neophyte there, Alan, and I only hope my amateurish forays are not creating more problems than are inevitable when I barge around that page. Actually, Barker is quite evenhanded, and also cites the positive evaluation by Hazlitt of W's 'depth of feeling' which gives to every object an almost preternatural and preterhuman interest'. I edit always wary of word counts in a long article like that, so I didn't gloss everything, esp. since she is a Wordsworthian, not a Hazlitt specialist like the scholars who form the basic sourcing. If I was over-selective in representing her, mea maxima culpa. Hack away at any deadwood I might inadvertently offload, and by all means do so without feeling obliged to drop me an explanation when or if it seems a sheer misreading.  Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not that I feel I have to explain all my edits, I have benefited from the dialogs that have resulted. As I just did now. So you were quoting Barker out of context in a way that was misleading. And now my overhasty negative view of Barker has been revised, and there is yet another book I would like to read eventually. My feelings about Wordsworth are very much in line with Hazlitt's, and whatever of Wordsworth's poems he loved, I tend to love, plus The Prelude, which of course he couldn't have known. A shame you acquired one of those "forced on me in school" dislikes at an early age. Regards, Alan W (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One reads to overcome a prejudice (enlarging one's sphere of empathies), and for pleasure. I originally thought everything in the canon had to be read, which contradicted the principle of pleasure, while advancing the demolition of adventitious biases. Eventually, I decided pleasure must dictate the terms of taste: thus, though with a guilty conscience, I suspended the dutiful reading of masterpieces in the canon like Moby Dick and Don Quixote(till I was in my forties) because I couldn't get past the first few pages or chapters. Then, the right moment hit for each, and I read them both with astonishment. I hated Latin, but learnt it. It took 3 decades for my prejudice against the imperial tongue to wilt and allow me to reread it with joy. Taking instinctively to Hopkins in early adolescence, I dithered  pugnaciously over Tennyson, until I realized he was to be read by ear, and pounced at his works. I have yet to experience this quite with Shelley, but I can read Wordsworth in large patches with enjoyment. John Ashberry seems to me 99% fraud, the 1% being Daffy Duck In Hollywood, idem Jorie Graham. No amount of explication de texte by Helen Vendler can budge my boredom there, and in so many other writers hailed as indispensable. So, to politely undermine your compliment elsewhere, I'm not well read. But if I do read, I try to read minutely to jemmy the ark and set forth the arcana whose hidden magic gives me the frisson that, in many acclaimed masterpieces, I can't feel. (These lacunae don't embarrass me!) Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are too self-deprecating! To me it's clear that you are far better read than most. That doesn't mean you have to like all you have read. So much does come down to personal taste. Without commenting on every writer you mention, I'll just say now that, although I never looked at Ashberry the way you do, still, whatever I did read by him (and I hardly remember now) left me cold, and I don't recall anything about it, so I never went back to him. In my case, it was Don Quixote and Moby-Dick that opened magical doors for me in my adolescence. Individual differences. Part of what makes life interesting, I suppose. Regards, Alan W (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Transferred the following from the Hazlitt talk page: Thank you for digging up all those recent sources of which I was unaware. I hope to read all or most of them sooner or later. Quite a bit of work done on Hazlitt lately. Heartening, but also frustrating that none of my local libraries (at least those to which I have access to for withdrawing books for home reading) have at all kept up with this flood. I suspect it's better in the U.K., but even then maybe only in some academic libraries. I used to have access to some of the best local academic libraries, but since I abandoned my (brief) academic career (yes, another distinct career), those privileges ended some time ago. I might just want to purchase some of those that look the best to me. Burley, Gilmartin, Ley, Whelan, Dart—I had no idea! All highly intriguing to me. Good night (wee hours of the morning, actually, over here). --Alan W (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be hampered by lack of complete access to all the recent critical literature, or feel doomed to bide our time until we have thoroughly devoured their contents. Publish or perish is the sword of Damocles hanging over those who make a professional career in literature. And it gets out of hand: I remember noting to myself that the secondary literature on Jane Austen and Thomas Hardy, whose works I was reading in sequence at the time, was 'enriched' yearly by several or a baker's dozen of sizable tomes, each in turn referring to 'new research' as specialists took up hints and, in Hamlet's words, giving the impression of 'thinking too precisely on th' event' so that each quartered thought, though contained some minor lustre of wisdom, often was lost in the finicky dross of feckless equivocation, simply to expand a note or afterthought into an essay for inclusion into a book. A simple calculation told me that simply to keep up with the billowing tide of commentary (50-100 books/articles per decades) one would have to renounce primary source reading, a bit like throwing up the opportunity to spend an evening at the Globe where Shakespeare's latest was being played in order to listen to the tavern gossip about him on the other side of town. Notes & Queries handled this better in the 19th century. You have a command of the opera omnia and the secondary literature of lasting importance, and that should be the beacon that guides us over the wash of googled tidbits. And now to Sunday lunch!Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more about the state of academic publication in general. I was just referring to my own interest in reading some of the better material recently published on Hazlitt. I do not, certainly, intend to postpone working on Wikipedia articles until I've digested all the secondary sources there are on a given topic. I agree, they multiply faster than they can be read. It's a hopeless task when approached that way. I hope you enjoyed your lunch. --Alan W (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I was wondering if you'd go back and notice that Austin/Austen slip, and you did. What you didn't realize is that you wrote "synthetic" for "syncretic" in that quote from Armitage, although as it turned out I cut out some of that passage anyway. You can always use it in the Liber Amoris article if you think it's worth it. Though, in my view, I'm not even sure I know what Armitage is talking about. Hazlitt "intuitive" rather than "syncretic"? What the hell is that supposed to mean, anyway? To me, it's words, words, words. Or, to change the metaphor and play, sound and fury, signifying nothing. --Alan W (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Meant to look into this before out of curiosity, but, although I haven't read a note or query therein in many years, I'm pleased to see that Notes & Queries is still around. Civilization is not dead yet. --Alan W (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Western Wall
My revert was about the "boycott" by Jews about prayer at the wall. He already has that in there in another section. He just wants to put that in there again. I don't think my revert caught anything about transgender prayer. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 18:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nish, it seems this is a case of Kay Long vs. Yeshayahu Leibowitz. Chesdovi (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sir Joe. It takes some time to work up material for an edit. No time to erase it from the page. I can see some things I would question in Chesdovi's edit, but I think that, once done, the right thing is to discuss this on the talk page. or trim or offer suggestions. It is laziness to peremptorily eject material with nothing more than a vague edit summary. I respect content contributors, which is what C is. Chesdovi and I have disagreed very frequently, by the way, but we manage to get on quite well, because, I think, we try to look at each other's work on its merits and not personally. Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm not sure if you saw my thing on DH, but why would that not be a RS? If half of CD's edits are RS, certainly DH should be a RS. It is sourced to R' Eli Mansour, a respected rabbi in Brooklyn, NY. Regardless, the edit I linked to from DH was sourced ultimately to R' Moshe Feinstein the greatest posek in the late 20th century America who all Jews respected, you should read his obit in the NY Times if you have the chance, and the DH also quoted Maimonides as well. Regardless if the sources say the Wall is sanctity or not, the fact that the Wall is a synagogue means that the wall is now a sanctified. So it is indeed POV to say the Wall is not a sanctified place.Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  17:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Kamm again, after all these years
Kamm's was one of the first articles I ever edited on Wikipedia. Since then, I've largely heeded Nableezy's advice (not to me personally - and sorry I can't find the diff) that it is better not to edit articles on people whom one despises. Much more uplifting, and better for your health. Plus it's the articles on good people that usually need the work. Thankfully, Kamm retreated behind a Murdoch paywall, but he recently popped out again, and got what he deserved here, especially in the comments. It seems that Kamm can't stop lying: "'Ex-Hedge Fund manager, now Murdoch leader writer Oliver Kamm published a disgusting and blatant lie and smear about me ... Usually it is best to ignore the lies of far right Murdoch employee Oliver Kamm, but ...'"

--NSH001 (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't 'despise' Kamm. I don't really read that kind of 'stuff', and bundle journalists and POV warriors in the commentariat (Steven Plaut, Pamela Geller, or many of the mechanical ranters at CounterPunch, etc. come to mind) who don't appear to visit archives and libraries, or hold off till they have thoroughly grasped the history of the subjects they deal with. I do read a good deal of material from writers and journalists whose POV I find distasteful, or whose POV I generally share (several at Counterpunch), who do teach me something because they happen to either know things I missed, or articulate lucidly an important interpretation. Rather than disgust, that kind of publicist for causes just bores the living daylights out of me if I persist past the first para. As to health, I'm sufficiently old not to care about petty things like extending one's mortality:) (That last remark was inspired by hearing Umberto Eco died just as Cameron sealed a victory for his bid for GB to be granted an exceptional status, thus sealing the fate of the EU by setting into gear the eventual nullification of the postwar EU social compact, in favour of predatory finance (vs. long-term infrastructural investment finance). A polymath expires as his profound reading of European culture is rendered obsolete by failing to give the speculative return that markets appreciate. Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Did Prospect magazine, as Craig Murray claims on his blog, print on the Oliver Kamm page attacking him, the correction of what Kamm misreported? So far I have only Murray's words for it, on his blog. But if indeed there is independent proof that Kamm's remarks were officially corrected then this would be appropriate to his article. I can't see it because I am at my readers' limit for free access to that magazine.Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I've just signed up for the 7 "free" articles a month. The article does now quote Murray correctly, but I can't see any formal acknowledgement that the article was corrected, let alone at Murray's request. I'll see if I can find an archive/cache version with the previous wording. --NSH002 (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah, no luck, but not a great surprise, I suspect they disallow external archiving for copyright reasons. Probably wouldn't be useful as an RS anyway, but it would be nice to have verification. --NSH002 (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Now that I've finally had a chance to look at Kamm's Prospect article, I'm appalled at what a pile of trash it is, and surprised that Prospect (which I've always regarded as a fairly decent publication) should print such a shoddy piece of work. But kudos to Murray for getting Prospect to correct it, as it now makes Kamm look as though he's telling the truth. --NSH001 (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Umberto Eco's funeral at Castello Sforzesco, on state television, has just ended ended. While watching I thought of all the insipid leaders written by the innumerable heads in the punditocracy, the incapacity to twig the obvious, the tedious recitation of ideas that have an instrumental end (persuasion of an 'ignorant readership')rather than any analytic cogency, and of how Eco, could hold a young class spellbound on the intricacies of palaeography or the philosophy of semiotics,  delight a middle brow public that ran to dozens of millions worldwide with racy novels that melded endless allusion to erudite theories while telling a straightforward story, or talk commonsense about high problems with wit and depth comfortably combined, or exchange an infinite number of Yiddish jokes with Moni Ovadia, appraise the profound learning of a comic of the stature of Roberto Benigni, or be the first editor to introduce Woody Allen to the Italian public, or write middle brow weekly comments on virtually every topic to make a bridge between the universities of knowledge and commonsense, and of what he said off-the-cuff, with prescience because he never allowed political blowhards' rhetorical games (easily seen through by a master of the classical works on oratorical tropes)  to get the better of the obvious. All of this while dutifully taking classes of students for decades, correcting exam papers, and, after many a class beaming at a bar at a day's work well done. So I looked at what he said about the invasion of Iraq, as it unfolded. Spot on. Dead right. Not original, except for the historical allusion and the inference about the foibles of losing the 'good of our natural reason' when the hounds of war are unleashed and generate Manichaean mentalities. I translated it and lost it when the computer failed to put it up. It's here. 'Si può vincere avendo torto.' L'Espresso 30 April 2003.
 * Eco deeply admired Wikipedia's project, Kamm jeers at it from the sidelines, with a contempt for (the) hoi polloi. Everything that the former wrote will stay on, which is not a proposition one would bet on for lead writers for the Times.Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler spoiling Seaman article
Hi Nishidani. I never cared much about studying WP diplomacy and its zillions of guidelines in detail, but I did grasp the spirit quite well, I think. You seem to be well-versed in this parallel universe, maybe you can help. I'm not concerned in the least that I'm doing anything wrong regarding the Seaman article, but I know that smb. stubborn, and Plot Spoiler shows all the signs of being such, can cost me a lost of (uselessly wasted) time. Do you know how to call up some "higher authority" to arbiter in this issue? I won't let go, that's for sure, but I'd rather keep the procedures as short as WP allows. Many thanks. Arminden

PS: I see you've introduced into the article the most academically written chapter it now contains, which adds a lot to its quality. However, it takes a very well-versed reader to read between the lines and notice the issues created by a high-ranking public information official with such opinions, as long as they are presented in such a smart and articulate manner. For my part, I am convinced that the far more blunt Seaman statements Plot Spoiler wants to "nineteen-eighty-four" out of existence are very much needed in a fast medium like WP. Cheers, ArmindenArminden (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To be brief. I wouldn't worry about making an outline of your views on the arbitration page. Only respond there when admins direct a question to you, or make a remark in regard to your edits. Admins like focusxed evidence, not endless arguments, rightly so.Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see it has been brought up at the appropriate admin page. When I saw the problem, I looked at the WP:COATRACK elision, and realized that, as usual, rather than studying the page and the subject, PS simply erased on, what to me appears to be, WP:IDONTLIKEITgrounds. In general, we ought to fix pages by building them constructively. Once you elide the controversies, that page just seems as wiki outlet for Seaman's official curriculum vitae, and therefore promotional hype wholly out of keeping with what we do here. I had a similar problem a few days back with the Oliver Kamm page. Blanking material is bone-lazy, a characteristic of the editor in question's drive-by cancellations, and almost invariably is a sign of an attempt to manipulate a text to the advantage of one POV. I think it is vandalistic to do this, but some experienced editors might well challenge that as an excuse to get round the 1R restriction. That is why I just restored the material once, and then spent a half an hour building onto the page: with the documentation I added, the putative coatrack material, thus contextualized, looks like an illustration of the overview. The extraordinary thing about drive-by blankers who nag away, is that they never do the obvious: do a few minutes research to see what sources, beyond those used, say. usually, they are far richer than what the contested page contains. This is the best way to handle such conflicts: it shows that the editor is challenging a blanking does so in a constructive manner.
 * Given Seaman's highly controversial behavior, and esp. given that he is on record as using hasbara somewhat cynically to tilt discourse on the conflict one way (he actually appears to have banned BBC journalists from covering the Al Aqsa intifada in 2003), any editor should exercise great care in not arbitrarily blanking any negative material if only to avoid giving the impression of being a meatpuppet for Seaman's own known approach to either his own or his nation's image. In any case, when things are borderline, one should exercise patience. The altae moenia Romae weren't built in a day, and neither is Wikipedia. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani, many thanks for taking so much time with this issue. The arbiter did indeed ask me to give a statement, and I did so, unfortunately (?) before reading your kind advice. Anyhow, je ne regrette rien, I have no sympathy for state-sponsored bullies, as I suppose Mr. PS might well be. Had my share of Securitate characters, and "fight them while they're small" is the one principle I came out with of that experience. Once they're fully-grown Putins or Netanyahus, it's too late. Anyhow, you might not remember, but it's me who tried to escape the WP habit a while ago and gave the same unrequested advice to that brave young pupil of yours & Simon's (and yes, I do indulge a bit in playing with words here) - it's time to apologise for not considering the possible repercussions on others than herself. As you can see, neither her nor me did stay away from WP and WP trouble. Did you ever manage to have her pack up and travel for a while? Travelling is my middle name and professional focus, I might be of some use if she does take your advice. But that is in no way connected to today's topic. Thank you and good night, ArmindenArminden (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about this. It's trifling. Down to a few years ago, I was hauled to arbitration every other month, by an assortment of louts and dickheads, and got banned for 2 years, and spent several spells in the wiki porridge or clink. Didn't hurt me. There's lots to do in 'gaol' - as I told lawyers twice when I was facing things like a 5 year gaol sentence, or a few days in the cooler for refusing to be intimidated by a cop,  cross-interrogating him and behaving, as he complained, as if I were his equal (actually we became friends after I stood my ground, and he made a few background inquiries). Nothing like what you've faced from that hint. CheersNishidani (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement word limits
Hi, Nishidani, In the big pink box at the top of the page, you can see Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Your statement and responses comes in at over 1300 words. In the past, this word limit was not strictly enforced but it was highlighted to admins in mid-February and we are now trying to live by the rules. In general, it is better for the author to edit their words rather than have an arbitration clerk or admin do so so I hope you can get your statement (and responses) down below 600 words in the next day or so. Thank you. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On second thought, EdJohnston requested that the complaint be closed so if this happens in the next 24 hours, don't worry about it. It's a little late to be giving you a warning. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Jeezus. I didn't know that. Apologies to all round. It just confirms my conviction I shouldn't comment in those places.Nishidani (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP
I note that the Editorial Board of the New York Times called Donald Trump a 'shady bombastic liar' the other day. Obviously, we as editors aren't allowed to violate BLP.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Nishidani. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.84.1.2 (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Disastrous GAR close by a new user with less than 500 edits to his/her name
Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

We need to talk...
About the times youdon't make spaces, make double spaces or put the references [1] with space between the period or the words and the reference. Sometimes you also don't make a space after the period.And sometimes you don't even put a period Now I am a disguasting foreigner who English very bad, but I have to say you do it alot in the list of violent incidents in the semitic conflict and it really hurt my eyes. Cheers--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, Stav, I'm in the later autumn, what the Seppos call the 'fall', of life, and User:Ravpapa is equally concerned, a tad worried that this carelessness may be an index of dementia or oldtimer's disease, or is that decease?. That's not to be excluded. I tend to do that page, I admit, at speed, since it is mechanical, but you're right: I should pull my socks up (not too far up, since I have to pull my finger out as well). I suggest that when you have to tidy up after me, to add an edit summary of the type:'For fuck's sake, Nishidani! /'Christ, you're losing your grip, old man'/'Another lapse by the prelapsarian, making me misspend my youth, dammit', i.e., something with a touch of remonstrance for me, and a tone of sardonic exasperation that lowers your own sense of being put on? Cheers Nishidani (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I do make some clean up in the article when I see it but my time in the List of terrorist incident made really changed my approach to such project. At first I was very diligent, I even planned on re-writting ALL of the lists, from 2015 to 1970, and I thought I could add every single terrorist attack but than I realised there are so many attacks beyond Reuters, over 16,000 in 2014, which is a sad reflection of our world, that terrorism manage to exhaust a school student in Wikipedia so I realise that my utopia of every single piece of information will never happen and now insteed of fixing your minor mistakes that a mysterious force prevent me from doing, I can just tell you to pay more attention to that, but I might as well do it more actively.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you're focused on Reuters' index of 'terrorism'. Imagine what it is like for a normal reader of events, doing a small, arcane little page on reports on violence in your area, and having scruples that disallow him from adding to 'acts of violence' incidents of a kind that have occurred several times every day and night for 49 years to a captive, disarmed population under military occupation. Technically, every time an Israeli unit enters a Palestinian home after midnight usually, the practice is to smash things, and 'teach them a lesson'. That is both violent, and fits the definition of damage. It is reported only in Arabic sources regularly, and merely hinted at in Ma'an. We don't use it, so your workload is less, as is mine, but the reality is radically underdescribed. It is a form of systematic state terrorism, as defined in the Geneva Conventions and the relevant literature. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then I'll transcribe just one page from Ben Ehrenreich's 448 page book which has just come out.


 * He has an interesting ancedote from an Israeli checkpoint duty soldier who tried to soften up the intrinsic harshness of these places for local Palestinian kids by handing out a snack called Bamba to them. One kid took it and then shared it with the kind soldier. Ehrenreich‘s account runs:


 * 'He opened the bag, and offered some to Eran. They sat and ate the chips together. When the boy walked off, Eran felt ecstatic. He could finally be the man he wanted to be, a soldier who was loved for his kindness and who at the same time, as he put it, “was protecting my country from a second Holocaust.”


 * When he got back to the base that nght, he was ordered to eat quickly and prepare for another shift, not at the checkpoint but on a “mapping” expedition into H1. He was still so high from his success with the Bamba that he didn’t mind the extra work. The routine was simple:’You go into houses in the middle of the night, get everybody outside, take a photo of the family, and start going around the house, destroying things.” The idea was to search for weapons, “but we also needed to send a message,” 	Eran said, to make sure the residents never lost “the feeling of being chased.” (It’s awkward in English, but it’s a single word in Hebrew. His officers used it a lot, Eran said.) His job was to draft maps of each house, charting the rooms, the doors, and the windows. “If at some point there was a terror attack from that specific house,” the army would be ready.


 * That night, they searched, trashed, and mapped two houses in Abu Sneineh. It was snowy and cold. When they were done, the sun had not yet risen, so their officer chose one more house, apparently at random. They forced the family outside and into the snow and went in and started searching. Eran opened the door to a child’s room – he remembered seeing a painting of Winnie-the-Pooh on one wall – and had begun sketching when he realized that there was someone in the bed. A young boy leaped out from under the covers. He was naked. Startled, Eran raised his gun, aiming at the child. It was the kid from the checkpoint that afternoon. “He started peeing himself,”Eran said,”and we were just shaking, both of us, we were just standing there shaking and we didn’t say a word.” The boy’s father, coming down the stairs with an officer, saw Eran pointing a rifle at his son and raced into the room. “But instead of pushing me back,” Eran said,” he starts slapping his kid on the floor. He’s slapping him in front of me and he’s looking at me saying,”Please, don’t take my child.. Whatever he did we’ll punish him.’”


 * In the end, the officer decided that the man’s behavior was suspicious, that “he was hiding something.” He order Eran to arrest him. “So we took the father, blindfolded him, cuffed his hands behind his back and put him in a military jeep.” They dumped him like that at the entrance to the base. ”He stayed there for three days in a very torn-up shirt and boxer shorts. He just sat there in the snow.” Eventually, Eran summoned the courage to ask his officer what would happen to the boy’s father. “He didn’t even known what I was talking about,” Eran said. “ “He was like, ‘Which father?” Eran reminded him. “You can release him,” the officer said. “He has learned his lesson.”


 * After cutting the plastic ties that bound the ma n’s wrists, untying the blindfold and watching him run off barefoot in his underwear through the streets, Eran realized that he had never given the maps he had drawn. He hurried back to the officer’s room. “I really fucked up,” he told him, apologizing for his negligence.


 * The officer wasn’t angry.”It’s okay,” he said. “You can throw them away”.


 * Eran was confused. He protested: wasn’t mapping a vital task that might save other soldiers’ lives?


 * The officer got annoyed. “He says, ‘Come on, Efrati. Stop bitching. Go away.” But Eran kept arguing. He didn’t understand.


 * When it became apparent that he wasn’t going anywhere, the officer told him:”We’ve being doing mappings every night, three or four houses a night, for forty years.” He personally had searched and mapped the house in question twice before with other units. (Ben Ehrenreich, The Way to Spring: Life and Death in Palestine, Penguin 2016 pp.202ff.)


 * I've read several of these kinds of reports every day for a decade, alluded to by even Ma'an as 'raid on a house' (with a person arrested), and none of the details books like Ehrenreich's have reported for several decades (and which anyone who knows the literature from 1933-1941 on the Jewish angst over of Gestapo house searches should recognize as being identical). If you take the officer's word for it, at a low estimate this practice works out to mean (3x365x49) something in the range of 53,655 incidents of violent storming of people's homes, on the pretext of 'terrorism'  or 'to avoid a second Holocaust', in order to haunt Palestinians with a constant fear of being 'chased'. If you add that to Jeff Halpern's estimate (War Against the People: Israel, the Palestinians and Global Pacification, Pluto Press 2015) that 48,488 Palestinian homes have been razed by Israel's army of occupation since 1967, or that 87,305 Palestinians have been injured by military actions since September 2000, then the perspective on 'Terror' you get in your chosen source starts to look shaky. We report none of this.


 * Abu Sneineh, where this incident took place, is in H1,that 18% of the West Bank, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority according to the Oslo Accords, where Israeli troops were never to set foot, and therefore was one island where a Palestinian might feel totally 'in his own land' free of the occupation. So if you're spaced out by my neglect of spacing in one or two edits, just think of the broader context, which is an empty space altogether and means both what you and I do captures almost nothing of the real world we are supposedly annotating there and on other pages.Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a long comment I didn't expcet. I"ve heard enough stories like that.. My brother's deputy battalion commender went to serve in the West Bank where he was present in a clash. During the clash, in a moument of stupidty followed by regred, he decided to use live ammunition insteed of rubber bullets. He aimed for the legs but hit the torso of a teen who later died (it was in 2011). There was an investigation and the investigation ended with him "going on a long 3-month vacation" and then returning back. But just like veganism which shows me hunderds of cows and chicken butchered, I"ve heard enough to really care. Sometimes I don't belive and sometimes I don't care. I am one of the only Israelis you"ll find that acknowlege things that happen in the West Bank and yet doesn't feel like condamning them or feel bad. I"ve never felt bad when listening to those stories and the only thing they made me do is to ask the army not to send me to Kfir Brigade in my list of preferences for millitary service. One of the reasons for that is Breaking the Silence, when they were proven to sometimes speard lies/rumours and even using a single incident whose participants were punished as an everyday reality. The fault is on the lefitsts and the human rights activists, who are sometimes advocate the continual of such actions, by spreading hate in Europe insteed of spreading the truth in Israel. That's my opinion on this anyway, unpopular on both sides.
 * By the way, I belive you know more than me about things like that, do you have any idea what is the legal status of the Mandate (the text)? Preferably a non John Whitbeck source, becuase I try to explain to a fellow that we do not need to stay in the West Bank because of international law..--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, your indifference is, by reading and according to polls, quite normal, and not the exception.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you mean this?
ARBPIA3 <--- tell me, where is the Islamofacism article mentioned on this page? Is the Islamofacism article under sanctions? And "You are not permitted to edit here perr ARBPIA3." - Sorry, but you don't get to tell people where they can and cannot edit.--109.149.136.103 (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * By an oversight it was missing from the talk page (since fixed). Pages where Israel, Palestine the Middle East are referred or alluded to are included ('broadly construed').Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case, The New Oxford American Dictionary defines Islamofascism as “a controversial term "(Avner Falk, Islamic Terror: Conscious and Unconscious Motives,ABC-CLIO, 2008 p.122). You are contradicting a reputable dictionary definition.Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a certain 19th-century author...
Well, Nish, you seem to be involved as usual in many different things, but I have not forgotten the Hazlitt article, and I hope that you haven't either and expect to be able to find time to get back to it before too long. I haven't said anything in a while, as I was busy working up material for an addition to another Hazlitt-related article. (What else?) I have finally polished that to my satisfaction and posted it, and I would have a bit of time now to get back to working with you on those Hazlitt improvements (and so much of what you added and changed has indeed improved the article). Hope you are well. Regards, Alan W (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Alan. That's been playing (dreadfully) on my conscience these last few weeks. I stopped rewriting the Hamas article because it detained me, idem anti-Zionism etc.etc. Mea culpa, me a cowboy, me a Mexican cowboy, as the phrase used to be distorted during mass by us children when dragged into the morning ritual of what we also called 'mess'. I'll get back to it as soon as I've cleaned up some final ends in the latter article, in a few days. It'll be refreshing, literature instead of fixing obvious conceptual and historical reconstructive caricatures, and there one works, at last, collegially! Cheers, pal, and my apologies for seeming to fall short on my undertaking (I hope my undertaker does a better job).Nishidani (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope your undertaker finds plenty of other things to undertake for a long, long time while you are left here to continue all your earthly undertakings. I appreciate hearing back from you, and whenever you are comfortable, or perhaps I should say sufficiently uncomfortable in your uncollegial collaborations, or perhaps I should say antilaborations, and are ready for some collegiality again, I hope to be around, supposing my own undertaker leaves me alone for a while. Regards, Alan W (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually have an excellent rapport with the man. He's done several of our burials, and actually asked me to help him prepare two of our deceased on separate occasions, since he couldn't rouse up his sidekick at 4 am. So, when I met him in the streets I would, on going my way, bid him:'See you later.' The phrase was greeted with horror by several bystanders, who touched their genitals to ward off the evil spirits conjured up by this normal bidding goodbye in that context, and one informed me that one never says 'ci vediamo/ci sentiamo' to a 'funeral director', because it implies one is invoking one's own premature death. Well, interesting as a piece of anthropological lore, but the word and its apotropaic superstition only strengthened my determination to treat him with the same civil rule governing all encounters - I'm a pagan and bristle at the idea of any group or profession being consigned to an outcast category- and he appreciates it. There's a wonderful poem in Roman dialect dealing with the lament of undertakers that a cholera epidemic has stopped, meaning business will be tough!Nishidani (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You lead an interesting life over there, Nish. Never know what I will hear about next. You might remind your superstitious neighbors that "later" is a relative term. Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You've done it again! Another interesting-looking recent book on Hazlitt and some of his contemporaries, I see, of which I had no idea. Now Milnes is another on my to-be-read list. The comparison with Kant is especially interesting in that Hazlitt is generally believed not to have rightly understood Kant, probably because he had to read him in a deficient translation. Yet their thinking intersects in fascinating ways. This is also additional justification for taking Hazlitt seriously as a philosopher. Maybe not as great as Kant, but considering all of Hazlitt's other accomplishments, well, that's not too shabby. Regards, Alan W (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the wayback machine of memory can quite fix it but I distinctly recall René Wellek, whose erudite panache dazzled my youth, having a go at Hazlitt's views on Kant. I can't find his multi-volume work at the moment, but will look into this.Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Found it. René Wellek, A History of Modern Criticism, 1750-1950, Vol.2 (1955) Cambridge University Press pp.195-212. Can you access that, or would you like me to make a précis? Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nish, but I am already somewhat acquainted with Wellek on Hazlitt, as I took copious notes on that book a few years ago, and then used some of that in Characters of Shakespear's Plays. I'm thinking that Milnes is probably enough, regarding Hazlitt and Kant compared. Remember, this is the general article on Hazlitt, not specifically on Hazlitt as philosopher. Also, I have mixed feelings about Wellek on Hazlitt. Though he was one of the first to recognize that "there is more theory in Hazlitt than is generally realized", in many ways he dismisses him too readily as an "impressionistic" critic. Only in the next couple of decades did critics really start to grasp what Hazlitt's criticism and philosophy were all about. Once again, though, in a way you probably did not realize, you helped me by bringing up Wellek. After some five years, I just now realized that, although I even quoted Wellek in what I wrote about critical responses to the Characters, I neglected to add the book to the list of References, which I just did only now. Thank you! Regards, Alan W (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've had some second thoughts, while relaxing over a later dinner. We might still have a use for Wellek later on, in that expansion of the "Posthumous Reputation" section I've mentioned as something I've wanted to do for some time. Wellek on Hazlitt certainly represents a notable advance in critical assessment of Hazlitt in the mid-twentieth century. Hold those thoughts! --Alan W (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually your first response is how I see Wellek's piece as well. I read it as indicative of a certain irritated hauter by a great critic still prey to the Roman Jakobson-propelled idea that reading literature could be reduced to a science, tinged with a certain fastidious envy for an intuitive bright spark whose work defied systemization. The essay is a curious one - starting with a vigorous professorial prosecution of the case for frivolous subjectivity and then suddenly doing a volte-face to own up that, the case for the prosecution, though sound, doesn't quite convince its drafter, who then goes on to plead for the accused he himself has somewhat hastily indicted. It read like a semi-autobiographical short story of the critic broad enough in his sympathy, and sensitive enough to the odour of prejudice, to realize that he was throwing the babe out with the barfwater he'd just got off his erudite chest.:)Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, and amusingly, put. I agree, and I'm certainly not abandoning my first response. I will add that, yes, Hazlitt was "impressionistic" in a way, but that way has to be understood as Hazlitt himself explained it, with one's impressions being balanced by careful and thoughtful reading and application of judgment. "Frivolous subjectivity" is absolutely not what Hazlitt's "intuitive" approach was about, though, yes, that seems to be the way Wellek took it. Wellek, as "scientific" critic, didn't seem to understand how Hazlitt was not being unscientific, he rather believed in the value of bringing one's whole person to bear on the reading of a literary work. Not that you said so, but my second and first thoughts are not contradictory. One could write a whole article just on critical attitudes toward Hazlitt, and something might be said about some key figures who were wrong-headed about Hazlitt over the years. I think many have been uncomfortable because he did not answer to their idea of a professional critic, who should be stuffy, pedantic, and dictatorial, and maybe arrogantly dismissive, like T.S. Eliot, who asserted that Hazlitt did not have a very interesting mind. Can you believe that? It was certainly as interesting a mind in its way as Eliot's own. Regards, Alan W (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Eliot did not have an interesting mind: he had a very complex nature, what the ancients called 'soul', and for a few brief and intense periods, wrote the few great poems we all have by heart out of that travailed state. His decision to be a 'great critic' sealed his poetry, since the former required a polished set of dogmatic prejudices that were inimical to the creative chaos that inspired his poetry. He needed Pound because P's wildness was what he had forsaken, but, for poetry P had that ability to rein in to cogent form the demons Eliot came out with. Both ended up victims of their own worse traits - Eliot with his masque of dyed-in-the-wool dessicated 'traditionalism' and Pound with his passions run to seed in ranting fascism.Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Spot-on, and beautifully expressed, as usual. Whew, ridiculously late over here, so good night! --Alan W (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Accusation of bad faith
Please WP:AGF and do not accuse other editors of lying, as here: I realized today that I was still smarting from this unwarranted attack. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not an accusation of lying. It is an observation that you repeatedly said an article could be improved by sourcing. I happen to know it can't but invited you to live up to your belief and prove by editing that it was capable of amelioration. You didn't follow through. That's not 'lying'. It's just not following through on an assertion that, in lieu of evidence, struck, and still strikes, me as hollow. The observation was warranted and a challenge to improve an article is not an attack.Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Lydda and Ramle
Kindly restore the longstanding version to 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle, which you changed while discussion was ongoing (for all of 3 days). When there's an RfC we keep the longstanding version in the article until a clear consensus is reached. This has been tested at AE and people got topic banned for what you just did. If you do not restore the version that has been there for years, I will have to report you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, 5 editors over some days by comment or reverts said that your objection to the revised edit didn't stand examination. Nothing you said there makes much sense policy wise, it is, in my view, sheer wikilawyering against what is obviously an WP:NPOV obligation to register the Palestinian term for this 'exodus' as attested by numerous sources.
 * Notwithstanding the talk page evidence that you were alone in objecting to the edit, you kept reverting (i.e. edit-warring against a 5 to 1 talk page/edit consensus), made a final revert simultaneously (04:12, 28 March 2016‎ ) as you set up an RfC (04:12, 28 March 2016‎ ). I gather what you were doing was ignoring the clear consensus of 5 editors against your own opinion to 'lock in' your preferred version, which looks to me like trying to game the system.
 * You make a technical issue here of this, blaming me. For three days this was thrashed out in a wall of text, and you gained zero support. Now I see you are meditating an AE ban for me as well. In sum (a) for 3 days you alone challenged what 5 editors saw as a reasonable edit; (b) you made one last revert and immediately tried to lock it in to the text you prefer by opening an RfCF and (c) you then threaten to take me to AE if I don't respect this gamesmanship. This all strikes me as looking at the rulebook's minutiae to get one's way, while stonewalling in an uncollegial fashion, and, the final gambit, once more to use some scrap of theory to get me, as you have often tried in the past, banned as bad for wikipedia. I go by consensus and what my betters, in administration, advise. And another thing. I actually don't sit round hairsplitting and opinionizing: I spend a lot of time actually gathering sources, only to have them dismissing by editors who do not appear to actually be interested in working constructively, as opposed to getting rid of stuff they dislike. Compare your lazy but pointy edit this morning, which removed long standing text, which anyone who knows the subjects will recognize as factual, to my fix after Debresser rightly restored it. I.e., at 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle you are arguing long standing text can't be tampered with, and threaten AE action if anyone contradicts you. Simultaneously you remove longstanding text at Israelites. Go figure.  Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion was open for all of 3 days, on a holiday weekend. It's true that I reverted once per BRD and one driveby revert by an editor that has still not participated in the discussion, which I will also bring up at the appropriate board if this comes to that. There is plenty of precedent that the longstanding version remains in the article, both per BRD and when an RfC is open. The only uncollegial thing here is you people abusing your numbers advantage to push something (stupidly, I must add, since if the discussion had gone on for a reasonable amount of time I would not have reverted something a new consensus would have formed around, but you guys just couldn't wait). Anyway, I don't understand your answer above. Are you saying "report me" or "I'm waiting for more opinions"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Israelites - WP:V - Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. These two cases are not the same, as I'm fairly sure you know. Not to mention that what I removed was incorrect, which is probably why it wasn't sourced. Anyway, I'm not interested in chitchat and back and forth. Can you please tell me explicitly if you prefer to restore the longstanding version or if I should report you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (A)Israelites - WP:V Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed
 * Yeah sure. Construed thus, out of best practice context (see below) this would mean operatively that 98% of sentences in Wikipedia can be removed at whim, if the deleter can't see a ref after the full stop. No serious editor construes it that way.
 * It didn't need a source. All removalism like that shows is either (a) dislike (b) dislike of making a minimal effort to ascertain the facts or (c) sheer otiose ignorance of the subject matter, because what was removed is one of the most widely know facts about the meaning of that Greek word which lies behind all Western language terms for the Jews. Don't tell me you have never read the article Jews where exactly the same statement is made:'in origin the term for a member of the tribe of Judah or the people of the kingdom of Judah.' Utterly uncontroversial, immediately verifiable for anyone who doesn't automatically hit the delete button for stuff (s)he dislikes on a page, by simply googling for 5 seconds "ioudaios+people of judah" =54,000 ghits. Why didn't you google? Why didn't you post a citation needed tag as advised? why didn't you notify the talk page? No need to answer.
 * This is the context whose options for the nescient you studiously ignored.
 * "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."


 * (B)'you people abusing your numbers advantage to push something'. 'You guys'.
 * Compare this other page, where you and another editor who never edit there turn up to make a consensus against me. I didn't whine or get my knickers into a twist. I saw a consensus for removal, and dropped it in deference to that fact.
 * So, twice you are complaining about what you discern in others as a pattern of behavior you yourself could be said to avail yourself of. (a) One mustn't tamper with long-standing text (except when it suits you, and you can find a policy excuse); (b)'you guys have the numbers', it's unfair (except when you yourself find you have a numerical superiority). There is no cogency in your approach to editing.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you're now casting aspersions on my edits, I feel obliged to respond. I do edit that page, I just don't edit with as much quantity as you. In addition, I never said it can't be included, I just said wait until it happens before trying to put it in. And if you go through the archives, I have posted there before that property confiscation is not violent incidents, and IIRC, it was you who responded that it was, so clearly you know I edit on that page. You don't own the page, if I choose not to edit that does not mean I am never allowed to edit that page in the future. You don't WP:OWN the page. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't cast aspersions. Yes, you tweaked the page 10 times in 3 months - my memory lapse. My point is that if a consensus exists, I don't bitch about it and murmur about some ganglike opposition- No one knows who has what on her watchlist, I actually do not mind being a minority of one - because it tells me that many editors who often agree with me on edits do not automatically show up and 'vote', a guarantee that people in here disdain groupthink. Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Two people disagreeing with you is not groupthink. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 20:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Learn how to read, precisely and fairly.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it, sometimes my brain reads faster than my eyes. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 13:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitism
So should that be tagged? And wasn't it me saying I was up early? Commenting on the ABBPIA bit? KB needs to be careful about his religious edits, although his userpages suggest he's an equal opportunity editor. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're sleep-hungover and I'm so absent minded I left water running in my pond for 4 hours while distracted by that article, and almost killed the goldfish - poor little buggers all hunched at the bottom, close to asphyxiation, I gather, since a radical water change alters the oxygen supply.

Do you mean:'does the anti-Zionism article need an anti-Semitic tag or link at the bottom (?). If so, I have no objection, though I personally think anti-Semitism has had, for the first century of Zionism, little to do with criticism of Zionism. In the last 2 decades, there has been a parasitical use by anti-Semites of everything traditional anti-Zionists have written, and at the same time, many have followed Robert Wistrich in trying to conflate the two, with disastrous results conceptually and arguably politically (if criticism of a government's policies is intrinsically racist/anti-Semitic, then that is an open remit for that government not to fix anything, since they have a bullet-proof alibi to ignore everyone). In any case, I don't pay much attention to the cats here: the problem with these articles is the lack of comprehensive historical and synthetic construction of the topic's main themes. As to KB, he needs a strong reminder that there's no place here for bull-in-a-china-shop editing. But a lot of policy-canny editors get away with irresponsible reverts. Must check the fish.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Duck here almost ready to eat. I meant Antisemitism, sorry. The article on it. Doug Weller  talk 17:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably if only because it has a section on the Palestinian territories, though I could equally argue the other case. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Few things distract me, but if my negligence puts any animal at risk, I can't concentrate closely on anything else for a day or two. (No critical innuendo re your diet intended. I'm an omnivore, except for eating sparrows and owls in China, or whale meat in Japan). Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good luck with your fish. My duck was tasty. Did you have a gander at Kb's user Pages? Doug Weller  talk 20:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

To be fair to China...
Unless you took that Fitzherbert quotation on your user page out of context (I'm not accusing you of this), then he was kind of missing the Chinese government's point. I'd bet that probably 99% of Americans and Europeans who criticize China's involvement in Tibet are totally ignorant of the historical questions, and actively claim that Tibet is and always was a separate "country" from China, which was "invaded" in 1950s. They don't actually care about human rights abuses in Tibet or the rest of China (if they did they wouldn't hone in on the "China invaded Tibet" point), and in my experience (growing up in north Dublin in the 1990s and 2000s) a lot of them are just racists looking for an excuse to bash the Chinese (or "Asians" in general, presumably including ethnic Tibetans -- I once heard of a Japanese 語学留学生 friend of mine getting rocks thrown at her by protesters shouting "Free Tibet!"). We know that European imperialists were making this claim back in the 19th century to justify cutting China up and dividing it between themselves. I sympathize with the plight of the Tibetans, but I can also kind of see why constantly being told by westerners that "China is an imperialist power that invaded Tibet" is ridiculously offensive to the majority of Chinese, given the history.

I'm Irish and was a supporter of the Greens until their leader went out of his way to invite the Chinese ambassador to a Green Party conference solely to insult him and his country by talking about shit he doesn't understand, because almost no Irish people understand it, because they don't teach it in the schools.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

And yes, I am aware of the irony of accusing someone else of missing the point when I honed in on the content of your quotation and ignored the fact that the rest of your user page is about I-P issues, and the heading you gave that quote indicates that that is why that was there as well. I basically agree with most of what you and your sources say about the I-P problem, though, so there'd be no point arguing. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't care for being 'fair' to any political entity (China, Russia, America etc.). It's not a priority of governments in international affairs certainly to be fair. 99.999% of Chinese know nothing of Tibet for that matter, (the same could be said of the diaspora re Palestine.) It's quite simple: Tibet was a distinct country from 'China' culturally, linguistically, and socially. It constituted a major civilization, with a distinctive ecology, material life, social system, cultural patrimony, and distinct languages (the book titles in Tibetan literature run to, so far, 480,000 items). China, under a man who was to prove to be as genocidal socio-/psychopath, overran it. They believed that Mao's Little Red Book contained more wisdom that the Buddhist canon preserved better in Tibetan than in any other Asian language. I still haven't got over the anger I felt at the Red Guards swarming like a biblical insect plague into ancient monasteries of that of Jokhang in 1966 and the sight of ancient bronzes of Avalokiteśvara thrown off the top stories and lying smashed in the streets, or piles of medieval texts on bonfires. The invasions that secured modern Chinese suzerainty were barbaric; the administrations that followed bureaucratic nightmares; the Red Guards were illiterate thugs, and the Chinese government has pursued its Han racist nationalism there ever since, promoting ethnic cleansing of the landscape, and resource extraction. If the cost of this is ethnocide, they'll do it.Nishidani (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, I agree with just about everything you just said. I just don't like it when people are deliberately antagonistic. And in that same let's change the subject -- any housekeeping you need help with? I'm looking for stuff to contribute to at the moment, and if it'll take my mind of the diacritic and coma wars (I hate ANI...) I'll even happily wade into an Israel-Palestine sitshtorm. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)