Misplaced Pages

User talk:Nishidani/Archive 13: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Nishidani Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:42, 10 May 2012 editNishidani (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,504 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 22:22, 10 May 2012 edit undoVanished user lt94ma34le12 (talk | contribs)8,065 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 216: Line 216:
I'm not saying you weren't being productive elsewhere, but... I wasn't gonna add the above to the AE. Shrike did, hope that don't make us look like a ]. ] (]) 20:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC) I'm not saying you weren't being productive elsewhere, but... I wasn't gonna add the above to the AE. Shrike did, hope that don't make us look like a ]. ] (]) 20:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
==TLDR== ==TLDR==
:::''Your voice, your body, your name mean nothing to me now.'' <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 18:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC) :::''Your voice, your body, your name mean nothing to me now.'' <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 18:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC) <small>(said in a Brodsky context)<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 22:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)</small>

Revision as of 22:22, 10 May 2012

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.
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 20

Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem

Hi, I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talkcontribs)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Administrative divisions of the Oslo Accords, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Shiloh and Amona (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

Hey Nishidani, I just want to thank you for your support and contributions against the recurrent fallacies on the aspects of the Palestinian page. It's like some of these random editors on Misplaced Pages have never taken a proper history course in their life. Lazyfoxx (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Nishidani, I think it would benefit the Jesus Christ page to have your input as well pertaining to the current discussion of Jesus as a Palestinian. Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I may get banned on wikipedia soon it seems, I hope you keep working towards the truth on these pages that have clear pro-israeli bias with editors in high numbers. I re-added the infobox before Jesus Christ was added in, I hope if I get banned you will work towards restoring it if it gets taken down again, or worst case, will have to take out st. george, and just have the infobox be the 15 remaining palestinians. Lazyfoxx (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, I don't work that way. There are a lot of areas in wikipedia where pure irrationality plays a large role, mainly on ethnic and nationalist grounds, and the I/P area ranks high in that regard. I've learnt not to rush things. The response, predictably, to many suggestions is a mechanical blanket stacking by numbers in order to crush a delicate issue, as this one is. It is rather pointless allowing oneself to get sucked in to the game. I thought about this proposal for several years, decided to raise it while on vacation, and have made one or two comments. The reaction was as expected, and the verdict will be no, but the issue has been raised, and will return. Good articles require constant work over years, and commitment to the encyclopedia or any specific group of articles requires irony, sobriety and patience. It is pointless getting oneself banned, which is precisely what partisan editors dedicate themselves to achieving with regard to their 'adversaries'. This happened with one of our best editors, and when that happens, I tend to withdraw my own presence here, more to protest with the (unfairly) banned editor, than remonstrate with the undisguised gaming that goes on in the I/P area. If you wish me to continue to edit here, then don't break the rules, don't allow yourself to get banned, and above all don't think in terms of 'truth'. The irrationally pro-Israeli majority, as in other media, will always be here, so you have to live with it, just as the Palestinians have to live with the fact that they will never have the rights that settlers have. They too are subject to the rules, and only insistence on regard for rules permits that minimum of article development that is slowly achieved here. It's not much, but many articles have benefited from the dedication of editors who think in the long term.Nishidani (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't Saint George a Roman Soldier born in a colony? Putting him on the Palestinian infobox is like calling the son of a Crusader or Moshe Dayan a Palestinian.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Lightbulb here, guys! Moshe Dayan was born in Mandate Palestine. I bet we could get some sources that call him a "Palestinian" or "Palestinian Jew" since they'll use the pre '48 vernacular. Maybe I could even get my handler at AIPAC to translate the Hebrew Palestinian Post to get a juicy quote calling him the thing we want to call him. Moshe Dayan in the Palestinian people infobox will add some much needed pirate-ness. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
And also Yitzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon.--Shrike (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Please, if you wish to be silly, use someone else's page. Only I am permitted to be an idiot here. By silly, I mean uninformed. Dayan in his autobiography admitted he was technically a Palestinian by land of birth, but brushed off the fact by asserting he grew up in 'an independent Jewish society that spoke Hebrew', fostered by 'Israeli values' 30 years before Israel was founded.Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
All three, and many others, were 'Palestinians' before they adopted their Israeli nationality on the declaration of the state of Israel. There is nothing, despite your assumptions, that is demeaning about having the word 'Palestinian' on your passport. Ask Daniel Barenboim. Attempts to mock the term are inappropriate here.Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not mocking anything except your argument. Daniel Barenboim was awarded a Palestinian passport in recognition of his support for Palestinian people. Saint George is recognized as a local Saint in Palestine for he doth slain the dragon. Neither figure could be called a Palestinian person, but each could be called Palestinian in a variety of settings, except not on the page that helps people understand who are the Palestinian people, because that would be confusing. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Have you ever edited under another name? It's rather odd, very few edits, sudden entry into wikipedia, a few stray articles and then concentration on Palestinians, to back any editor who is opposed to the use of the word outside of contemporary times.Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Allow this new guy to school you. WP:NPA and WP:DONTBITE, and Ad Hominem aint just a desert in Egypt. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
So, I'm feeling lukewarm support for Moshe Dayan filling in the missing square on the Palestinian people infobox. Are you cool with this, Nishidani, or do you want to go deeper in the past? Maybe someone with two eyes and who is beloved by many of the contemporary Palestinian people as one of their own. You know, Saladin. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused here, Nishidani. Though I love you and concider you my brother-editor and want to make castles in the sky with you, I don't understand why Justin Martyr is a realistic choice for the Palestinian infobox, but Sala al-Din is not? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Forget Saladin and Saint George, you are the new Defender of Palestine. The great dragon of Zion is trying to stop you and your narrow blade of an argument, but fear not, for as long as you have the last word, you win! Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Justin Martyred

Hello old chap, I restored your ref to Justin Martyr however in your source Scripture as logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the origins of midrash 2004 Page 175 it is Azzan Yadin himself who identifies Clement's greatest teacher "as a Palestinian thinker" - I don't think Clement uses the term "Palestinian"? You may want to check this and adjust ref/copy accordingly. Or you may consider Yadin more relevant than Clement? Be it so. Cheers. It would be nice also if West Bank related tensions could not spill into Justin's article ;) In ictu oculi (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey pal! Actually, I wiped out my file copy of the passage after editing the fact in, and now find I can't access it on google books anymore, presumably because it's been consulted to death in the last few days, and the algorithm banned access! I do remember in reading the chapter (fascinating on nomos/Torah syncretism by the way) pausing when I came to the sentence, and wondering precisely on this. Thank goodness your keen eyes clarified this marr-tyro-dom! I share your wish that these tensions were not on wiki, but it's a fact of life. I only wish people who edit articles had more respect for sources, whenever this vexed area is touched on, than for their misprisions and political obsessions. Well, I'm on strike and broke it like a scab, and now spring calls me to hoe and plant, which is more productive that sewerage maintenance on wikipedia. See you round. Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Plant one for me :) Ciao! In ictu oculi (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani, I moved the disputed content to the talk page. This needs a content RfC. Don't take it personally. Best. Ignocrates (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe you are on the threshold of 3RR. I won't pull the trigger on you but someone else might. Ignocrates (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I made one revert today, and none yesterday. Or perhaps I've missed something?Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is my inability to calculate intervals of time. You're fine as far as 3RR. Good luck with the dispute. I have to move on. Ignocrates (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, pal. I've dropped a note on your page.Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

1920 Palestine riots

Hi Nishidini. I read in the talk page of the article that you had concerns about the title of this article. It was moved back recently (). Regards, 91.180.146.182 (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look at it. The article lacks any historical contextualization, giving so far, as before, the impression that, out of the blue, the Arabs just rioted and attacked Jews, with the innuendo that this was 'anti-semitic' and not, as most sources say, a result of intense worries that the political arrangements in Paris were designed to deprive Syrian and Palestinian Arabs of their rights to self-determination. I've made a brief sketch of some of this, which can be finessed in due course. Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
fully agree. 87.65.234.118 (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Your deletion of genocides in history sections

Please explain your reason for deleting any reference to the 1517 Safed pogrom, 1517 Hebron pogrom, Safed Plunder, 1929 Hebron massacre, 1660 destruction of Safed, 1660 destruction of Tiberias, and the 1929 Safed pogrom which were all directed at indigenous pre-Zionist Jewish populations. The article clearly attempts to claim that the modern so-called "Palestinians" are descendant from indigenous Hebrews as well as Arab settlers therefore it must be mentioned that the Arab settlers carried out various genocides upon that indigenous population they're claiming descent from.

DionysosElysees (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)DionysosElysees

I didn't delete 'any reference' (I deleted your one reference, unsourced, to these facts, as not pertinent to the page).
Your unreliability as an editor is indicated by the fact that you include the 1929 Hebron massacre and 1929 Safed pogrom as directed against the indigenous pre-Zionist Jewish populations, when in both these cases, both old Yishuv and Zionist emigrants were murdered.
Your unreliability as an editor is confirmed by your defining as 'genocides' acts of random carnage or plunder, in disparate areas, often amounting to no more than several victims (hundreds of such incidents, affecting all communities and ethnic elements in the population, occurred in Palestine over this period, and you single out only the Jewish victims)
Your unreliability as an editor is further corroborated by the fact that you haven't read the page you edited, since you assert that it is a claim that Palestinians 'descend' from prior populations, when genetic evidence on the page corroborates precisely this, making it not a 'claim' but an accepted fact.
Generally the 'game' in these pseudo-articles, which should not be given separate pages, but collected into one page (Massacres of Jewish Communities in historic Palestine?), has been to
  • create stubs on incidents of violence to Jewish communities.
  • The articles remain stubs because despite multiple sourcing, none of the sources can give any details, other than the same generic statement.
  • Strictly speaking their function on wikipedia is to serve as ammunition to be linked in to comprehensive pages on Arabs, Palestinians, etc. to remind readers that these people are murderous, barbaric antisemites.
  • I'm surprised most of them haven't gone to Speedy Deletion or Deletion. Some of us don't get a rash over trash, on second thought, so I'm not surprised.
  • The article from which your POV WP:OR snippet was removed has no place for this 'lachrymose conception of Jewish history' (Salo Wittmayer Baron). Defend it by all means, but on the talk page, where a prior attempt to cram this stuff in received a thumbs-down.Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So according to your logic the reference of the Holocaust in the German people section should be removed as well, correct? The fact of the matter is that the Arabs settling what is now Israel/Palestine exterminated the indigenous pre-Zionist Jewish population therefore if they're going to invent a history of being descendant from the indigenous people of the land it must be added that the settling Arabs exterminated that indigenous population. If you're a so-called "Palestinian" or a so-called "Palestinian" sympathizer then I suggest you learn about how denying the Armenian genocide has turned out for the Turks :) The more so-called "Palestinians" mush the lie that they're indigenous and the lie that "Jews and Muslims lived peacefully before Zionism" or even the lie of so-called "Palestinian Jews", the more people are going to learn about these genocides and your movement/narrative is going to not only be damaged but receive hatred. I really don't care either way but you should look at what the consequences of your genocide denial can be :)

DionysosElysees (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)DionysosElysees DionysosElysees (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)DionysosElysees

Price tag

Your amendments were overall satisfactory (and I enjoy your prose). However, I would like re-insertion of the Hebrew sources which some would consider to be less partisan than those cited.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of partisan sources. I've long complained that it is unfair to English readers to use language sources not readily available, and in particular, to cite them without transcription, and some promised to fix this up on the page, which however has not been improved in this regard. I would commend here the use of Hebrew sources, when (a) they provide content used on the page not available in English sources and (b) are accompanied by transliteration and translation of author, title and source and title.
I removed the Yeshiva source because it repeats the Jewishworld source, meagrely, and nothing there is lacking on the other page.
Several Hebrew sources I checked there (deciding to do some work the original editors refused to do), by the way, are highly partisan and dubious as RS, but I haven't fussed over it. But from here on in, collaborative, collegial editing should nod to non-Hebrew readers by following the citational mode I suggest above.
4 sources for the one event, which is not disputed, are rather too much, I should think, esp. since (as is proper structurally), those four sources were referred to in 3 different sections (allegations/price tag events/cop work), as both you and myself thought proper. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
My main desire for the additional sourcing was to obviate future dispute. As you state, the content is currently undisputed so I shall leave it in its current state. However, one thing I have learnt in my brief stint on Wiki is: never count your chickens especially in the I-P remit. By the way, your sagacious essay above regarding I-P editing is eminently sensible, and as an "irrationally pro-Israeli", I shall bear it in mind.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Best not to jump the gun anticipating future disputes. You won't get any from me on this, and I'll back you if any editor starts challenging reports like this out of sheer dislike. I'd prefer personally to stick to mainstream English sources like Haaretz and Ynet/Jerusalem Post, but if they don't report it, we go with the one we have. What RS say stays, however uncomfortable it may be, and that goes for 'my side' as well. The only thing that worries me there at the moment is the huge section on condemnations of the price tag policy. They were generated by one or two incidents in a short time frame, over the burning of two mosques. But it's tricky to edit this appropriately, so I'm not going to touch it now. Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't want to get your fingers burnt.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I was deeply impressed as a boy by reading the legend of Gaius Mucius Scaevola, and immediately set to holding lighted matches between two fingers till they burned out. Then I graduated to candles, and finally holding large 'crackers' at my finger tips till they exploded. They're the only cases where I got burnt fingers, though my cousin went one step further, with gelignite, and blew off his arm. It takes no courage to be an edit-warrior, since it's all virtual. It does impress to see that in warring, a certain chivalrous code is observed by all parties. I'm occasionally surprised by edits for the good of the encyclopedia coming from people I never thought would do them, disproving my reservations or cynicism. That's the standard I set myself, but I don't think it fair to demand it of others.Nishidani (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I exhibited similar pyrophilic proclivities in my youth. I was interested in grasping a calefacient combustible using oral means, and testing my capacity to withstand its heat. My endurance of smoke inhalation was also examined. I have now determined that the Montecristo 2 is best suited for the task. Much akin to edit-warring, the ennui of fuming and spewing out hot air can be overbearing, and the exhalation of an obfuscatory smog dissatisfies many. Perhaps it is time to aerate my cerebral chamber, burnish its fittings, and restore it to its former reposeful and more indulgent state. You may have discovered that the candles you held rapidly burnt, and in our hour of strutting and fretting upon the stage, there exists but a brief period when they can be used to provide illumination.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

retaliated by launching vs step-up lunching rocket

Could you please visit Talk:March_2012_Gaza–Israel_clashes#retaliated by launching vs step-up lunching rocket (phrase) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.51.252 (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

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

Israeli settlement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to IDF, Jordan valley and Area C
March 2012 Gaza–Israel clashes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to IDF
Zuhir al-Qaisi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Deterrence

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Nishidani. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 11:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Point of interest

"The clumsy prose of most of this kind of writing is full of POV jargon, and a narrative mode that adopts a peculiar language, hirsute with rhetorical themes taken from partisan newspaper accounts, rather than historical works." I have never observed the word "hirsute" being used in this manner which prompted me to read this article.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 17:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It was an allusion to A. E. Housman, who used it in his edition of Manilius 's Astronomicon (1903) vol.1 p.xxi, of the work of Friedrich Jacob ('himself possessed by a passion for the clumsy and hispid'). I changed 'hispid' to 'hirsute' as more familiar. One can never escape the fingerprints of style. Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Well you certainly thought so when you mused, "style and slips bear a signature, and I recognize yours from way back". Assuming an absence of confabulation, my curiosity is piqued as to who I may resemble? Or then again, you may have been referring to a notional ideated 'Zionist spinner of truth' for which you have a predilection of detecting their ubiquitous presence.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 18:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • 'as to who' should be 'as to whom'
  • 'notional ideated' is a pleonasm. Had you put a comma after, 'notional', you might have just scraped up an excuse for justifying the combination as an inchoate gesture towards rhetorical copia.
  • 'one can't 'spin the truth', since 'the truth' is what spinning entangles when the intent is to dissimulate, if I might be permitted to allude to Sir Walter Scott. The truth, accept the apophthegm, is whatever resists 'notional' or 'ideated' spin.
  • 'for which', given that 'Zionist spinner' is the subject of the clause, should have been 'for whom'. What happened was that you meant to write 'notion' or 'idea' of, then got befuddled by the effort at euphuistic mimicry or hyperbolic orotundity, and produced the tautological pastiche we have. Had you written 'notion', then 'for which' would have been grammatical.
  • one doesn't 'have a predilection of', which is solecistic. Idiomatically 'one has a predilection for.' You can write 'predilection of' but only when 'of' indicates the agency of the genitival subject, which is not the case here. Back to the TV.Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
"for which you have a predilection of" - If I had written 'tendency' instead, would 'tendency of' be grammatically correct or is it still 'tendency for'? Also, you recommend "for whom"; is 'of which' equally acceptable?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
If it took five days to think that one up...? I suggest you read the opera omnia of Thomas Browne or, for the short course, John Lyly's Euphues, but Browne is more instructive and less boring, and you will get the hang of it.Nishidani (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It was a polite request for information seeing as are fond of dispensing advice quite freely. I have no doubt that such a solicitation would take a sizeable amount of time for you to construct, but recognise that people more accustomed to communicating in a mannerly fashion will have less difficulty in doing so. Perhaps once again you have identified a sinister undertone in a benign request and your hyper-sensitive radar is detecting subliminal murmurings within the text that you are opposed to?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 18:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You omitted 'you' before 'are fond of'. The second sentence is not ungrammatical: it just doesn't mean what both context and the intention I infer you wished to express therein would have it signify. Parsed, it runs:-

I have no doubt that such a solicitation would take a sizeable amount of time for you to construct

'Solicitation' refers to your 'polite request'. It is you who 'construct' the 'polite request' or 'solicitation', not I, which is, however, as it stands, the apparent meaning of the sentence. Bref. I do not 'construct' your solicitation. I might perhaps 'deconstruct' it, to use the poststructuralist jargon loosely. I might indeed, having parsed your request, respond to it, were it not for the fact that the syntax you adopt for our exchanges generates such a multitude of semantic misprisions, that I would be at a loss to know precisely what it is you want clarified.
An undertone is not, ipso facto, sinister. That undertones are everywhere is not a paranoid insight à la Daniel Schreber,(whom Sartre transformed into the major eponomous figure in his masterpiece Les chemins de la liberté) but rather the common wisdom of those who write and read books. Was gesagt werden muss, wrote Günter Grass, and, despite the explicit premonitory warning about how not to misread it, it was then tortured to death for precisely a sinister 'undertone' which the author had disavowed preventively, and that does not exist, except in the minds of critics obsessed with brandishing the word 'anti-semitic'. It articulated something darüber muss man schweigen, as Hitler's schoolmate once wrote. With such profound resonances in mind, I reach for the homely proverb to achieve closure: 'what's sauce for the goose is a source for to gander.Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

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

Charles Dickens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Little Nell
Hebron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Breaking the Silence

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal Attack

I will readily remove any personal attack that you object to, and similarly grant you permission to do so. I rarely protest at PA's that form part of a frank exchange of views, and have previously ignored your suggestions that I am a sock or that I am exploiting Antisemitism. That being said, others think differently, and I probably wrongly applied my personal ethos to yourself, misled by your brusque manner.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to remove anything, and I in principle don't complain about attacks. I just wish that people who do attack me do so with more rhetorical form and wit than I usually see. Otherwise it's boring. No harm.Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree, and it is for that reason that I tolerate (and dare I say it - perhaps occasion) your masterful Wilde-esque barbs. It is like being smacked with a ticklish feather.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
You would like to see an exemption for elegant personal attacks? EdJohnston (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
It would be wrong to repress an artistic milieu and stifle creative expression:-) On a serious note, there is a distinction between jocular banter and malicious abuse, though not always readily discernible.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 22:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Clever. You've managed to imply I attack people. Actually, I remonstrate with them over the slipshod use of language. I don't appoint myself a teacher, but I admit that I feel it's rather like having students complain about their teacher's behaviour when they receive an essay corrected with red-ink. Doctor Cottard missed the point of the verbal games in the Verdurin's salon quite often, and when picked up for his failures by Forcheville, just blushed. Nishidani (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I like you, so I want to tell you that...

this comment is ridiculous... this page is tightly controlled to disallow any mention of a Palestinian history predating the modern period... -Nishidani

There are numerous claims on the Palestinian people page using Misplaced Pages's neutral voice to push minority opinions. Maybe you can look at your own beliefs and see that they are built on assumptions. People who claim to know what the Earth was like a thousand years ago are very likely to be asserting what they can not know.

With all my love, Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come on. What goes on stands out like dogs' balls.Nishidani (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know that that page and others sometimes get like Michael Vick's backyard, but do you really think that your side (I'll summarize it as Palestinian indigenousness) is the factual side?
Ok, people have to decide where they think the evidence is. I think evolution makes more sense than heavenly lightswitches, but I do so in a way of acknowledging that the Truth is unknowable, and everyone is just casting their lot in with their worldview.
Israelis and Palestinians do alot of fighting. I wish my country (US) would stop sending so much money and military hardware to Israel, but I understand that to be a hard sell to folks who want bombs to stop exploding first.
I'm off topic here. I think I'm right most the time, like I think the State is right about most things, wrong about other things (settlements, religious laws, walls). This doesn't stop me from looking at Misplaced Pages edits objectively.
You, on the otherhand, seem to think that any Palestinian or pro-Palestinian assertion is valid, based on it being good for Palestine. Is that right, or am I making unfair personal attacks here?
Again, super love and kindness Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't edit after making a close evaluation of cui bono. I write according to, primarily, academic sources under major publishing house or university imprint. Look at Yamit before I began editing it a few days ago, after stumbling on it by pure chance. Not a word about the expulsion of 5,000-20,000 Bedouins; not a word about the bulldozing of their orchards, the destruction of their wells, the demolishing of their houses and goods in order to provide immigrants to Israel with a nice Club Med environment. It has a key photo showing soldiers yanking a Jewish kid out of his home, and none of the many photos taken of the massive destruction Ariel Sharon's engineers caused to the pre-existing Bedouin community. I fixed it. But, if I were, as you assert, a one-eyed 'pro-Palestinian' partisan, I would not have added also that the ethnic cleansing on which the Israeli Yamit was premised was vigorously protested by many kibbutzniks, who organized tours to shock the Israeli public into pressuring the government to compensate the deracinated and homeless traditional dwellers. I haven't finished, by the way. I have a distinct memory that a great Israeli lawyer took up their appeal before the Supreme Court, and, tragically, died a few days before he was to give his closing address. If you can find a source for his name, and those facts, and add them in, I'd appreciate it. It won't compromise your principles, which I presume, from the record, consists of giving only the 'non-Arab' side in editing. It will consolidate my principle, of insisting that articles cover everything, from all angles, according to RS, and damn the consequences for POV warriors, who constitute the majority in this area.Nishidani (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Faget it. I've found out where I read that. The man was Chaim Holzmann. In any case, Yamit is a good example of the problem here. Five years of editing got the article, focused on Yamit as an Israeli thing, to 6kb. An hour of work doubled it, and covered all angles. What I object to is the huge number of partisan editors sitting on what other editors, who build articles, do here. They never get off their arses, once they show up, to actually construct the encyclopedia and their behaviour is obstructive, one-eyed, and political. They sit round, nitpick, tagteam, and once the edit, politically evaluated, is blocked, disappear until the next emergency from the 'problematic' 'pro-Palestinian editor' is rumoured to require attention. Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It's funny that you think a Haaretz news story is a primary source. Furthermore, if a person lives in a house, they are definitively not a bedouin. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It's funny you cannot see I wrote 'primarily' and that you think I regard Haaretz as a 'primary source'. As to the comment about Bedouin, that is funny, in the sense that the dumb smugness of the historically illiterate is 'funny'. True, the Bedouin tribe, the Jahalin, that sits out sweltering summers in tin shanties below Israeli settlements, because anything they buiold is bulldozed by the 4th most powerful army in the world, say the huts the one you see below Ma'ale Adumim where a few are employed to fix the sewage otherwise dumped on their land, as you drive up from Jericho to Jerusalem (and makes, at least Christian pilgrims turn their heads in shame) are nomadic, because, like the Bedouin near Umm Kheir every time their houses are bulldozed and they are kicked off their land, they are forced to become homeless nomads, as you define them, or the 70,000 Negev Bedouins who live in villages, and whom Israel is driving out, so Club Med accommodation can be secured for Russian and Americans who have someone in the family background with the appropriate certificate testifying to his racial authenticity as Jewish, and therefore has a right to live in subsidized luxury in a foreign land where the stolen land is expropriated from their traditional owners.
P*ss off. You know nothing and pontificate, or is it sh*t-stirring? and your chirpy comment about the masssive violence done to poor people in the name of Zionism sound to me like someone smug German or Russian laughing at a pogrom. I dislike having these alerts to my page come up while I'm editing. Today you've made 7 piddling edits, 2 here. Check my contributions today and compare the volume of substantial work. Who's here to build pages rather than play reverts or chiack?Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
ps. that last question mark is rhetorical, so don't answer it, and don't disturb my work on articles, or play disruptive if smarmy games here.Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani, I thought I could help you grow. A good intellectual is one who questions his own assumptions. A pseudo-intellectual thinks that reading some articles makes them an expert. You realize that the Palestinians are right in everything, and that all academia agrees. If a source doesn't agree, it is Zionist and no good.
I have looked at your edits and you run into contention on a regular basis. I thought we could have a chat about POVs here. If you aren't ready to look into your soul, than that is fine, Alice. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, how paedeutically condescending for a teenagery airhead! That kind of slush always makes me start the day with zest! Thanks. It brought to mind the saying about teaching grannie how to suck eggs. Nishidani (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Teach your grannie to su... If you mean I shouldn't give you lessons on how to be a loudmouth know-it-all, you may be right. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
You're way out of your league, son. As I said, p*ss off. Play in some other sandpit. I don't do kindergarten here.Nishidani (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately you also are a keen exponent of the sand pit and choose to ignore certain incontrovertible facts which do not conform with your dogmatic views.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Look I should be grateful to both of you tagteaming POV warriors because your behaviour and attempts at thinking makes me feel sorry for you, and compassion is a virtue to be cultivated. But I don't need a stimulus for that kind of sentiment, sharing with Mencius the view that it is instinctive, but differing from him in my understanding that some sort of political and ethnic cultures can restrict the natural expression of compassion to one's own race, and think anyone outside the chosen genetic fold is an annoyance or only deserves whatever catastrophe your folks meet out to them. Your cleft-thumbed, nobrainer attempts to 'stir me', other than making me feel sorry for the vacuity you must experience in the real world, only draw me away from working on wikipedia articles. This last pathetic attempt at taunting by a dumb, banal link kept coming up on screen as I was working on Dickens, so, p*ss off, watch some gridiron, or IDF videos on terrorism or whatever makes your life meaningful, and don't crap on here. ThanksNishidani (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
And Fox News! Rofl, you can pigeonhole with the best of 'em. To paraphrase Muhammad (apeessfrummhizbottum) If one man calls another a hypocrit, surely one of them is. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Muhammad and Mencius, fell in a well. The things they discussed, I'll never tell.
Nishidani and a book, found with Google. "My argument is right," said his mouth-like-bugle.
Israelis and Arabs, will always fight. As long as assholes like you, think your side is right.
Luke and his edits, always no viewpoint. Review them, my padwan, you are my student.
Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I've seen better doggerel on a dunny wall. Only sonnets are accepted here as forms of address, so I'll have to remove it, and this thread to the archives tomorrow unless you can improve the conceit beyond the nursery-rhyme level of composition.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Let's see one better, or have thee no wit? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish dump

This is your talk, but...

dont remove comments from the talk pages of articles that aren't yours. Removing something for being "uninformed" is wrong on many levels. Don't be so eager to let your arrogance show. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I love you and know that you meant well. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Below removed under edit summary: 'I really think you are 'talking over the mike' and no one is interested in grabbing it from you'.

A quick little observation before the mike is grabbed from me and I am roughly shoved off stage. You rather unkindly derided No More Mr Nice Guy's use of the word 'hubris', yet you appear to have confused it with 'hybris', which a google search informs me is a studio album by a Swedish progressive rock group. I think its time to revisit WP:POT.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Those diffs you requested (Removed by reverting by Sean.hoyland, as was appropriate)

  • "All that is being applied here is a stacked veto gaming sources by the sheer weight of blow-ins who know nothing of the topic, and whose unison with more familiar objectors to anything Palestinian has paralysed the page. You keep repeating mechanically that no one before Bar Kochba's revolt was 'Palestinian'. This is a hasbara theme, and has no place here, since you refuse to confirm what a simple google search will tell you: that 'Palestinian' is the default term in historical scholarship for the area nows called Israel/West Bank, and is customarily employed by all scholars, Jewish, goy, whoever, for describing the people and culture of that land from high antiquity down to modern times. The line you take is ideological, political, and contradicts these sources" -Nishidani

That's you being combative against a consensus, like three S's against one C.

  • "...in (Khalidi's) view American and European Israeli discourse is dismissive of the 'deep roots' of Palestinian identity, and most objectors are in an ethnic WP:COI on this, lacking the serenity to look at the question encyclopedically, as opposed to politically." -Nishidani

That's "Mr. Scholarly 5000" telling the consensus that this books outweigh their hasbara. A goodfaith massacre.

I'm not saying you weren't being productive elsewhere, but... I wasn't gonna add the above to the AE. Shrike did, hope that don't make us look like a cabal. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

TLDR

Your voice, your body, your name mean nothing to me now. Ankh.Morpork 18:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC) (said in a Brodsky context)Ankh.Morpork 22:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)