This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nishidani. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It's a very complex point, requiring a good deal of archeological and Biblical-textual cross-inference and deduction, and therefore in the realm of hypothesis, (but I am slowly working on the relevant academic lit. re archeology of Hebron). Thutmose 111's expedition would have probably taken that route, but, apart from a single possible link between one of the three sons of the Anakim mentioned in the Bible, and an Egyptian ref. to a person of similar name, the topic is complex. In the late Bronze Age Hebron was deserted, as was Jerusalem, in part because of climate changes, but perhaps also because of the effect of military devastations.Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Not Thutmose (sixth Pharaoh of the Eighteenth Dynasty), Tahutmes III (XXVII dynasty) they are different Tahutmes well attested raid throughout Palestine gold bowl in Paris about taking Jaffa in the raid. Tahutmes was a vassal of the Assyrians...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, mate. Slow down. You wrote Tahutmes (the transcription itself smacks of early Egyptology) + Joseph's famine. So I thought you'd stuffed up XXVII for XVII, because Joseph's mythical famine story even if, as Josephus tries to do, linkable to Egyptian dynasties, has to be round 17th-18th dynasties, and not with the 27th dynasty which is contemporaneous, again, not with Assyrians, but with Cambyses Persian dynastic hegemony over the area. A thousand year gap, give or take a century. Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I suddenly thought hang on what about that golden bowl in Paris...I'm sure Tahutmes went through Hebron afterwards...There are loads of interesting bits about Hebron that have no mention. A fundamental link to Egyptian/Cambyses Persian history and not a mention.....sorry I'm on the scatter gun approach (bits and pieces surface at odd moments) as there is much missing to the story of Hebron, make that all the cities towns of Palestine and Israel....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
A Tuscan aristocrat I heard of went out every morning to hunt, with only one cartridge. Always spent as many hours as the blokes loaded to the gills with ammo and pump rifles. But his pleasure was higher: he waited for the perfect shot, just one, and then fired. There's indeed much missing, but everything in due time and course. There is a whole esoteric-mythological complex sited in Hebronite culture, much of it pagan, and only available in out-of-the-law bits of Talmudic and pagan lore. Not a word of it here. Perhaps in a year or so I may be in a position to edit on it.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep. I have a beautiful and rather rare academic monograph, amonmg several, that gives an inkling of what this was about. Viviana Pâques, l'arbre cosmique dans la pensée populaire et dans la vie quotidienne du nord-ouest africain, Paris, 1964. In any case, the 1925 article on the Kenites at Hebron (which I've entered into the text here) gives a good many useful hints.Nishidani (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Like most old texts, the information is in the commentaries and footnotes. Genesis is obscure in everything until one scrounges through the editorial details of transmissions, variorum accounts. The Terebinth complex seems like an archaic axis mundi theory rooted in that area, hence the esoteric traditions about Adam, the first man, and Hebron. Good start, but it needs a lot of work. Have to deal with this as a long-term article, since it is quite complex.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
As they say in Athens, fasouli to fasouli yemizi to sakouli ('Bean by bean the sack is filled': φασούλι το φασούλι γεμίζει το σακούλι.:)Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey QD got anything on:-
It is perhaps also where David reigned, as archaeological excavations show signs of towers and walls dating to the traditional times assigned to the Davidic kingdom and early monarchy
Had you just been reading this perchance when mentioning Mamre:-
Reconstructing the Past: The Creation of Jewish Sacred Space in the State of Israel, 1948–1967 Israel Studies - Volume 13, Number 3, Fall 2008, pp. 1-21
The outcome of Israel's War of Independence was the main catalyst for the creation of a new map of Jewish pilgrimage sites. Places of only secondary importance before the war now turned into central cult centers. Several categories of the sacred sites are discussed herein: sites in the possession of Jews before the 1948 war that were developed during the 1950s as central cult centers; sacred sites owned by Muslims prior to the war, which were "converted" into Jewish sacred sites during the 1950s; and new Jewish pilgrimage sites created only after the establishment of the State of Israel, whose importance relied exclusively on newly created sacred traditions.
Sorry, didn't notice this, Ashley. Yes, it's a world-historical (as the Germans write) phenomenon. There's a whole academic field devoted to the topic of how modernities 'invent traditions', as I often note on these pages. Nothing Jewish about it, since Christianity did the same to pagan cites, Islam idem, as indeed the early Israelites did to the land of Canaan, and probably the Canaanites before them. Mircea Eliade's books show how frequent this mythic hijacking of an adversary's sacred sites occurs.(Myth and Reality, pp.163ff., to cite just one text). I'm not familiar with that particular article though. One of the ironies is that Muslim place-names often conserve Jewish names, which in turn were originally puns on Canaanite place-names. Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
A content dispute is not vandalism
I noticed you are engaged in a slow-moving edit war with an anonymous IP editor at Shuafat. Your last 4 reverts have labeled the IP editor's actions as "vandalism', such as here. Please be advised that this is a content dispute, but most certainly not vandalism. You may be interested in reading WP:VANDALISM, specifically [Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism|this section], which clearly says that NPOV violations (which this may possibly be), as well as stubbornness (which this clearly is), are NOT vandalism. Falsely accusing users of vandalism is a breach of civility. Please refrain from doing this. NoCal100 (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you enjoy using a schoolmarmish tone in remonstrating with serious editors who revert vandalism? I can't see any other reason for blotching my page with this ridiculous and extraordinary admonition. I will continue to revert as vandalistic the anonymous I/P editor who is reintroducing without justification a piece of disinformation, in an area he has no record of consistent editing or experience of, as part of my wikipedian duties to help maintain pages clean of anonymous snipers posting falsehoods, without discussion or adequate justification.
(a)This is not a content dispute. The text the anonymous I/P editor is inserting is false and not verifiable. The text I restore is not false, but verifiable, and happens to reflect the legal situation with Shuafat. It is a compromise worked out over time.
(b) You are troubled I reverted this kibitzer's vandalism. But I note you have left no warning to him or her on the relevant talk page, for the habit of reverting the consensual phrasing. Hence your call here is not only judgemental, but biased towards support of the anonymous vandal.
(c) I use the word 'vandal' because the I/P user's talk page is full of it, as administrators review his or her edits over the last year or so.
Administrators who have characterized this I/P user's edits as vandalistic (I bot included)
I am counting the number of rare pages I edit where you have begun to pop up, usually with the same subfusc hostility. I'm not a complainer, but the pattern is noted, and looks like wikistalking.Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:VANDALISM. Inserting information which is false is not vandalism. I did not leave a warning for the anonymous IP because she/he did not call your editing vandalism. The fact that other edits by this IP might have been vandalism does not make this edit war vandalism. If you persist, I will report you. 14:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoCal100 (talk • contribs)
..I.e., wikilawyering. It is, again, not an edit-war. Have you never recovered from my correcting you on the distinction in English between 'flaunt' and 'flout'? Is it that which is behind this bickering at my heels over nugatory matters as you trail me about? Try to edit the encyclopedia for content, and not waste your own or my time pettifogging. Pimp on me if that's your fancy, play the wiki vigilante by stalking my edits, play the grass for this humongous infraction of wikipedian editorial practices, this calling a spade a spade of mine on a piece of trivial defacing of the Shuafat page that apparently threatens to bring down the I/P edifice in ruins if tolerated! You're splitting hairs on trivia over a minor page, and one asks, cui bono? Next time, just dob me in to the flics, and don't bore me with the details. This page is for collaborative dialogue on substance. Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Personal insults are yet another violation of WP:CIVIL. It seems you are just begging for someone to report your obnoxious behavior. Keep it up, and it will not be long in coming. NoCal100 (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Nothing personal old chap. This is a symptom of a malaise that occasionally invests this encyclopedia. Pot-shotting at minutiae with finicky casuistry over rules instead of editing in substance. I'm not impressed, and not intimidated. You're a free agent. Do as you will, but don't post prissy admonitions on my page, except when you feel compelled, by way of salvaging the integrity of Wikipedia from my outrageous behaviour, to notify me of some complaint to be laid before the appropriate administrative board. Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, you're not familiar with my record. I've been dobbed in a few times without warning, and don't complain, except if my boredom threshold is at an all-time low, and I reply on the appropriate admin page about pettifogging. I refuse to read rule-books, just as I refuse to study the physiology of ambulation. I know how to walk. I know how articles are to be composed. My defect is that I don't know enough to edit as much as I should like, and prefer to read up propaideutically on edits to be made, rather than frig round in gonfalon-waving and traffic tiffs.Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
A quick thought .. I don't wish to prolong this thread on your talk page Nishidani, but I'm a little bemused by the sight of someone coming here brandishing WP:CIVIL and complaining about alleged "insults", while at the same time describing your behaviour as "obnoxious" (by one definition "odiously or disgustingly objectionable") and simultaneously accusing me of deceit and subterfuge on another page. --Nickhh (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Water off a duck's back, mate. I probably am obnoxious, in one POV, and those who subscribe to it are welcome to entertain the judgement as long as they don't bore me with the details. I don't think it's worth complaining about. I used to think it odd, until I found out the average age of editors in here, and learnt to laugh these things off with a bit of banter. I don't think one should worry about provocation or its phalanx buddy prevarication, other than remark on it. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) In my opinion, it's definitely a content dispute, not vandalism. WP:VAND says, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." I've added the page to my watchlist. I would appreciate it, Nishidani, if you would post to the article talk page a link or links to the earlier discussion where consensus was established, and to reliable sources if they're not adequately referenced in that discussion. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay. That's fine by me. I will withdraw from the page, keep it on my watchlist, and closely observe how both you and NoCal100 behave when the two tagteam (see their records for Haifa Street and Shuafat)) anonymous I/P editors [1][2] revert 'Palestinian' to 'Arab' and 'the de facto borders of Israel' to 'within Israel's borders' (untrue, see the Jerusalem page for an extensive literature on the 1967/1980 laws in legal perspective.) I'll enjoy examining how you both react to these two changes. No experienced I/P editor, from either side, i.e., Canadian Monkey, NoCal100, Tiamut, Prince elias, Rjwilmsi, Gilabrand, NSH001, or myself has challenged that NPOV edit since Ashley Kennedy made it on the 26th of July. If you find these anonymous tagteamers' reverting acceptable, you'd do well to explain why the two points they assert, without once giving a summary justification of, or defense for, are in tune with NPOV. Keep me tuned. Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
List of villages that suddenly get moved into Israel when the Jerusalem boundary got moved? I do not believe such a list has been made....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting the error...the wee digits get out of control at times. I'm a useless typist but make up for it by being really slow.. The book list is the ones by the computer, upstairs has quite a few more....the U value of my walls has been greatly enhanced with the addition of a foot thick coating of paper...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Misc.
Thanks, was hoping for your response, given the references, which I had not pursued. I will continue to follow Alfred’s’s approach. Our cast of mind is as naturally varied as our backgrounds; I’ve moved from hotter I/P subjects as being largely frustrating, wasted effort, but on occasion have some small change to add. The badge is accepted similarly, but spelled differently (a minor bias), and I feel a similar respect for the specific departed. I concur with your future path, having rung that bell twice.
I seem to have developed my own niche, generally related to historic events and people and am, thus far, more content with the progress toward NPOV. I also added about 20 books for my esoteric library while stateside, as well as getting access to some document/article archives. I am more broadly prepared and potentially skillful,… but still cant type worth a damn. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
seeking aid to move an article
Nishidani I am seeking help in moving an article to a place that is alreay a redirrect to the article:
Caesarea Phillippi to Caesarea Philippi. where Caesarea Philippi is already a redirrect to Caesarea Phillippi. (the more common spelling is with a single L, 89,600:1,360 on google search)
I'm f***ed if I know. I watch these redirects occur, swig on the bottle on my desk, and dolefully wheeze: 'Cripes these kids are cluey!' Strictly boffin stuff. Drop a note to Neil, unless in the meantime you can't find a traffic cop on a wikipage dealing with technical stuff. Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
You commented recently on my talk page about Tundrabuggy's behaviour in wikistalking me on articles relating to ancient Babylonian history. Unfortunately he's continued this behaviour, having blown off all the comments and advice from others about his conduct. I've therefore raised the issue at WP:AN/I#User:Tundrabuggy. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nishidani! Thanks for the note :) I didn't think you noticed the RfA, but it's nice to know that apparently most users who worked with me here and there did. By the way, 'other side of the border'? I never caught where you lived. Can you tell or is it private information? Cheers, Ynhockey(Talk)21:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
If you provoke me with a short statement that begs many questions, and I dutifully and courteously clarify by answering those questions implicit in your statement,please do not be obtusely rude by then blotching my page with a priggishy pompous admonition reflecting only your fantasies of rule abuse. I won't erase this nonsense, but please think twice before playing these games on this page, which is for intelligent consultation on editing. Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Cautionary note to self. This has obvious uses, if the 'game' I've been challenged in is another possible charade of three-dimensional wikichess.Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani,
I apologize if you felt provoked by my clarification to what you described as an "extraordinary phenomenon in American politics".[3] Still, an explanation of the phenomenon is not a flag in for you to write essays about Israel being guilty by association of killing 19,000 ("mostly civilians") Lebanese without any valid reason (as far as you are in concern). This demonization and application of moral panic towards Israelis seems to have been preplanned with a "misunderstanding" of US policy and your usual smear campaign against "horn-blower(s)".[4]
For your information, 'hornblower' in English, does not automatically conjure up shofars at the wall of Jericho, except in the mind of people who read everything as a conspiracy against Israel. It denotes, in the real world, a character in maritime fiction, someone who sounds off with his klaxon when in traffic, a fellator or what the Germans call an adept at Prahlerei. The rubbish about 'demonization' I've leave to the kibitzing fantasists in this small corner of wikiworld. As to 'moral panic', yes, I've read several Israeli newpapers reporting new 'existential threats' by the hour for a decade or so, every day. Let's drop it.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
These comments are not helpful but I now realize that your initial "extraordinary phenomenon in American politics" was probably just a rhetorical statement of support for the Palestinian plight rather than a true expression of misunderstanding. My apologies for giving it a reply with a link to the PLO poisoning oranges in Europe story.
I'm still in two minds as to whether a Chardonnay or a Brunello would be the proper wine for our table tonight. I'll check to see what my wife is cooking up. That should restrict the choice.Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Stalking pattern. A reference list
NoCal100. This is not a threat. Merely a public record, to which I will add as the evidence firms.
First encounter. Eleland AN/I. Corrected said editor on the distinction between 'flaunt' and 'flout'. Fix the diffs tomorrow
Off-hand then
Okay, I'll start organizing this stuff over the next few days. Nothing will be done of course. These people stalk to unnerve serious editors with needling editing and reverts and deletions to exhaust people's patience. He has obviously succeeded in getting your scalp. Since Wikipedia doesn't take this stalking behaviour seriously, other than writing essays about it, perhaps one should just withdraw for a month or two in protest. It won't change things, but at least leave the stalkers without a running target to chase, until perhaps they weary of it. Sorry to see you copped a sanction. Your words were excessive, and yet, as with Eleland's case, wholly understandable. This place is not quite serious about serious content editing. It is fascinated by sticklers for form, and that is why kibitzing nigglers who enjoy messing about are so successful here. They don't have to read up on a subject, but merely ride shotgun on pages others build, and fire broadsides about POV, WP:AGF, WP:Civil, etc. They appear to have taken great heart at the outcome of the Muhammad al-Durrah fiasco, which saw the victory of a new POV-warrior pushing a violation of WP:Fringe and WP:Undue over a content editor. This after the new regulations had calmed down these games for some months early this year, POV edit-warriors and POV-sleuthes started to wander in, and refire the old programmatic disruptiveness. You'll never get a formalist of the finest acumen to understand this, though. They're too prepossessed by etiquette to worry about the content of a dispute. Cheers, Ashley.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
(2) This trivial note appeared to seed a grievance. He trailed me to the Nafez Assaily page, which I wrote, and which the now banned User :Einsteindonut had, as a measure of retaliation, but also for his own POV-pushing on I/P articles, just endeavoured to get deleted. Hardly anyone had looked at that page. It is only known to people who scour my page. Einsteindonut did so as to wipe out evidence of the existence of a Palestinian pacifist which I had documented.
(5) A day after Ashley kennedy3 asked me if I could go over an article he has worked extensively on, and I had, in reply to the request done a preliminary copy-edit on the first part, NoCal100 turns up and did a mass delete Banias
‘Shuafat is an Arab town within the borders of Israel as part of north-eastern Jerusalem' here
(1)I reverted on the 16th of October back to
'Shuafat is a Palestinian town within the de facto borders of Israel as part of north-eastern Jerusalem'.
My edit explained: 'reverted ideology’. Why? 7 experienced editors including strongly ‘pro-Israeli’ editors like User:Canadian Monkey, had found since July nothing wrong with the original edit by Ashleykennedy, which conformed to the reference note 1 to Kershner. (I’d noted way back that her name is misspelled, in the footnote directed to colleagues. While all are prepossessed by possible POVs, no one will change this, one more proof that POV hunting predominates over serious editing.) Kershner wrote:
‘the latest such finds is a narrow strip of antiquity that runs down the middle of a main road through what is now Shuafat, a Palestinian neighborhood in north Jerusalem. . . . touching on one of the most contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the ownership of the city that the Israelis and Palestinians claim as their capital. . . The government expanded the city limits to take in outlying Palestinian villages like Shuafat, and annexed them. The Palestinians were offered Israeli citizenship, but considering themselves illegally occupied, most refused, choosing permanent residency . . most of the world do not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem and other areas occupied in the 1967 war.’
The edit therefore ignored the source and was ideological. The reference supports Ashley Kennedy’s nuanced version ('Palestinian' 'de facto'), as several editors for thre months did not question. That 'Palestinian' for 'Arab' is by now the vox propria does not have to be argued on several hundred pages, repetitively. 'Arab' could be anyone from Saudi Arabia to Morocco. It has been also accepted that Israel never annexed that land, and that the borders (which are not in international law determined unilaterally) are provisory de facto borders. Many articles accept this.
(2) Within another half hour, my revert was reverted in turn by a new anonymous IP editor, and I immediately reverted it with the explanation ‘Undid.The border is not recognized. Hence de facto’
(3)Only on the third revert in what was now a tagteam operation by again 24.62.27.63 did I explain my revert back by remarking on vandalism, ‘Rv vandalism’.
(4) The anonymous IP editor 24.62.27.63 reverted my restoration back again the next day, and, after a half a day has passed without any other traditional editor intervening to restore the damage, I cancelled his revert, explaining the edit as Revert ideological vandalism'.
(5)Three days later his anonymous companion 64.119.142.118 restored the ideological POV-driven edit and, within an hour, I restored the consensual edit speaking of Rt vandalism of an ideological kind'.
(6) At this point, as Ashley Kennedy and I, both customary editors there, were editing, User:NoCal100 steps in to post a severe warning over my page on reverting the tagteamers’ abuse as ‘vandalism’. The tone of voice was that of an administrator, not of a mere editor like myself here. Several things were wrong. He was wikistalking. Secondly he warned me against edit-warring, without saying anything on the pages of the two anonymous I/P editors who were certainly edit-warring in a tagteam effort to restore a non-consensual and false statement that did not reflect the source. Third, I’d explained twice the reasons why the anonymous tagteam revert was false, the two editors did not reply but persisted. I therefore branded their combined effort ‘ideological vandalism’. Fourthly, I'd spoken of vandalism thrice not four times. Fifth, he tried to make this out to be a content dispute by (a) ignoring that seven editors had never challenged AK’s edit for three months (b) ignoring that the source quoted for the controversial sentence supports AK’s edit, and does not support the tagteam anonymous IPs’ edit, Since he aimed his dart only at me, and had obviously ignored an examination of the content of Kershner’s note, this was further evidence that he had me in his sights, and not the need to write to that page to NPOV standards.
(7)He then proceeds to edit the Shuafat page, challenging (in my view legitimately, PR). But his attack on me for behaving responsibly motivated his entry there, as did his subsequent behaviour.
(9)What has occurred over the last four days? None of the three has checked the Kershner reference, none has warned the two anonymous I/P editors of edit-warring, none has reverse them, despite the fact that the edit they supporti s not supported by the source. They in short approve. Their problem is monitoring Nishidani, PR, or Ashley Kennedy, not writing according to sources. This is what much of I/P editing is all about. If you don't have the courage to make a bad edit, wait for some anonymous I/P to do it, and attack any pro-Palestinian editor who challenges it. That is why Ashley Kennedy got pissed off, and that is why I think far too many colleagues in here are engaged in an irresponsible farce. I challenged PR, they back each other, even if in their midst an idiot or two crops up. I suppose, for Elonka, this is just another piece of Nishidani's 'rhetoric' Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. To make it clear -- or probably, more confused -- I would (reluctantly) accept the use of the term "Jewish terrorism" to describe the gang who attacked Bassam Shaka'a in 1980, since that was how they were widely described in the Hebrew press of the time (in order, presumably, to distinguish them from "Arab terrorists"). But this seriously distorts the political picture, and reinforces the mistaken view -- useful, however, to some -- that the conflict in Palestine is between religious communities, rather than beteween national communities or political ideologies.
But I would mainatin that this term is totally inappropriate for the situation before 1948, and indeed for most subsequent terrorism from the Israeli/Zionist side. Although Israel and the Zionist movement claim to be acting "in the name of the Jewish people", we do not have to accept this; and much of my life in the external world is devoted to combatting that very claim. Not all terrorism carried out by a Jew is "Jewish terrorism", just as not all crime committed by a Jew is "Jewish crime", and we have to be precise and careful in our use of terms.
In the same way, I am very unhappy with the blanket use of the term "Islamic terrorism" for many of the acts carried out apparently by Muslims. It is probably appropriate in the case of attacks on churches in Pakistan; but what about the attacks on Shi'ite mosques? And it is not, to my mind, at all appropriate in the case of armed attacks on foreign forces in Iraq; nor in the case of attacks, whether in the 1967-occupied territories or within the state of Israel. These -- irrespective of any debate about their legitimacy or illegitimacy -- are nationalist, not religious, attacks.
I am concerned, beyond my own political campaigning, that by adopting these terms we are actually in danger of miscategorising the phenomena they purport to define. And this would certainly be unencyclopaedic. Do think this through a bit further before you concur with this usage. RolandR (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Will RolandR be removing Hamas, Hizb'allah, Qassams et al from Islamic terrorism; as they from nationalistic movements and not based on Islam...the phrase "wanting your cake and eating it comes to mind....Being unhappy and doing something about it appear to be 2 entirely different things...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Always think twice before acting on Roland's edits. If you think something odd, there is usually, on examination, some real principle at stake that has slipped passed one's attention, and that he has fished out of the waters. I'm still thinking over your exchange. I too am worried by possible unintended consequences, but I can see his point. RegardsNishidani (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
One could do with one who has a bit more flare for writing to check over ones attempt at the Banias article. If one has a spare couple of minutes....Yes this one did check over ones corrections on Mamre....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Good work. Brings back fond memories. Saw it with a group of 40 odd kibbutzniks one torrid day. Everyone sat down in a lather by the brook. I stripped off, keffiyah and all (I insisted on this as part of my work-gear on the kibbutz) informed those of delicate sensibility to look the other way, and dove into the spring for a skinny-dip. Odd thing was several of the others stripped off as well, young men and women, and we had a delightful time in those fresh waters. I'll look it over, thinking of that day.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani, hi, is it alright if I setup an archivebot for your talkpage? The page is currently very long, over 350K, and some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K. However, I could set up a bot which would automatically archive any threads which had been inactive for a certain amount of time (30 days?). Then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. Let me know? :) --Elonka03:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
That is very kind of you, Elonka. I have an old man's fears of anything automatic though, and this would induce recurrent nightmares of me drivelling garrulously only to see the stream of gabbling words cut off half way through a meditation, or what some call logorrhea, to disappear into the dark infinity of some archive! Actually, I have adopted a guardian angel, an Arielesque figure of invisible grace in Wiki, who's given up on trying to make me behave, but does review my spelling, reformat my incompetent edits, and generally try to ride herd on my brumbie ways. The way to get him to do this is to write the following piece of computer code in Caps, 'NEIL! HALP! BOT THE BACKLOG, PLEEASE!' Let's see if this works, silently. It may take a few days: since he only edits on the trot while dropping by for a cuppa on one of his many marathon runs. If this doesn't work, then I'll certainly appeal to your mastery of these arcane HarryPotteresque arts. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani, I recommend you take up Elonka's kind offer - I have no experience in setting up archive bots, and haven't got the time to research which one is best (my own talk page doesn't suffer quite the same "logorrhea" as yours ). However, you should give the matter a little thought first:
be aware sections will be archived in a different order than they appear in the original (they will be archived by date of "death", rather than date of "birth")
give some thought to how long you want stuff to stay around before archival (my instinct is that it should be somewhat longer than 30 days)
I am assuming that Elonka can do this in such a way as not to mess up your existing archives (another point I would need to research first, if I were doing it myself).
Incidentally, I seem to have acquired a stubborn achilles injury which has put paid to any thoughts of running (let alone marathons) for the forseeable future. However, I'm still spending a lot of time cross-training. Maybe I should update my user page to that effect, if only to stop you mentioning it
Okay, I gave it my best shot, in terms of a manual archive, though I can still setup a bot if you'd like. In terms of what I did manually though:
I archived all threads off the talkpage which had seen no activity in a week or so. Mostly this kept them in order, though there were a very few that looked like one off post/reply threads in late October, which I extracted to archive as well. This has reduced the talkpage size down to under 50K, which is still long, but much more manageable.
I took the liberty of changing the naming scheme for some of the existing archives, by moving them to more "standardized" names. The old names will still work, as I have left them as redirects. For example, the (old) name of User talk:Nishidani/Archives/October-December 2007 now redirects to User talk:Nishidani/Archive 3. The advantage of the standardized numeric names, is that you can now have automatic nav templates. For example, if you go to User talk:Nishidani/Archive 5, you will see that you now have arrows at the top which let you step forward and back through all the archive pages. The downside to this is that the archives are now only numbered and not named. If this is a major issue, I can put the pages back at the named versions. Let me know if you have a preference.
... it's always been a pleasure reading your contributions. Didn't even occur to me to think of them as "offensive"! (Though maybe I'm feeling a bit grumpy this morning after a crap training session where my times were a lot worse than they should have been, dunno why).
Adminstrators may formalize a ban. I take it as a protest strike in sympathy for consistent harassment of a very good editor.Nishidani (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani... To me it looks like the complaints about ChrisO's userpage are not going to result in any sanction or deletion. Most of the administrators commenting in that section at AN/I are advocating no response for various reasons. ChrisO edits in controversial areas - some criticism on the part of people in opposing camps is de rigeur, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of harassment. Avruch T 18:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
(5) Self-blocked indefinitely for violation of WP:Civil, in protest at the triumph of legalism over substance, starting 7 November 2008
The shocking frivolity of Ynhockey's remark on The Al-Aqsa Intifada talkpage has unfortunately induced me to break my own rule here. If anyone is checking this, I confirm my own self-suspension. Nishidani (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you take a look?
Hi Nishidani. I was wondering if you had the time or inclination to look over a new article I am working on: Q-D-S. Considering your aptitude for languages, any input you may have on how to clarify or improve the text would be deeply appreciated. Hope you are well my friend. Tiamuttalk11:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
New bot sure archives things fast!
Anyway, thanks for the offer (and the delivering) of help. I often go off to write these esoteric articles only very slightly and remotely related to Palestine so as to get away from the rough-and-tumble played at pages like Second Intifada. It was after all, an Arbcomm reccomendation. But it's always interesting to see who ends up pursuing me (or in this case maybe you) there. Too often the very same people I tend to be fleeing. Oh well.
Do keep your eye on things around here Nishidani. We need eyes that still know how to read, and brains that still know how to write around here quite badly. Take care my friend. Tiamuttalk17:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Books, books, and more books,
Hi Nishi,
I noticed that you have added books to the page User:Huldra/Sources, + my talk-page, thanks!
However, you might have missed it, but user:Timeshifter was bold sometime ago, and copied the (old) page to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palestine/Sources (and linked it from the very top of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palestine). So, *that* is the page I am updating now (and yes, I have added your contributions.)
For Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palestine/Sources note especially two things: firstly; the list of places which now "collect" books on the net; see "Major sources to find old books listed." The last one that I found was University of Pennsylvania; those "collections" are *very* useful!
Secondly; not all of the old books are equally relevant (and *that* was a big understatement..) ..I try to find the most relevant by looking for those used in modern-time books.... therefore the list with Doumani, Khalidi etc. I also try to identify those books which are obviously important, and old enough to be publically available on the net (but still isn´t.) Baldensperger and Canaan`s "Mohammedan Saints" are two obvious examples.
Hi. Fyi, I have now added material from the end of the FAZ article you mentioned to the JIDF article. A JIDF rep is nit-picking. Also the Haaretz article which was mentioned as forthcoming in our thread here a couple of months back is now linked from the JIDF article--Peter cohen (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Words of thanks
For your notes about the etymology of kudos and your edits at Q-D-S. I'm sorry I did not take your earlier advice and stooped to using WP:AE, but his pestering has really been driving me nuts. I should just disengage, but he has a knack of getting involved where I am in the process of focusing my editing passions to spend endless bytes arguing over a link in the see also section. Its a pattern and it's exhausting and I'm not actually hopeful that it will change. I mean really, it's like high school [5]. He repeats the same stuff he's said all over the Talk:Q-D-S page, and his comments have nothing to do with the actual contents of the Al-Quds (disambiguation) page. He's like a boy in class pulling at my fucking braids, and I'm like the girl who went running off to tell the teacher. Anyway, I appreciate your interventions as always. Tiamuttalk00:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I appreciate the "evil boy" analogy just because you refuse to compromise on the simplest of issues and go "running off to tell the teacher" instead of possibly consider dispute resolution. My comments have merit and ignoring them and reverting and complaining of MY soapboxing against Muslims (not a quote) is really poor form considering people involved. JaakobouChalk Talk09:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
You're on record as believing Islamic culture is a terrorist one, and that all Arabs are engaged in a century-long terrorist campaign against Israel. Do you want me to repeat the diff. Anyone with a record of having said what you said there would think twice before engaging with Tiamut, esp. after insulting her subsequently. You're on record for insulting Tiamut. Your comments on the Q-D-S page are without merit. Now please allow me to reply, personally, to Tiamut's note of exasperation. You have wiki formalism on your side, but your behaviour is, in her regard, consistently crass, and your instinctive hostility to her as an Arab is by now well known. Of course, this is unprovable within the wiki system, but I for one refuse to reshape my words to conform to its distorting mirrors, which systematically elide the reality behind the mirror for the prim and prepared visage in it.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Tiamut, this is why he is so valued. Jaakobou's gifts lie in image improvement, nowhere else. He is totally incapable of understanding what collegial editing to NPOV standards requires. But he is endowed with marvellous Sitzfleisch, obstinacy, an infinite capacity for stonewalling on trivia, and that is why his many mates rush to defend him, precisely because he has finally mastered the formal airs of correctness, while maintaining that dour, crass 'We're right, you're all wrong' approach with a bulldozing energy and innocence of mien most of them cannot muster. Any major article he works on almost immediately seizes up in bureaucratic entanglements (Al-Aqsa Intifada, most recently). And I think he has a real conviction that he is a young, innocent paladin for a just cause, an Arab-free Palestine, working among malicious people (a Zionist of Ben-Gurion's kind: 'anyone who has moral scruples cannot be a Zionist'). I tried once by example to show how an article or two he mostly edited could be improved, Haim Farhi, for instance. One glaring thing there is an unattested statement that that figure helped the Baal Shem Tov immigrants in 1770. He dearly wanted that in. I could find no evidence for it. Were our roles reversed that would have been elided by tag-team insistence on proof, him in the lead. I let it stand, with a 'citation required' statement, just as at Ma'alot I let stand an article that violates a large number of wiki rules. They will exploit your generosity and collegial outlook, but will not budge an inch when the rules allow them to challenge all and everything, to what they conceive to be Israel's advantage. That is what working in I/P articles means - trying to keep honest amidst pullulating bad faith. Nothing can be done about this. Complaining is futile, because those administrators who understand intuitively the deeper drift of these games, and follow closely all respective behaviours, are few and far between. There was some improvement in atmosphere after the new Arbcom rules were emplaced early this year, but since September there has been a rapid recursion to tagteaming, silly POV-pushing to exhaust others' patience, and, is it?, wikihounding, with a few new faces joining the fray etc. The wikihounds are riding free, their victims sitting out their sanctions. Wiki's entire system privileges formalism over substance, legalism over intuitive assessment of the nature of the games people play. So, dearest Tiamut, never appeal. Just walk off, and merely note for the record what is going on. Palestinians have to put up with this infernal harassment in their everyday lives, where the rule is I litre of water to you, 10 to every Israeli; abundant water for settler farms whose produce is then illegally sold as Israeli products in Europe, and choked wells for Palestinian hardscrabblers, whose produce rots at the checkpoints etc. The same goes for editors who try to ensure that they are properly represented. There is no consolation as long as this area, as in the real world, enjoys a state of exemption, in which parity is not the aim, but sympathy for the overdog rules. For if you defend yourself in the real world, you are a terrorist, and if you complain in wiki, your record will be scoured to prove you are not the victim but a consistent abuser of some recondite rule in the infinite Kafkian wikibook of etiquette. It's a numbers game, and they have the numbers. There, another WP:SOAPBOX infraction. I'm sure our mutual acquaintence, or a friend, will find everything here to have me hauled over the coals. Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Nishidani,
Immediately after filing the request for help at WP:AE, and the first comment came back from Jayjg (talk·contribs), I knew I had opened myself up to a kind of target practice. I keep forgetting that we live in a world where it is permissible to say all kinds of nasty things about Muslims and Arabs, that could not be said about other religious and ethnic groups. Its as though September 11th gave bigots a carte blanche to vent their anti-Muslim biases. Being so aware of the history of Palestinian people, who have had every legal formalism on their side in international law and who appealed to the powers that be over and over again to no avail, I should, as you noted, be aware that this area enjoys a "state of exemption". Sometimes, I am too naive fo my own good. Really.
In any case, I think I will just ignore Jaakobou from now on. Utterly. I think I have the right to unilaterally disengage, as it were, and it will make my editing experience here so much more pleasant if when he follows somewhere, I just take off until he leaves again. Sure, it will be annoying if I am in the middle of doing something, but dealing with his tendentious arguments over minor details is much more annoying and energy draining. Anyway, thanks for your honest assessment. I appreciate you sharing those thoughts here. I'm sorry if my conversations with you end up causing you trouble of any kind. As I don't communicate off wiki about on wiki stuff though, this is really the only venue I have for these kinds of discussions.
Yes, it saves us so much time. I dislike saying privately how I read things, but if this infraction of mine has helped you to just ignore this kind of behaviour, perhaps it has served its purpose, and I can archive it. Un abbraccio, Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Nishidani
It's a very challenging subject since I have only basic familiarity proto-Sinaitic and proto-Canaanite alphabets and roots (it's kind of a hobby of mine). But I do love learning more about it all. And article like Q-D-S and K-B-D (also a work in progress), certainly allow me to that.
'On January 3, 1889, Nietzsche first exhibited apparent signs of mental illness. Two policemen approached him after he caused a public disturbance in the streets of Turin. What actually happened remains unknown, but the often-repeated tale states that Nietzsche witnessed the whipping of a horse at the other end of the Piazza Carlo Alberto, ran to the horse, threw his arms up around the horse’s neck to protect it, and collapsed to the ground.' Wikipedia
It's a sign of mental illness, apparently, to suffer excessively at certain sights.
At-Tuwani Reflection: Breaking Bread with Friends
Janet Benvie 18 November 2008
[Note: According to the Geneva Conventions, the International Court of
Justice in the Hague, and numerous United Nations resolutions, all Israeli
settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal. Most
settlement outposts are considered illegal under Israeli law.]
“I am sorry Janet, I will not be able to offer you tea and bread.” Khalil
told me. “The settlers killed my donkey and took everything in the bag”,
We were sitting on Khoruba Hill, where we often sit with Khalil, a young
Palestinian shepherd. Most days we accompany him as he makes his way over
the hills with his flock and his donkey. The route from his home to
Khoruba passes within sight of the illegal Israeli settler outpost of
Havot Ma’on.. Each day he leads his sheep on paths where his father and
grandfather walked, on land coveted by the settlers. As he leads his sheep
he attentively watches for Israeli settlers or soldiers who regularly
chase him off the land.
By mid morning, Khalil and his flock usually reach Khoruba. He will have
left home around 6:00 am, so, by 11:00 am he is ready for lunch. The
sheep, tired from their journey over the hills, mill around in small
groups, many of them lie down in the warmth of the winter’s mid-day sun.
Khalil gathers sticks for a fire and urges us to sit down, “Tfaddil”
(‘please’ in Arabic) he says, indicating a place for us to sit. He makes a
pot of traditional sweet Palestinian tea, and insists we share in his
lunch of home made bread, olives and potato slices.
Today we were not, as usual, drinking tea and watching the sheep graze
quietly. Today masked Israeli settlers chased Khalil and his flock,
hurling rocks and yelling threats. Khalil was able to run to a place of
safety with his flock, but watched helplessly as the settlers led his
donkey away. The donkey was later found dead (stabbed in the chest) at the
bottom of Khoruba Valley.
Khalil means 'friend' in Arabic. There is a sense of 'communion' sitting
on the hillside sharing tea and breaking bread together with friends. In
the midst of the brutal, senseless violence of the settlers our friend's
thoughts turned to us, “I am sorry Janet, I will not be able to offer you
tea and bread.”
Oh,it isn't something to apologise for. I was merelu pointing out that once the soapboxing was all done and dusted, the edit itself was easy to put in. It was always, for some of us, a matter of sourcing. The reason the Liberty page got so heated is, as you saw, people came in with an idea of The Truth but without the sources and as they were all new/SPA accounts, they ran straight into verifiability vs truth and had the usual (And totally understandable) reaction. One I had myself the first time I ran into it. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, it is nice to see all the big players (Including Ferrari) lining up to oppose the plans for uniform engines. When Ferrari is opposing FIA plans, you know that Mosley has overplayed his hand. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the story about the Credit Crisis affecting F1 has been overexaggerated by the Media. They keep on comparing F1 Management income against the team costs, totally ignoring the team's income. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course
I disagree with db's view, but I'm not worried about it right now. Q-D-S and K-B-D have been through the DYK process, there is a category for Category:Triconsonantal roots. If he wants to take them to AfD, he can, but I'm pretty sure they would survive. However, I'm going to put off developing any more such articles until I'm sure they will be safe. It's an awful lot of work to put it for nothing.
Thanks for letting me know though Nish. If you're interested in perusing some recent work, atLajjun and Hittin, User:Al Ameer son, User:Huldra, and I have been having a jolly good time editing together. You're welcome to jump on in if you like. Both are going for DYK nominations, along with Nabi Shu'ayb. See you around my friend. Tiamuttalk16:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Your posting on my talk page
Hi Nishidani,
Thanks for the post. Unfortunately I'm not a great fan of the M-composer. So I don't recognise which aria you are talking about. What the JIDF make me think of is Beckmesser labouring on with the same own song and blaming Hans Sachs for his making a fool of himself. Alternatively, there is Mime:
Was du doch falsch mich versteht!
Stamml' ich, fasl' ich wohl gar?
Die größte Mühe geb' ich mir doch
mein heimliches Sinnen heuchelnd zu bergen,
und du dummer Bube deutest alles doch falsch!
On another matter, I wonder what will happen with the wielding of Morton's Fork. Oboler was quick to accuse me and you. But will he ackowledge the fundamental dodginess of the organisation he has praised in the past?--Peter cohen (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
praise in the JIDF page
Yes, being treated as a high priority in their attack page is praise. They say that I:
Butchered the article about the JIDF by adding undo "criticism" and taking out the link to this page, despite the fact that RS refer to it
Well, yes. Of course Wikipedia should reference the attack page of a branch of the Meir Kahane fan-club.
Desperately seeking anti-antisemtism 2.0 material and criticism of the JIDF
In other words, I suggested we have an article on antisemitism 2.0.
First article edited on Wikipeda was about Wagner (go figure).
It was on his grandson Wieland. But we can't expect the JIDF to have had a cultural education. And I added information on Wieland's links to Hitler and role in running a concentration camp.
The first article edited about the conflict in the Middle East was on "Palestine"
Actually it was something to do with the Trojan War, but they probably don't count that.
The first article he edited about Judaism was about "Messianic Judaism"
Ah Yes [6] where I make the dreadful suggestion that Jews can be believers without believing in Jesus.
Placed Jerusalem in "West Bank" and "Disputed Territories" categories
Mea culpa
Clarified that anti-Zionism is the "non-recognition" of Israel's existence or right to exist
mea maxima culpa
Probably not Jewish
Well the JIDF probably don't think that Yitzhak Rabin was Jewish. That's why they support the people who shot him.
If Jewish, definitely a self-hating Jew
Ooh the ultimate insult. Actually, maybe they think that Rabin was self-hating and shooting him was a mercy killing.
Tiamuttalk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
In Nazi Germany, the young idealists of the White Rose who spoke out against the racism and fascism of Hitler's regime paid the ultimate price - death by execution. Since America declared its "War on Terror", tens of thousands of Arabs and Muslims have died and millions have been made homeless. Concurrently, the threshold for racist commentary against these groups has never been higher. Indeed, without a discourse of dehumanization of the "enemy", such massive killing would never be tolerated, and so the few voices that rise up in protest, must be aggressively shot down. So this is to you Nishidani, for your humanity, candor, and care for your fellow human being, whether she/he be Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Bahai, atheist, etc., etc. While you may often feel like a voice in the wilderness, I hear that voice, and it warms my heart. May the chorus grow ever louder until the phrase "Never again" is one that protects us all. Tiamuttalk09:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
René Girard
Hi! Some time ago, you contributed to René Girard. If you are still reading about his work, I wonder if you could review the current article, which has changed a lot in the last few months. --ChristopheS (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I can't be helpful. I won't edit wiki until that malicious accusation that I attack people is removed from my page. I'd love to help: I know quite a bit, at least I think so, about his work on the Bible and the structure of scapegoating mechanisms, but unfortunately I appear to be scapegoated myself, and it thus would violate, in any case, wiki policies on COI, and my presence there would probably invite in a train of wikihounds insinuating I had some anti-Semitic POV! Best regards Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Honour: A Wiki Ballad in 13 Sonnets
Disclaimer.For potential wikistalkers, archivalists of net-trivia or the dyslexic, this is not a personal attack. It is a reconstruction, historical, textual and phenomenological, of the background to the warning posted on my page, which egregiously confounds what Jaakobou said of Tiamut's world, with what the administrator thinks I thought of Jaakobou's world. The syntax of these things is not equivocal, a child should see the error. None have, save Scarpia, and this has given me no alternative but to withdraw under protest at what looks like admin-shopping, poor judgement, and generally, an inability to read in sequence for content and logic. It is particularly distasteful for me that there is the appearance of an element of ethnic solidarity in this warning, and its follow-up. All men, not just some, are brothers, or we are all foreigners to one another. One clearly cannot work under such conditions. It is my subjective reconstruction of events, for the record, as I close my collaboration down. Those convinced that it is a 'personal attack' should either prove it to their peers' satisfaction by justifying and confirming Arthur Rubin's, to me, incomprehensible, misreading of the evidence, as I have responded to it on my page, or simply have the good sense to drop it, and allow me to wrap up two years work as, for once, I write in the manner that comes naturally, and not in the contorted prose elicited by arbcom bickering and wikilexic constraints. This was intended for my records, not for snoopers with a malign taste for distracting wikipedians from their proper task, editing.
The case came up before the usual court, A jury thronged with allies, as each clan Mustered sympathies, and grievance sought To sway the verdict -‘innocent’ or ‘ban’.
Most evidence suggested she was right, Had clearly reason to be frightened when An old antagonist lumbered into sight.
‘Only to fix her work now, gentlemen’, Was his defence. ‘It’s rather botched with spite. And all I did was wield a red-inked pen’.
‘Neither party’s really coming clean’. ‘That asshole Nishidani,’s come to bray'. ‘The fellow in the dock looks pretty keen’. ‘The plaintiff’s cute, despite her background, ay’!
The accused sighed in relief: ‘It beats me still Why I was charged. I’ve zip against her race, Or faith, you know. Dja take me for a dill'?
3
Nishi heard the quip while loitering there. The words struck up a chord. He racked his brain. And like a rat that rummages down a drain, Snuffling cheesy scents in the fetid air,
What harm was there in ArielSharon’s trot Around their mosque? Despite the Arab patter, It was the Temple Mount, and, yes, the latter Was Jewish long before they lost the plot.
Autumn’s brindling light on leaves that lay Veined porphyry mosaics around his yard: The winter robins skipping on the gnarred Pine trunks in his garden: red on grey;
The valley haze from burnoffs underway Beneath the utter azure: at night the starred Velvet-plushy heaven: the boulevard Still in its poignant Roman-sweet decay
Gave Nishidani pause throughout the week: Why waste two summers arguing with those deaf Who cannot hear but dearly love to speak?
‘Their object’s not objective, but, en bref, To whinge as victors while they gag the weak: When others grieve, they couldn’t give an eff’.
9
Deaf to a purpose though. They edit wiki After months of mugging up the rules. They don’t know much – think those who do are fools- The game’s to make all clear-cut facts look tricky.
When ethnic interests are at risk their tools - Attrition, NPA, being ultra-picky On evidence that’s strong and hardly dicky – Grind down the patience of the toughest mules.(n.1)
Exquisitely urbane, they wipe the slate Of everything that bears upon a page Yet contradicts the image they'd create
With their own work, to tilt our ruthless age Towards one version of events, and state One nation’s narrative at centre stage.
n.1 lectio variaWear out the patent soles of papal mules.
10
These meditations took our man away From hourly supervision of his screen, The lists to watch, the mess one had to clean Lest minions of poor editing had their way.
The air outside turned ominously keen Chill winter hove up as the clouds loomed grey. He left off pruning, thought hé’d rejoin the fray And do his bit to help the wiki scene.
And found a warning he’d be blocked just if He did as he had done before, remind The accused of past intolerance with a diff.
A 'random' admin had made up his mind That he’d transgressed, had tried to stir a tiff In asking Jaakobou to be more kind.
11
Puzzled, he clicked around to find some trace Of how this odd monition came about. No admin had expressed the slightest doubt When Nish ran up that diff to make his case.
Sure, Jaakobou had feinted with a pout That cried offence and hinted at disgrace. This drew no comment though, for, on the face Of it, he'd clearly got things arse-about.
Two days had flown, as, lulled to drop his guard Our man took off some time to work outside. But meantime someone else had worked quite hard
To sound authorities out, who might decide To overturn the case, and play a card That trumped the plaintiff's lawyer, and her pride.
12
A casual or careless eye won’t sift A lengthy thread to grasp the rockhard gist, But check a diff or two: the rest is missed As contexts drop, and meaning gets short shrift.
Jaakobou had framed things as if miffed That Nishi’s post made him, a Zionist, A heir to racist terror - a clever twist On words bestowed on T as a German gift.
Thus five hours on, our Rubinmade his call, Saw in the words a personal attack On Jaakobou, as though hé’d copped a maul,
Not Tiamut, and her lawyer took the flack For slights he had the hide to try and stall By asking Jaak to take just one step back.
13
Had Jaak then admin-shopped to settle scores, Emailed off line to canvass for some friend To challenge a consensus and contend That Nishi’s nudge had opened up old sores?
The point cannot be proved, the pattern though Suggests once more his charm off-line had won The outcome that he wanted, strike a blow
To muzzle those he thought were out to gun For him, by using diffs that tend to show His I/P editor's cred was less than none.
Continued Personal attacks
In the little ballad you are writing in your user space you have continued to attack other editors- accusing (without evidence, as you concede) Jaakobu of forum shopping, off-wiki canvassing etc... Even without those thinly veiled personal attacks, the use of user space for that purpose is questionable - but with those attacks it is has become an attack page. Please remove that ballad, and take it somewhere else. NoCal100 (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand what an accusation is. To illustrate, to ask the question whether NoCal100 is mounting a personal attack on Nishidani by stating that he (Nishidani) is mounting personal attacks on other editors would NOT be an accusation; to state that NoCal100 is mounting a personal attack by so doing WOULD be. -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Archive 7 - an apology from ZScarpia
Sorry, I added a comment underneath something somebody else had written in Archive 7, then realised that it was incorrect to do so. -- ZScarpia (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It wasn’t helpful that, as Nishi fought To have the warning cancelled, others came In ethnic solidarity to sustain The twisted logic of this patent tort. .
Wiki-stalker
Stop attacking an other user's talk page with insults, if you do not want to be blocked forever i would suggest that you let it go and forget it. I saw what happens to wiki-stalkers and you don't want that to happen to you, no one wants it. Elbutler (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the courtesy, Bishonen. Archived here
For the record, for the curious, one of the keys to this, apart from the patentlyobvious, was in the phrasing of the complaint, where I was persistently referred to as Nishandi by the plaintiff in the original suit and over the next few days, despite everyone else using my proper handle. This was not a typing error, but a form of communication, which can, once the record is read, be interpreted two ways. It began, if I recall rightly, as a typo by Gwen Galehere, at the bottom of the thread, and notified here. I had called here in to supervise a revert war between myself and two Israeli tagteaming POV warriors Amoruso and Shevashalosh, both subsequently banned. At first I was blamed, yet while I was in Coventry under protest, she eventually read things correctly, and restored the edit both of them were erasing. It then was picked up by Canadian Monkey who uses it twice to refer to me in the debate on PR's being banned here. Trajection of letters, in classical philology (A.E. Housman, M.Manilius, Astronomicon, George Olms Verlag, Hildesheim, New York 1972 vol.1 pp.liv ff.)), leaves a trace in the transmission of texts, enabling one to work out what version lies behind a common error in diverse manuscripts. The same applies here. The instrumental function was to send readers back to evidence I was banned for abusive language. The encrypted evidence is otherwise, unintentional, but suggests a profiling template. This is intensely boring, unless one is interested in Michael Polanyi's theory of tacit knowledge, which, operatively, is what the wiki rulebook, properly, has us elide in our discussions of what is going on.Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that bad editors encourage worse ones. Imagine an editor who wrote "Negev Jews are much more aggressive and undisciplined than their Galilee counterparts" He'd be blocked, of course he would.
So what happens at Wikipedia to the author of "My experience with Negev Bedouins who do serve in the army has mostly been negative as well (Negev Bedouins are much more aggressive and undisciplined than their Galilee counterparts), although considering I ran a detention center, I guess it's non-representative"? Can you guess? That's right, YNhockey gets made an administrator. And goes on to defend other editors with the same attitudes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.20.220 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Talking about George Orwell ...
- Have you come across the online George Orwell resource? I particularly like the article 'Notes on Nationalism'. Although it focuses on nationalism in the United Kingdom at the end of the Second World War, I think it says important and useful things about current Wiki Nationalists. Judging by the quote on your user page, you're a fellow fan of 'Life and Fate'? -- ZScarpia (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
G.Orwell, The Collected Essays vol.3, ed. Sonia Orwell, Ian Angus (Penguin 1970) pp.160-168ff., and so much else as well. Fare well, as well as you edit here.Nishidani (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Please do not go
I understand that the young whippersnaps who quickly pass judgement without diving in deeper to understand from whence your poetic inspiration emerged, can quickly cause offense to one with your fine sensibilities. But you should not let style win out over substance, or politicking over principle, by simply withdrawing. Of course, you are free to pursue greener pastures in the real world, tending to your garden and other living things, but your interventions here remain appreciated, no matter how many inane warnings are pasted to your page. Anyway my friend, I hope that this is not the end. Kisses and best wishes, Tiamuttalk15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I missed you when you took a break before, so, like Tiamut, I'm hoping that you won't go for good. That's especially true because the current case is ridiculous and I'd hate to see it managing to silence you, though I can understand you deciding that it's not worth the pain. -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
As a fan of Wikipedia based poetry and a proponent of content resolution through poetic verse, I would like to compliment you on your choice of expression. Way to class things up around here. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Music
Hey Nishidani. Thanks for the links. I told RolandR I'll de downloading Real player tonight so I can lsiten to what he's appended as well. I hope you are doing well and that your research is moving forward nicely. If you ever need any help, I am a professional copy editor in real life (from time to time), and would be happy to take a gander at any drafts. I hope you enjoy the holidays with you and yours. Tiamuttalk14:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
"Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Honour: A Wiki Ballad. Part 2, envoi
14
It wasn’t helpful that, as Nishi fought To have the warning cancelled, others came In ethnic solidarity to sustain The twisted logic of this patent tort.
A level playing field is what we seek Where scales fall off our umpires’ eyes as they Renounce their hometown bias to critique
The way both teams behave, this game they play Whose aim is not to score against some clique But teach the world to read objectively.
15
To read itself, in short, in neutral terms, By fóllowing a móde of dráfting, taut and flat, Embracing all perspectives, one that earns Man’s trust in wiki, shorn of caveat.
The academy’s, for instance, which still spurns This project as a hinky bag of chat Where freaks of learning have to chew the fat With dingbats full of mission and ‘concerns’.
‘Concerns’ that often voice some ancient beef- Fringe-national perspectives, tribal cant In rival powers that give each other grief
And spill their rancour, as their stooges rant, Split hairs, revert, and niggle, write a brief And woo some admins to embrace their slant.
‘Attack? That’s quite off the point. Though saying this may disappoint. While clearing one’s nose Gets up others’, I s’pose, They shouldn’t feel theirs’ out of joint.
The aim of the exercise, friend, Is to tidy my page, put an end To my help offered here No loss -, it’s small beer – As many opponents contend.
To withdraw’s a betrayal I fear Of so many editors here, Who work to a rule And mostly keep cool, And are paid with a kick up the rear.
They’re young, though: I’m getting on. And they’ll bear up now that I’m gone. Yet I feel that I owe More than just ‘Cheerio’ To explain my I’m tired of the con.
Í was attacked, not the other, While helping a lass, not my ‘mother’, As several impute Is what’s at the root Of my sense of due etiquette, brother.
As I tie up loose ends, be so kind To enjoy my repaste, where you'll find A good noCaldiet (Though he'll never buy it) And the host will depart when you've dined
Being a stickler for details, I Feel it proper when casting the die To explain my withdrawal To the ghost of George Orwell Whose Newspeak is winning, goodbye.
Crying over dead horses
As I am quite sure you are my friend. The number of dead has surpassed 418 now and those wounded over 2000, and it's only been six days. Six days of hell during the holidays to commemorate Christ's birth. Oh the irony!
I was in Bethlehem for Christmas Eve. It was terrible. Everyone was depressed over the siege on Gaza (the bombbardments had not yet started in earnest). The wall, the checkpoints and then because Abu Mazen was there, there were hundreds of his personal police everywhere carrying guns. A man who thinks he is more important than the whole of the Palestinian people and their 60 year struggle for self-determination is not worthy of such protection. A Palestinian Karzai is all he is.
Nazareth is boiling over what is happening in Gaza. There have been at least two demonstrations so far and tens of arrests. Helicopters hovered over the city for hours a couple days ago and again last night. This region is heading for an all-out war, of that I am quite sure now. I'm not afraid. We lived through the 2006 war and I hope we'll live through this one too, though I don't fear death. To me, there is nothing worse than injustice and indignity.
And now I'd like to share some special and dark Palestinian humor with you from a Palestinian in Gaza who writes that he received a text message on New Year's that said:
"Look outside, F-16s are smiling at you, missiles are dancing for you, drones are singing for you, because I requested them all to wish you Happy New Year."
I hope that the people are smiling, the trees dancing, and the birds singing where you are my friend. Because I asked them to wish you a Happy New Year. Tiamuttalk20:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Dearest Tiamut,
I dropped you a note on your page, but only with my signature. Words are hamletic, no longer, in their exuberant bare-faced mendacity, commensurate with the sheer obviousness of the realities we are constrained to watch. No one is smiling around here, the trees evoke only Shakespeare's 73rd. sonnet , and I found a robin redbreast dead in my vegetable garden this morning (killed for fun as usual by the otherwise overfed and amiable cat). Oddly, only one person set off fireworks in my neighbourhood, in an area where traditionally everyone lights them. Perhaps the lights over Gaza on the news hours before had induced a shamed sobriety. I only hope that part of the reduction in celebrations visible here was due to that old mediterranean sense, the sense that the best one can do is to shut up when tragedy is about, and, here, certainly not light up the sky with a triumphant 'festival of light', when several hundred miles away, the night is lit only to kill, terrify and ravage the innocent, and disinherited of that part of the earth.
Colin Schindler reminds one that, in the weeks before Rabin's assassination, Netanyahu and co were addressing an inflamed public with abrasive turpiloquy about the former's putative criminal behaviour, and among the terms listed is one that now assumes an intensely ironic poignancy. In making a gesture of peace towards Palestinians Rabin was 'shrinking Israel into Auschwitz borders’. He was shot, and now Israel is long down the road to shrinking Palestine into Auschwitz borders. Fresh from the ghetto, too many leaders have cast Palestinians into a shtetl, as if the further theymanage to drive the latter into diaspora, persecution and universal obloquy as a despised race, the more they will emerge clean and detached from their own millenial past of being the eternal victim. Scapegoats, as René Girard's commentaries on Biblical myth teach, are invested with the sins of those who slaughter them, or drive them into the deserts. That is the highest irony of history, that to redeem oneself from exile, Israel is now making 'Juden' out of Palestinians, and casting them in the shackles, role and Pale of Settlement the Jewish people have been privileged to throw off. But no more. I'm so so sorry. And if anyone posts a complaint that I have abused wikispace for a private expression of my feelings, in reply to you, my correspondent, well, whoever, if so tempted, be decent enough to ignore this, or otherwise fuck off.Nishidani (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, and don't mind the soapboxing, I started it after all. Of course you are correct in everything you said. I didn't mean to say that such things never happen, specifically not in IDF, as history proves otherwise. As a former IDF officer I am shameful of inceidents such as the kfar Kassem massacre. This is why I said that such things are not IDF POLICY, and contradict every single word in the IDF's rules of engagement. They do happen, but they are not policy. Maybe I wasn't clear enough about that, and maybe my greatest mistake was to take it personally. Cheers--Omrim (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
seeking fellow editors
hi, as a releatively new wikipedian i have made some tactical errors - ie. making lucid arguments and offering respect while being belittled and accused of soap, pov pushing, and being a sockppupet!
i'm sure you are busy on things that actually matter, but i saw your username on the talk page of an article i am trying to make better and i thought you could offer me some advice.
self hating jew is the page and i m having trouble with user- malcolm schosha.
if you have a chance t look at the talk page and history let me know what you think.
I appreciate your confidence, perhaps misplaced, in my potential to help. But technically this is, itself, a violation of WP:CANVASS.
It is an honour to edit wiki, and the honour requires scruples.
We are asked to edit to NPOV, while we all have points of view that militate against objectivity.
In I/P articles, you will find bad faith in abundance, but you must assume good faith
In I/P articles, intellectual honesty is not common, but you should strive to exemplify it.
In editing, you will often find your work elided on insufficient, or spurious grounds. If this worries you inordinately, it means you are naive. You can only work in this area if you are prepared to work overtime reading, preferably, quality books to inform your edits. Googling around is not excluded, but it requires considerable background study before one can feel sufficiently self-assured to edit to the text, and not against or for some POV.
Never loose your cool on-line. Never be impatient to make an edit stick, even if it is maliciously contested. Never get dragged into arbitration. Never respond to assaults except with irony or jocularity. One strategy here is to make people loose their cool, and badger them in arbitration till their page of violations creates, in passing administrators' eyes, intrinsically bad.
Strongly sourced edits, grounded in wide reading and background knowledge of history and context, are themselves their strongest argument. One of these is better than a hundred trivial edits.
Much good editing simply consists of checking spelling, grammar, and notes to see that the text reflects its sources. This is a less flashy way of contributing, but those who do it are the backbone of the project.
Any cause is best defended by the rigour of its presentation, in terms of equanimity, precision and balance.
I could go on. If you are new to the place, remember, to contribute usefully means to learn the ropes mainly by watching articles for some time, and learning from those editors, of whatever persuasion, who manage to keep a fair standard of quality editing, and rational defence of their edits. One should never hurry, and one should not make this a major hobby. It should be, optimally, a place to which one returns when one comes across, in one's reading, qualitatively important information that, on checking the appropriate article, has not yet been mentioned.
If you do wish to push on and encounter real difficulties, ask for a mentor. I'm only back here for that single article, and, in any case, cannot mentor because I've never read the rules.
thank you so much for your thoughtful response. i apologize if i seemed to be canvassing, i hadn't read that rule, and i think votestacking seems to be the one that applies here, although i believe it was done against me and got me in this! :) and i actually was just seeking advice - which you have given generously - and not trying to get you roped into that discussion. i should familiarize myself with more rules as well. i see now that "seeking fellow editors " implies much more than i meant to, esp considering you are the only one i sent this to! i will try follow your example and i think i will seek a mentor as well. thanks again, and good luck with that page. Untwirl (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Soapboxing again
Sorry about that...
Even though I'm respecting your concrete arguments about regarding the Zeitoun issue, I can't understand what you mean when saying "This in any case is not a moral problem for you. It's a legal problem for the IDF". If the story is true, of course it is a moral problem for me as an Israeli. During WW2 most Germans seemed to have no "moral problem" with what their army was doing and the result, well... we know it. So the bottom line is that (again, if it turns out to be true) I MUST have a moral problem with it, just as I expect moral pro-Palestinian people to have moral problems with suicide bombers who specifically target civilians, or with Palestinian gunmen who shoot kids in the head from point blank. If I don't have a problem with IDF soldiers shooting Palestinian kids, and you don't have a moral problem with Palestinian gunmen shooting Israeli kids, we just might as well let the fight go on until the last man is left standing. See you back on at the talk page.--Omrim (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, friend. What I meant to say that is, well, I'm speaking of my own experience of course, and shouldn't use that to give lessons, that as a person I have all sorts of strong ethical convictions and biases, in so far as these ethical principles inform me, but as an editor on wiki, or an historian, I can't let that pronounced way of thinking or acting, tilt my perceptions as to how primary evidence is to be evaluated. Gibbon's dictum that history is a record of the 'crimes... follies of mankind' is 'eventual, as the French love to say, but, at the same time, events occur through the interaction of individual and collective subjects who colour the events they participate with their interpretations that then influence the way those events play out in a complex hermeneutic circle. One does well to look at anything to see the order of events, and facts, first and foremost, then delve into the agents' mode of perceiving and acting within that framework of facts (their moral, amoral, strategic, emotive take on what has happened and what they ought to do according to these criteria). Here there are two parties, and of course I espouse the Palestinian cause and that is my bias. But that espousal must not blind me to the natural cynicism of the historian's eye, which means news of Hamas operatives handing out candy when the bombing began, or a jihadist happy to see, as he has his wounds treated in hospital, how many other people are suffering, are registered in my mind for the second dimension, that dark zone of individual and collective psychology where the formal rules and facts are coloured by emotional and ideological appraisels of events, producing the pathologies we all know about. One of the greatest of historians, murdered by the Nazis just as his career promise had been compromised by some French colleagues, wrote before the Holocaust swept him up,
'Le bon historien, lui, ressemble à l’ogre de la légende. Là où il flaire la chair humaine, il sait que là est son gibier.’(A fine historian'ssomeone who bears comparison to the ogres of legend, he knows, when he catches the scent of human flesh, that there's the game he'll prey on)
by which Marc Bloch meant, historians while committed to the intense analysis of the cold world of archival documents, find their métier ultimately in sniffing out for the raw human dimension behind the dry facts.
But he can only do that if he has mastered the dry facts. To bring the human dimension, or an ethical sense of what is probable or desirable, to one's evaluation of the data, is to wreck things, and stop us ever from seizing on the hidden dimension, the complex manifold of all to human emotions, hatreds, passions and prejudices one aspires to intuit behind the bare facts. As wiki editors we are called to honour NPOV. There is no room for this dimension of ethics, or the miserable motives of actors. This is hard indeed, just as the profession of an historian is hard, because we come to the world full of our individual, class, and collective cultures, and find suspension of these elemental perceptions hard. If we learn to woo the hard material facts, there still remains the fact that our choice of the factual cannot slip through the rudimental nets of our ethical and emotional assumptions.
Raul Hilberg, one of the greatest historians of the last century, was told by his mentors to leave out material he had discovered in the archives on the holocaust, about certain rabbinical negotiations with the Nazis that gave the latter the names of lower class Jews, as a bargaining chip to secure safety at least some of the community, the wealthy, the pious. He didn't. He had an immense amount of difficulty in getting published, precisely because his factual integrity refused to elide unbearably painful data as a gesture to career prospects, his community's comfort, or his personal equanimity. In these I/P articles, we are all suspicious of each other, and tend to read, and select material which shows 'our side's best side, while holding to ransom edits that look like undermining the positive image, or improving the other side's image. The Israeli will often think every page embodies a potential threat to his national image, the Palestinian side every page the hegemony of a national image that, until now, has excluded the very existence of their nation as a cultural fact, if not a fact on the ground. A little good will, which means that no one's history is free of Gibbon's crimes, follies, etc., would go a long way to providing a more collaborative atmosphere. Hamas certainly has its maniacal fanatics, its sacrificial fundamentalist ideology, but if one edits this stuff, one does well to keep in mind that on the West Bank, there are numerous rabbis of influence and prestige, like Moshe Levinger, who espouse the idea that Palestinians are descendants of the Amalekites, and piety commands, according to Maimonides' halachic rules, that they be exterminated. The mainstream press is replete with Hamas's pathological trends, and relatively silent on what is taught in Hebron.
I do appreciate your civil conscience here. But one must not blind one's evaluation of realities by moral scruples in writing to the text. One must simply, esp. here, be well aware that anything one might like to edit in to show one's own side to advantage, or to cast a shadow on the other's, can be countered, almost automatically, by a mirror action by an editor whose principles disagree with your own. And therefore, rather than play with POVing the text, to make it hard for the text to be troubled by factitious evidence-stacking. This in itself requires the kind of scruple your remark exemplifies. Scruples are best applied to the close assaying of evidence, rather than to a conscience of the wrongness of the parties. On this I think we can find common ground, despite the considerable distance which separates our respective POVs. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Response
Nishandi, I've responded to your comments on my talk page. I'm not greatly accustomed to wiki's conversation forum ("talk pages") and find them an awkward way of communicating. So, I don't know what the etiquette is regarding continuing conversations. I assume that they occur on one page whereever the initial comments were posted (mine). Thrylos000 (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
