User talk:Nishidani/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about 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 5

←

Archive 9

→

Criticism of Tabor

I was wondering if you had seen the book What Have They Done With Jesus? by Ben Witherington III. It contains an appendix discussing Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty which indicates, among other things, that Tabor won't even abide by the standards he seeks to apply to others. I have copied most of the appendix, and intend to place it at User:John Carter/Ebionites so that it can be referenced by all parties. Having said that, I would appreciate it if you were to review it for errors, because I am fairly sure that there are some errors in punctuation and italics, but I don't think any of them are necessarily substantive. I also have a number of reviews and other materials regarding the subject which I will be adding to the same page. I will try to provide links to websites where the material can be obtained, but think that, even if I can't, the ProQuest and Gale databases they were obtained from qualify as reliable. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Hadn't heard of Witherington. I share probably little if anything of his outlook, but he is certainly very well-grounded in the period, to judge by his bibliography and credentials, at a glance. He also appears to share many points of agreement with the historian of finance, Michael Hudson regarding the suspension of debt in the NT references to a Jubilee, something the evangelical teaparty hatters appear, under Randy influence, to ignore. He has it in for Ayn Rand, perhaps the trashiest scribbler and non-thinker ever to exercise political influence in the history of the West (and yet a major influence on the founder of wikipedia). So that, at least, puts me on one of his wavelengths. And yes, John, give me the nod when you get the appendix up on your page, and I've comb through it. I'll be reviewing Tabor in detail over the Christmas break, not before, if everything goes as planned, which however it never does. Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither had I heard of him, but Ben Witherington III is evidently a fairly well received scholar in his part of the Christian world. By the way, the finished text (minus some early material removed, almost always quotes from Tabor's book), can be found at User:John Carter/Ebionites#What Have They Done With Jesus?. I also have about 50 magazine and newspaper articles related to the subject, which among other things include reviews by other academics which are less than favorable, notice of how Tabor seemed to have been "cashing in" on The DaVinci Code, how he sold the film rights to his book, and how the film Lost Tomb of Jesus was based on his book, and various other matters. It is hard not to get the impression, at least for me, that Tabor, who was 60 when he published the book, may not have been rushing its production to cash in as much as possible, cast himself as a heroic Indiana Jones type for his legacy, and basically try to use this book to establish some sort of "legacy". I seriously doubt, from all that I have seen, that he established a very good legacy for himself however. John Carter (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem

Sorry for the delay, just got in after being out all day. An easy-peasy fix. Actually, old boy, I ain't that young - my generation of Geek started off having to type programs on punch cards, and would often have to wait overnight for a "job" to run. We had a saying, "You've got the time to fix it when it goes wrong, so why not get it right the first time?" (or words to that effect). So I have a very acute sense of wanting to get things right the first time (doesn't always work out that way, though). Today's Geeks seem to be in the habit of trying the first thing that comes into their head, and clearing up the mess later (bit of a generalisation, not always the case, of course).

--NSH001 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Your archive 10 is nearly 200k, you should start a new archive next time. --NSH001 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Ebionites 2, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 11:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Nightmare linke

AN/I dispute. For the record. Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

I was reviewing the "Revision history of Historical revisionism", and I see you added an empty heading for "French Revolution".[1] Should there be any content for that section? If not I'll delete it. Will Beback talk 21:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was one of the most hotly debated subjects in late 20th. history, after Alfred Cobban kicked off the debate and François Furet took it up, and had widespread political repercussions in the culture wars of the period, which still haven't ended. I put the heading it because I was surprised that such an obvious example had been ignored by editors. By all means expunge it if you think it is also my duty to work there. I guess we'll just have to wait until someone, with more time and generosity on their hands in this place than I have, comes along and restates the obvious, puts the same heading back while taking the trouble to fill it out. I'm effectively retired.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

When Wikipedia first started it was considered acceptable to include empty headings to show where added content was needed, rather like red links. The community has gradually turned against empty headings and red links, perhaps a sign of the project's maturity. As for that article, I don't think the list is intended to be a comprehensive list of every era that's been the subject of revision. They're just examples. While the French Revolution would make a fine example, it's not mandatory. So I'll go ahead and delete the heading, though I'll look forward to seeing a section on it if anyone ever wants to write one. Enjoy your retirement and thanks for your contributions. Will Beback talk 22:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. Perhaps a note on the talk page to the effect that one editor noted this omission would remind passersby that this fits the bill. Actually the page lacks quite a large number of notable instances of revisionism, and looks very sketchy. There are p'lenty of examples from the orient. Japanese historiography has many examples of revisionism, from the Japanification of Confucianism in the Tokugawa period, known as kogaku (古學) down to the revision of the eurocentric standard model of WW11,(which ironically was influenced by Charles Beard's interpretation) most notably associated with Hayashi Fusao (1964) though Ueyama Shunpei and others had beaten him to the gun, or rather beaten his drum before he became the bandleader. Cheers, and (sottovoce I would appreciate it if you ignored the principle regarding the Barasana page. I'll do it one day, if the headings remain!) Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a note to the talk page. And I'll pretend I never heard of Barasana. Will Beback talk 22:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

ah!

The quality of mercy is not strain'd

It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven

Upon the Plaice beneath.!!!Nishidani (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(The appropriate riposte from Measure for Measure would be, of course)

He who the sword of Heaven will bear

Should be as holy as severe.Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Your talk page

Hi Nishidani. You may like to read WP:TPG and consider moving the above content, which does not appear to be pat of a conversation, to a user sub page that you a re free to create for this purpose. --Kudpung (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been considering taking this to MfD for a little bit. It says that it is for you so it might be better in MSWord. You will not be adding it to an article due to the restrictions. It also borders on sopaboxing and WP:UP#POLEMIC. I am sure you understand that there is some controversial info in there or it wouldn't have citations. I'm also not sure if you can even respond to this with your topic ban so you might want to ask for clarification over at AE. Any slip ups will look extra bad since you have already been borderline a couple times and have recently been commenting on conversations regarding the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It was my response to an Arbcom discussion, written over one and a half years ago, to help that discussion, and was my talk on the issue under examination, before my ban. It has lain there, under dozens of visiting administrative eyes, for 18 months, and no one, until today, has ever thought it worthy of comment, or taken exception to the fact that I hadn't archived it in sequence along with the rest of my talk. The function of wikipedia is to write articles, not badger people over nugatory aspects of their pages.

Did I say 'nugatory'? I guess my text for Tanakh meditation today will be fascinatio nugacitatis obscurat bona (Wisdom of Solomon, chapter 4, verse 12), which the King James version tends to mislead us about ('the bewitching of naughtiness doth obscure things that are honest'). The Septuagint has βασκανία γὰρ φαυλότητος ἀμαυροῖ τὰ καλά, which I would hazard to translate with a Platonizing ear as 'the malign bewitchery of mean judgement dims our sight of what is good'. Aldous Huxley has Eustace Barnack, the learned epicurean wastrel, translate the term as 'The magic of triviality-the being spellbound by mere footling' (Time Must Have a Stop, Chatto & Windus, London 1945 p.129), which is one of those happy examples of felicitous misprision of the meaning of another language that enhances understanding, while misrepresenting the original. nugae are trifles, in Latin. Nugacity in English is 'trifling behaviour or talk'.

He had an excellent precedent for doing so, since undoubtedly Huxley's fluency in 16-17th century mystical writings would have drawn his attention to the vulgate Latin expression via the mention of the word in Blaise Pascal's 'Pensées', who excerpted the phrase fascinatio nugacitatis from the Bible, and glossed it with the following words: 'Afin que la passion ne nuise point, faisons come s'il n'y avait que huit jours de vie.' (Pascal, Pensées, ed. Ch-M. des Granges, Classiques Garnier, Paris 1964, p.131). Bref, 'to avoid our being harmed by passion, let us act as though we only had eight (more)days to live'. Pascal, twigging also to the erotic nuance implicit in fascinatio evidently took nugacitas as a spendthrift dillydallying in those paltry ephemera of everyday life that charm us, as they distract us from an awareness that time is of the essence since we're shortly to croak it.

'Nugae' are trifles, and 'nugacitas', a late Latin derivation often construed as equivalent to malitia ('meanness of disposition': it was employed in this sense rather injuriously against one of the greatest textual critics of all time, Scaliger, whom a by now forgotten adversary, Eugene Francois Lintilhac, dismissed for what he thought was the trifling meanness and mediocre judgement of a man (hominis nugacitas et mediocre iudicium) given so pertinaciously to exact philological hair-splitting. Fascinatio in turn comes from fascinum which has two senses (a) bewitchment (b) penis. This rather cockamamie combination comes from an old custom that attributed to the membrum virile certain apotropaic powers if wielded the right way. Which reminds me of an apposite citation from a song in Roman dialect as sung by Gigi Proietti, 'nun me romp'er cazzo'. And yes, Cptono, I am 'borderline' in the psychiatric sense undoubtedly, because I am bored stiff with the endless niggling, which crosses the line from collaborative editing to enter the no man's land of relentless quibbling by the praetorian guards of policy, not to improve texts, but simply to make life uncomfortable for those whose presence on the encyclopedia one dislikes. If you dislike my talk, don't bookmark the page. Nishidani (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A reason that the material is there is that one of the editors involved in the West Bank v Judea and Samaria case, finding it well-written and a good summary of issues involved, specifically asked Nishidani to leave it on his talk page after the case ended. I too would like it left. Nishidani, rather than see the material deleted, I would prefer to copy it to a user page of mine. ← ZScarpia 14:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see what the fuss is about. I do admire immensely the extraordinary lengths people will go to to forage through the obscure thickets of wiki policy to find some prickly piece of minutiae on which they might hang their antipathy for an editor, while pretending that one has, in fossicking and ferreting out the musty quillets of doctrine for technical leverage on a trumped up charge of abuse, merely the interests of the encyclopedia at heart. It completely goes over their heads that the experience of wikipedia is one of entering a democracy of knowledge, where the young can brush up against ideas, techniques of analysis, theories and work methods, and acquire by the acquaintence a will to cherish learning. It is not the content of that essay that is important. It is rather the fact that it leaves a trace of the kind of background study, analysis and elaboration an editor committed to the project should learn to engage in, if he wishes to approach articles with an informed passion for comprehensiveness. Many do this better than me, many are far better as editors than I, but I think that a minor monument to my own belief in what preparation to work in depth on articles requires.

I write many of my comments as essays, footnoted etc. Most eventually are archived. There is nothing polemical there. I doubt many read it. But it is clear from the incipit that it was written to clarify my understanding of the historical background behind the Arbcom dispute. Cptono is asking for retroactive punishment, for the deletion of the whole page, which happens to be where people visit to talk enquire, or challenge me. This is my talk page. I suppose the next move is to request that my archives themselves be blanked. One fragment of my work here has been retained from the past. It hasn't been worked on since my ban. No one, and quite a few people who dislike my editing have the page earmarked, and never thought I was engaged in some subversive personal manipulation of wikipedia. Ian Pitchford graciously thanked me and copied it. Of course you can have a copy. Had I been selfish, I would simply have got it published in a journal, where it could be cited as a source. But I don't see any technical reason or existential urgency, other that the obvious motivation of the fellow who objects to it here, to hide it. My own home version is much longer, and more detailed. It is objected, again, that it serves no purpose, and will never be used, on wikipedia. I don't know where this extraordinary chairvoyant certitude comes from. I don't think it material whether it has immediate utility or not. It's a snapshot of what I did before I got (unaccountably, but rules are rules) perma-banned. I've always thought of it fondly, if perhaps pretentiously, as a private gift to a public venue. Now I'm being smacked with an innuendo, and a wholly arbitrary act of intolerance. If the system can be finagled this way for what I regard as mischievous ends, to get at someone, then I'll draw the lesson that this place privileges manipulative gaming over the commitments of civic intelligence. I'm trying to do a difficult job with care and civility and keep getting suggestions I be topic banned: now it's from Shakespeare as per Kudpung because I simply complained that one editor was effectively stopping me from editing a page. It's worse than Kafka at times in here. At this rate, I'll have to brush up on the ethnology and linguistics of some obscure tribe no one knows about, as a save haven from this endless push to narrow and narrow the areas I am permitted to work in. If it goes, I go. Nishidani (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR - --Kudpung (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. That underlines my point. If my remarks above strike you, as they will strike 99% of any passing readers, as WP:TLDR, then imagine how few people, if any (to date I know of only two in almost 2 years), would take the trouble to read the opening section of this talk page to which objection is taken. On a rough calculation it is 7 times longer, and impressionable youth raised in the virtual world of the Internet cannot be expected to be corrupted by a personal reflection of such tedious length. So shall we let sleeping dawgs lie, or dog slipping louts like myself? :) Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Poor Kudpung! But I'm glad that he's not ashamed to admit that he finds reading 27 lines a bit too much to manage. ← ZScarpia 22:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Now now. He's an excellent wikipedian with a redoubtable record than makes my own contributions here look mean. I can fully understand why some smart-alecky traits of mine piss him off. They piss me off at times. I wish I could be more succinct. But I don't have time to revise, and I feel obliged to explain why I hold this or that view, on edits, on an article's background. To the precisian it may well look like flab, not trimmed towards the simple purpose of adding to an encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I thought you might be interested in looking at any material you can find relating to Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Philadelphians, that is, if you can find anything about a subject that obscure. John Carter (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, although I don't know if he mentioned anything about any possible pre-Christian groups, Marcel Simon's Verus Israel says something to the effect that there may have been an "Ebionite" group within every then-extant Jewish group. By the way, please do not take this as any form of pressure; I know you have other things you are actively engaged in. This is primarily because my own memory tends to leak like a sieve over time, and I don't think I would be able to remember it myself, so I'm crowding up your talk page with my occasional thoughts as they occur to me. Now I have to put out the fire in my hair which comes from thinking too hard, dammit. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm only hanging round like a bad smell to fulfil some prior obligations, contracted earlier this year, i.e. assist Tom Reedy in fixing the Shakespeare Authorship Question related pages, which have a vexed history of getting nowhere, and this, with you. I'll be abroad for some months shortly, but will do my best to help as time and resources allow. I don't feel 'pressured' except by advancing years, which don't make me comfortable with slow cunctator tactics, and the fact that I can't contribute as much as I would like. Best Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites 2 Mediation

Greetings!

I have agreed to mediate the Ebionites 2 case. I'm requesting that all parties start with opening statements, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks for agreeing to go to mediation, I'm hopeful we can get this resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or issues. --WGFinley (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Class dismissed

It seems that everybody but the instructor knew that the classes were this weekend, so they've been put off until the 6th. I've got an errand or two to run and then I plan on spending the day trying to get the SAQ done, or at least enough so that it resembles a complete article. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No excuses then, pal, just like I aint got nun neither. We gotta wirk our butts off, till fagged out, we're flagged out or FA'd up. Sad SAQs, indeed, myne gude manne. A line from Milton comes to mind.

Eyeless in ****, at the mill with slaves,

Himself in bonds under Philistian yoke!

You'll know the line, but just in case my Alzheimer's is contagious, the asterisked bit can be restored by thinking of Aldous Huxley's novel, circa 1936, or Vergil's Aeneid, Book 1, line 120, first word.* I gotta be hyper-careful, udderwise the snoops will haul me up before sysops for a ban violation. Gambare! as they say in Tokyo.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeezus, Kerrist. I really am age'en fast. Make that line 119 third last word. A paragon of the sixth age's slippered pantaloon, al right!Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC

I don't want to get involved but I see there is an RfC here. I may make a comment, but would like to see some other input. Will you be commenting? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Baconian theory has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary topic ban while the RfC is ongoing

I have volunteered you as agreeable to being topic banned per my comments here. Upon thinking about it further, you are of course able to work on the draft noted in the RfC if you think any of the comments there should be incorporated. However, in the meantime, could you just try and not get into any edit wars or stuff. The other named two parties are also getting this message. Stay cool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool as a cucumber. I think total abstention is the best remedy. I'm mum from here on in, until doomsday. Best regards and thanks for what is a very good proposal.Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship

For what it's worth, both of the pages in question have User:Smatprt listed in the article history as the original author of those versions, and the talk pages list specific changes that they claim to have made themselves. I suppose it's possible that they merely copied and pasted someone else's work from somewhere else, but I'd have no way of determining that without seeing the older versions, as Smatprt does appear to be the primary author of the particular pages that I moved. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, uh, . .I can't make the sign of the cross, hold my breath, appeal to Job with a Jewish prayer for further patience, because I'm bound not to comment. But . .after 1200 sweated edits and several months, involved in reading, at a rough guess, 5000 pages of books and articles, to be told that the result is that the 'primary author' is someone else. . .Let's see, it's too late to wake the neighbours by playing the Malinconia movement in Beethoven's String Quartet, . . there's something my father called the idiot box in one of the rooms. . yes, I'll watch some TV and consider a suppository.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, those sedatives aren't working. I need something, a mix between seriotonin and dopamind, to block that neurotransmitter hyperactivity, conducive to paranoia, caused by a theory announcing that I've been working as a proxy for Shapiro, even before his book came out, and for the 3 months I worked before a copy got to my desk.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't doubt your sincerity — all I know is what I can see when I look at the pages themselves. If Smatprt merely copied and pasted your or someone else's work from other pages into brand new titles, then I'd be happy to merge the pages back into the original titles if you can tell me where they are. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. No harm done. The shock's passed, the ticker less arythmic. And you guys have enough on your plate without me wasting time fixing trivia only because I twig some personal minor sense of honour suffered an obscure slight. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Tom Reedy subsequently provided me with the original titles, so I've now redirected Smatprt's forks back to where they belong. And by the way, this kind of thing is part of an administrator's job description, so you needn't worry about "wasting time" by asking someone to fix something like this :-) Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

irrespective of SAQ

I really am at a loss to understand your apparent hostility to me. Have I done something to offend you? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The best answer to an incomprehensible query is a question. Have you ever read E. M. Forster's novel Howard's End?Nishidani (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I presume you mean "only connect", so I will do so a bit:

As far as I know our paths first crossed in February 2009, when you seemed happy with this contribution.

I got involved with the SAQ in July 2010 as a result of an invitation from Tom Reedy at User talk:SamuelTheGhost#Opinion requested.

My view on the SAQ is firmly Stratfordian and conventional, but I think that the SAQ in Wikipedia needs to be answered rather than avoided. I thought that this put me in a strong position to propose compromises. I did not edit the articles, but made a few remarks, not intended to be provocative in any way, on the talk pages. In particular in August I suggested an innocuous paragraph to which you reacted with quite disproportionate hostility. I'm still trying to work out why. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Howard's End is many things, but it is also a clever novel illustrating the principle of unintended consequences, which, as I check the flyleaf of my old copy, was my first impression. Everyone acts according to their native lights, most with a formal respect for the stern social manners of the Edwardian period, and yet, notwithstanding this finicking cleaving to 'good form', misunderstandings are rife, and even the finely tuned lyrical crescendo of a beautiful orchestrated engagement and marriage turns out to be, read retrospectively, a matter of facilis descensus Averno (Aeneid, Bk 6). A kind word put in on behalf of Leonard Bast leads to advice that has him lose his job, rather than retain it; an attempt to save his parlous descent into the shabby genteel leads to the destruction of a marriage; a show of tenderness for his plight leads to the heroine's sister, Helen, falling pregnant with an illegitimate child; an attempt by Helen to disvest herself of half of her money to help out Leonard falls flat, with the result her wealth is substantially increased; even Tibby, who never engages and exists as a sort of dead centre at the heart of a vibrant family, by an artless slip of the tongue, sets in train a domino effect that leads, by many indirections, Charles, Mr Wilcox's son, to kill Leonard Bast, who turned up simply to apologise for something he could hardly be blamed for. At a certain point the narrator intrudes:-

'They had nothing in common but the English language, and tried by its help to express what neither of them understood' (ch XXXIX, Penguin ed.1967 p.288)

A lean and slippered pantaloon like myself has to keep reminding himself that vanity lays siege to senescence, but I can't avoid the impression that commingling in this medium with people much younger than myself brings out evidence for some seismic rift between the tectonic plates of our respective generations. The kind of dialogue I am used to doesn't function, or is misheard, or read past to get the 'gist'. in participating in discussions, I feel certain I am speaking in my mother tongue, but equally certain that it's not the same idiom used by many of my interlocutors, even though the grammar and vocabulary is basically identical (except of course for words like 'disingenuous' which to my mind evokes Iago, and means 'fraudulent', 'maliciously deceptive' but here often appears as a synonym for 'naif/naive'. Even admins use it that way, and no one, with the OED in hand, takes them to court for a violation of WP:AGF.)

I think that sums up much of what passes for interactions and dialogue in wikipedia. Huge threads develop because listening closely, ear to the ground, is a lost art. Do so, and you are quickly hauled over the coals. We live in the discursive variety of Zygmunt Bauman's 'liquid society' and the most recent threads on SAQ themes illustrate with marvellous tedium Bauman's (actually Prospero's) logic: everything solid melts into thin air, as the hard world of facts, or structurally grounded argument, suffers effacement by the voracious tsunamis of opinion and emotion which pounce on its wake and overturn the fragile barque.

How 'hostility' can be construed from my words in our extremely intermittent exchanges defeats my understanding of the word. How 'disproportionate hostility' can be used of this equally bewilders me, esp. since 'hostility' in my vocabulary is intrinsically 'disproportionate' in such contexts. We may illude ourselves that we are, to use a beautiful phrase from Pär Lagerkvist's novel, 'guests of reality' (cf.Gäst hos verkligheten). We ain't. We're strangers in a virtual space, and misprisions of intentions, or misreading between the lines is the norm, because the social context of direct encounter, the facial tics, intonation of voice, and drift of innuendo beneath the slow current of patent argument, is lost to view, or inaudible. It is easy therefore to presume both amity and malice where there is neither. The word 'stranger' in Indo-European languages developed two senses, 'guest' and 'enemy', hospitality, and hostility (hence Mr. in Russian господин). We're strangers, and that can turn into one or another of the historical forms, though if hostility is the way taken, you'll find me on the other fork of Robert Frost's road. I may think my engagement in an exchange of views testimony to a hospitable readiness to listen, if only to then disagree. Someone else may take this as a proof of hostility. If you can construe, therefore, whatever words I used in a way that illuminates the hostility you detect there, then I will listen attentively and, if I think your grounds correspond to the evidence, willingly apologize. But on the strength of the diffs you provided, I have nothing to go on to express penitence. Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your lengthy and amusing reply. I am flattered at your willingness to write at such length, which does mollify me somewhat. I will nevertheless revisit, let us hope for the last time, the interchange which offended me, in the hope that you will find my reaction at least comprehensible.

I suggested the paragraph
For over 150 years there have been readers of Shakespeare's works who could not believe that they were written by a man with "small Latin and less Greek", and who prefer to think that the real author must be a highly educated person or persons. Their ideas are discussed as the Shakespeare authorship question. The great majority of scholars have always accepted the substantial direct evidence for Shakespeare's authorship dating from 1623 and earlier.
Tom Reedy immediately described this as "time-wasting promotion"
You wrote "Name the small minority of scholars ..."
I replied "I think you're nit-picking. Mathematically, 100% is still a great majority. I'd accept 'All accomplished historians and textual critics of the period who specialise in Shakespeare' instead."
You came back with "... I'd like to see a source for 'Mathematically, 100% is still a great majority,' which makes no sense to me, since neither a mathematician nor a literary scholar with a refined sense of linguistic tact would write it. I take your rejoinder, and the proposed emendation, as an indication that you can't think of any ranking period scholar ..."
This was the point at which I felt that reasoned argument was escaping from us. Whether a mathematician would describe 100% as a great majority is inessential to the main discussion, but your remark about it was just an insult to me. I phrased it that way simply because I'm reluctant to assert that the minority does not exist, on the general grounds that quot homines tot sententiae. But more importantly, instead of accepting my proposed emendation you wrote some 200 words stressing your view that the emendation was necessary, while effectively ignoring the fact that I had offered it. I would have liked, and would still like, to know whether you could accept the paragraph I orignally wrote, as amended. It seemed to me that you were trying to avoid that issue. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're familiar with Andersen's fable The Princess and the Pea? Nishidani (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'll give you the 'thick context' of what was going on

Where WP:RS show a variety of interpretations, there's room to manoeuvre over the appropriate wording. When they show rare agreement, margins for finessing are very much reduced. In the present case, we had the playwright William Niederkorn, whose articles have been promoted as key sources for the SAQ page, Now Niederkorn, in my personal view, is a poor source, but the New York Times is RS, so one accepts it, notwithstanding the fact that he is a committed Oxfordian, whose articles for that newspaper were so partisan, they frequently stirred up letters of protest from academics like James Shapiro, Stephen Greenblatt, Terry Ross and David Kathman.

The Oxfordian editors here are great advocates and supporters of material (as is their right) stemming from Niederkorn. As the lead was agonised over, a problem arose however - how to classify the statistical balance between the fringe and the mainstream in academia?

Well, the fringe has virtually no support, and indeed their own key witness, Niederkorn, conceded as much, in writing that, 'a vast majority of academics' support the mainstream view. So, given Niederkorn was a partisan Oxfordian source whose opinions were trumpeted as seminal for writing that page, I and a few others thought his remark must be unobjectionable. It was phrased, for once, in a way that concurred with the mainstream verdict. The mainstream has even stronger language:

Stephen Greenblatt wrote of 'an overwhelming scholarly consensus'(NYT,Sept. 4, 2005);
William Rubinstein, who proposes Sir Henry Neville as the author, is an academic historian and, despite his scepticism of the mainstream wrote, hard on Greenblatt's heels, 'renewed interest in who actually wrote Shakespeare has occurred in the teeth of adamant and virtually unanimous opposition from nearly all established scholars of Shakespeare, especially those in university literature departments, to whom any discussion of an alternative Author is generally considered to be prima facie evidence of insanity.' (The Social Affairs Unit, Oct 4.2005)
David M. Bevington, Professor Emeritus at Chicago Uni, in his Shakespeare: the seven ages of human experience, Wiley-Blackwell, published the same year, wrote of the virtually unanimous opinion of academics that the late plays were written after de vere's 1604 death, and thus the works cannot be ascribed to him.
Stanford's Alan Nelson had written the year before 'I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare ... Among editors of Shakespeare in the major publishing houses, none that I know questions the authorship of the Shakespeare canon.' (Tennessee Law Review Symposium, 2004, p. 151)
In the same symposium, his colleage D. Allen Carroll University of Tennessee, Knoxville, for thirty-five years, where the J. Douglas Bruce Chair in Literature at the University of Tennessee, and a period specialist also testified: "I am an academic, a member of what is called the 'Shakespeare Establishment', one of perhaps 20,000 in our land, professors mostly, who make their living, more or less, by teaching, reading, and writing about Shakespeare—and, some say, who participate in a dark conspiracy to suppress the truth about Shakespeare.... I have never met anyone in an academic position like mine, in the Establishment, who entertained the slightest doubt as to Shakespeare's authorship of the general body of plays attributed to him.' (Tennessee Law Review Symposium,2004, pp. 278–279)

So there was no disputing the point that in a large number of respectable and less respectable sources, establshmentarian and Oxfordian, academics and non academics that there is virtual unanimity, overwhelming consensus, a vast majority among scholars in this regard.

What to do? The softest version was Niederkorn's, the Oxfordian's own source.

No! Absolutely not!

The edit conflict arose because Oxfordian editors wanted this language toned down, vaguer, less 'devastating' for their position that this is not a 'fringe' non-academic theory, but rather a minority opinion within academia, which it is not. The harder the bargain you drove, the more likely it would be that that 'vast majority' would be whittled down so that leeway could be leveraged to give the covert impression that a small but significant dissenting opinion in academia existed. To hell with the ipsissima verba of so many sources. It was a question of 'negotiating a deal' with no card in hand.

'Vast' had to be expunged and replaced with something more delicately euphemistic, to satsfy the advocacy campaigners for the 'dignity' of the Oxfordian position.

At that point you stepped in, and suggested 'great', and felt 'insulted' by my simple straightforward question 'Name the minority of scholars'.

Actually, to feel insulted by this, which is a common feature of philosophical argument, is itself curious. Any term of the kind 'the majority of', used absolutely by a speaker, invites his interlocutor to ask what the implicit premise behind this phrase may be. All terms in discourse have meaning insofar as they 'signify' by virtue of their difference from the synonyms and antonyms that constitute the lexeme's Sprachfeld. To say something is 'hot' implies the 'not cold' among other things. To speak of 'the majority' elicits an implied 'minority' as the negative term. You find it a commonplace in the Platonic dialogues. What you find insulting is not, arguably, my remark, but my use of a standard turn in formal argumentation, that aims to bring out the hidden dimension of a premise. You call that perfectly normal procedure 'nitpicking'. This in a context where huge threads develop out of nothing, in an hallucinating world of endless niggling barter for discursive hegemony at whatever expense to what WP:RS sources actually say.

Since you were offering a compromise, it must have struck you, undoubtedly, as 'reasonable'. What it appeared to do to my ear was 'compromise' a compromise that already existed. One had let pass mentally the proposal of using 'virtual unanimity'/'overwhelming consensus', much stronger terms. And the somewhat vaguer, more muted 'vast majority' seemed to offer a mediated ground where both parties could agree since the source was Oxfordian. We went the distance.

But to further water down a suggested compromise, at that point, just seemed, well, tendentious. You answered with your mathematical analogy, 'Mathematically, 100% is still a great majority.'

When I read that, my mind went back several decades to a memory of a schoolmate, a promising mathematician. He almost always gave back papers to our teacher, a comically dour friar called 'Mumbles', that were so flawless they needed no marking or correction. The first time he did so, he was marked 97%. The boy, aged 11, like Dickens' Oliver Twist, stood up and asked naively: 'Sir, did I slip up somewhere? I can't see what the -3% means.' The friar grumbled with an authoritative dismissal: 'Only God is perfect, and you're not God'. A perfect score had two values, 100% for God, 97% for humans. 100% is a perfect unanimity, 97% a 'vast majority'; 80% a 'great majority'. It's a process, going on for years, of gaming RS by the continual watering down of mainstream scholarship, the invention of compromise language no where evinced in sources, coterminous with a consistent effort to boost the pretensions of a fringe viewpoint. In that context, your suggestion was weighed towards support for the Oxfordian mode of editing. In mediation, you said you were in substantial agreement with Smatprt's perception of the issues, (an that is perfectly respectable). There he said this deals with 'a notable minority viewpoint'. It is not a notable minority viewpoint in RS, (where, to put it politely, it is labelled as whacky): it may well be so on television. In the world of philosophy and of general argument, to say these things, in the manner I said them, is neither an 'insult' nor a sign of 'disproportionate hostility'. It is a sign of civil engagement with a stranger. Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

ps.s there is an apparent assumption that Tom and I coordinate and tagteam and bully Smatprt or anyone else. Tom said, then I, Nishidani said, etc. I entered because I saw a note from Tom, who I didn't know from a bar of soap, never having edited where he edits, on some page expressing exasperation over the diffculties of editing there. I knew the topic, I hopped in, and looked over the page and its history. I saw seven or eight editors, Smatprt, Ssilvers, Asfamit, Schoenbaum, BenJonson, AlexPope, Bertaut, Softlavender etc., showing up, arguing from time to time, often just appearing to back Smatprt in voting proposals and then disappearing, and a smaller number defending the mainstream position. I naturally espouse the orthodox view because that is the only view sustainable by the available evidence. All dropped out very early on in the piece. That we were left in three to argue is none of our fault.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as the Princess and the Pea is concerned, I'll bear it in mind to quote back at you when the occasion arises.

Thank you for all the information about the context, _much of which I admit I didn't know. However, I was trying to discuss some very specific things, and your persistence in avoiding them actually only undermines my faith in the wider issues where I would otherwise be disposed to take your word for it. In particular

The remark I considered an insult was "neither a mathematician nor a literary scholar with a refined sense of linguistic tact would write it", as I think was clear in what I wrote. A mathematician might well write it. I'm not sure what "a refined sense of linguistic tact" is, but it's clear you intended to be insulting. So your indignant paragraph on this subject falls flat.
You persist in ignoring the fact that I quickly agreed to drop "great majority", and wrote "I'd accept 'All accomplished historians and textual critics of the period who specialise in Shakespeare' instead." In offering this I was deliberately using some of you own words, in order to make clear my wish to be co-operative. Yet you carry on at astonishing length attacking the form of words that I had effectively withdrawn, while continuing to ignore my request to consider my proposed paragraph, as amended. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Briefly, to your last, yes, I omitted that. Your second suggestion

'All accomplished historians and textual critics of the period who specialise in Shakespeare have always accepted the substantial direct evidence for Shakespeare's authorship dating from 1623 and earlier.'

was so obviously acceptable to me, I didn't mention it. For the problem there, check back, was to persuade over weeks, an editor or two, to get a change in one word. Your suggestion, even had I endorsed it, would have been slapped about with two or three ^{[citation needed]}s, given past practice. The problem there wasn't what I would accept. The problem was it would never have been accepted by the others with whom I was negotiating on one word. Hope that clarifies things. My father always said never let the sun go down without review of a dispute, and a handshake.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You're dead wrong on maths, but I won't go on in Gaussian fashion about the periodicity of certain elliptic functions, except to note that the phrase lends itself to glossing this kind of exchange. Shakespeare in Othello speaks of

noble swelling spirits

That hold their honors in a wary distance,

The very elements of this warlike isle.

Though I subscribe to an honour code, it isn't a whit prickly or paperythin-skinned.

I'll close this with Howard's End, again.

'the fog pressed against the world like an excluded ghost' (Howard's End, ibid.p.63). Cheers Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm really pleased to hear about your mathematical expertise. Perhaps you'd like to help me develop the work at User:SamuelTheGhost/Reversion towards the Mean, which was intended for the article Regression toward the mean but ruled out as being WP:OR. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How, dear Samuel, can I work on Reversion towards the Mean, when I am deemed to betray characteristics that suggest I am already reverted to being mean?:) For the while, just take me as Diderot encountering Euler in the Court of Catherine the Great! CheersNishidani (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I just now saw this exchange, and since my name was taken I'd like to say to SG that my comment was not aimed specifically at his suggested edit, but the overall problem of inserting mentions of fringe theories in inappropriate articles in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. The innocuousness of the edit was irrelevant; the mere fact that you agreed with Smatprt on the appropriateness of the insertion was, and to my mind indicated your unfamiliarity with the long-standing issue, to which my comment was directed. Hopefully this will be resolved by the mediation, if it ever gets off the ground. A women pregnant for only one hour is as pregnant as one an hour away from giving birth, and if the mediation determines that a little violation of the editing principles is permitted, then the SAQ's hour will have come round at last. I don't think that's going to happen, but I admit I've been surprised and puzzled by the verdicts of many other courts besides those here. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a pity that your obsession with some Wikipedia guidelines has led you to violate others, such as WP:AGF.

It's odd that your apparent faith in mediation is accompanied by a statement of attitude which will guarantee that mediation will fail. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarify. In my experience people usually post such incomprehensible notes on other editors' pages to attract everyone's eye but that of the page user.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to be brief in order not to trespass too much on Nishidani's space, but since he asks me to clarify I will do so. I've also had a note from Paul Barlow on my talk page asking me to justify the WP:AGF point.

No problem of trespass. If there's are problems on pages where I edit, this is as good a place as any to raise them, particularly if the complaint relates to perceptions of behaviour.Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I made a suggestion in Talk:Shakespeare's plays for a paragraph to be included in that article. Previously on that same page I had made it clear that "I personally see no reason to doubt that Shakespeare's works are correctly attributed in the folios". I suggested the paragraph solely because I thought, and still think, that it was a basis for a useful and sensible contribution. (I have since agreed at Nishidani's behest that "great majority" can be replaced by a better form of words.) Tom Reedy attacked it at once, using the words "promotion" and "promoter" in such as way as to cast doubt on the honesty of my own position. Now he says "The innocuousness of the edit was irrelevant; the mere fact that you agreed with Smatprt on the appropriateness of the insertion was ... " something or other. In fact I had not "agreed with Smatprt"; I suggested a different paragraph whch said very much less than his version. But I was, and still am, outraged by the suggestion that agreeing with Smatprt is not something which I am fully entitled to do.
On the mediation issue, Tom is determined to resist the situation where "a little violation of the editing principles is permitted" as he would see it. He seems to have forgotten WP:IAR, WP:COMMON, and the whole meaning of the search for consensus. Mediation is about compromise. To insist in advance on the unconditional surrender of the other side is to make compromise impossible. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the sentence with the word 'promotion' in it: "This type of time-wasting promotion and subsequent edit war has played itself out over many pages". This is the sentence with the word 'promoter' in it: "Since it is a fringe theory, then those policies and guidelines concerning their presentation apply. Until those are changed, I really don't see how any non-promoter of the SAQ can argue to the contrary." I can just about see that the second sentence might be read by you to imply that you are secretly a 'promoter' of the theory, but it's a bit of a stretch. One could just as easily accuse you of a failure to respect AGF by immediately assuming that's an attack, not an honest statement that Tom can't understand how any 'Statfordian', to concede the term, would think it reasonable to have such a paragraph in the article. As for the first sentence, it seems to be a reference to the general problem that Oxfordians promote their theories on many pages, and that the tiresome edit wars that ensue waste a lot of time that could be used more productively. I can't see how this statement can be viewed as a personal attack at all. As for agreeing with Smatprt, obviously you implicitly agreed with him that there should be a paragraph. That's what Tom disagreed with. Of course you may well take the view that his position is too hard-line, but there's no rule against his having a view that differs from yours, or you having a view that differs from his. Paul B (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you reconcile WP:IAR and WP:Common with the fact that we are dealing with an article that comes under WP:Fringe, Samuel? The first would throw open the door to anyone intent on a systematic insouciance to policy, as we see with Nina Green's approach. The second relates to the consistent use of the faculty of practical judgement that the theory itself, to be described, congeals in its ardour for a vein of inferential speculation that rides roughshod over appeals to common sense. Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to stop talking about Tom Reedy unless he himself enters the conversation.
As for "the theory itself congeals in its ardour for a vein of inferential speculation that rides roughshod over appeals to common sense", I am reminded of "His gentle spirit rolls In the melody of souls-- Which is pretty, but I don't know what it means", except that the latter is indeed prettier. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Another misprision. Tom and I have been editing rather intensely to get that sandbox article completed in compliance with an administrative request and certain due-by issues pending, and this morning dropped me a note today in apology saying he was on urgent business, and wouldn't be able to look in, but hoped to finish and tidy his side of things very late in the day. I gather it's not that he has not entered the conversation, but simply is out of town. I thought it proper, knowing he was absent, to make the remark I made, given circumstances meant he couldn't speak, as undoubtedly he will, on his own account. You see, if you read suspiciously, all sorts of odd impressions arise, that a little patience, and a reflection on alternative explanations from the real world would dispel. It's called WP:AGF.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am astonished that such a simple statement of my intention should be interpreted as a "misprision". The statement "I'm going to stop talking about Tom Reedy unless he himself enters the conversation." was not intended to carry, and as far as I can see does not carry any implication as to the circumstances or his motives in not re-entering the conversation, but merely the observation that he hadn't. (Privately I put it down to good sense on his part.) You see, if you read suspiciously, all sorts of odd impressions arise, that a little patience, and a reflection on alternative explanations from the real world would dispel. It's called WP:AGF. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You're playing silly games, and wasting time. I suggest, if this grievance over what was said several months ago in one or two edits still has you sleepless at nights, and leaves you liverish at perceived hostilities here, calling for clarification or vengeance or whatever, go to some administrative outlet to vent your relentless angst over the imagined slight. I'm busy reading, and haven't time for trivial niggling. Take it elsewhere.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Please believe me and do not misunderstand me when I say that I had every intention of letting this particular issue rest. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, my idea of mediation is that it is to clarify how policy applies to the dispute, not muddy it further or try to water it down so that all parties are mollified. If the mediation determines that a brief mention of a fringe theory in an article that is not connected with it in a serious and prominent way does not violate WP:UNDUE and its corollaries, then I will happily acquiesce. That is not my expectation, and it is not a violation of WP:AGF to state that opinion. My understanding of WP:CONSENSUS does not include making an agreement to violate Wikipedia's three core content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:OR. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Your imposed voluntary topic ban re SAQ is lifted

Per my comments at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question#Re the imposed voluntary topic ban is lifted you are no longer under any such undertaking. I strongly suggest that you do not start or participate in any edit wars, arguments, or any other unwise actions. I regret that neither my proposals or your participation lead to a breakthrough to the impasse in this matter. The RfC has yet to conclude, of course, and I suggest that that remains the only avenue by which these issues may yet be addressed. Regards, LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Always a pleasure to hear your voice again

--Ravpapa (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Smatprt

Following my review of the discussion, my decision is that consensus was for the topic banning of Smatprt and, in the absence of a consensus for any time period, I have made it for 1 year, per my comments here. I have also noted that there were complaints regarding your interactions with some editors which, although recognising that all might be considered involved in the disputes in that area, I suggest you might bear in mind in future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. I've already undertaken to work on the de Vere article with Nina Green, bearing precisely this point in mind, which Noleander made to both of us, Tom and I, and which you rightly confirm here. Nishidani (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleting my comment

I see you deleted what Jesus said from another users talk page saying it was offensive. Thats blasphemy and I think its offensive that you are controling enough to push your way into a conversation between two other people. I'm sure he or she is quite capable of answering Jesus him or herself. Maybe your head is to big. Keep out of other peoples business and stop playing God cos Jesus is more powerful than you. Glowtar (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Limits of the Shakespeare Topic Ban

Hi Nishidani,

I've posted a proposal related to this issue over at Tom Reedy's talk page here. I know you're off somewhere more likely to have tea with Stanley than a Doubleshot at Starbucks—if you'll forgive the somewhat random similie—so I've no expectation of active participation or a speedy response; but would appreciate your opinion on the matter when it's convenient for you. Thanks, --Xover (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Is everything alright?

Hello! You've been very quiet recently. How are you? Is everything alright? ← ZScarpia 21:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Requesting input

Please be so good as to indicate at Talk:Ebionites whether you believe the template I had recently restored should be kept in place or not. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Nishidani-san. I read on the talk page of the Ebionites article that you may return to editing in late-February or early March. I am looking forward to working with you to resolve this mess, particularly regarding Eisenman. I have gone through "Jewish-Christianity Reconsidered" by Jackson-McCabe et al., and I'm working my way through Skarsaune and Hvalvik. I will try my best to review Eisenman's magnum opus "The New Testament Code" by the end of February. Best regards. Ovadyah (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Language

How's your German? nableezy - 02:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Pedantic natives might call it, my German, measly, but whatever. I'm in a pretty weird place for applying myself to anything, and communicating it, but, sure, mail it to me. Cheers Nab, and I'm sorry to see you're still active on wikipedia. Arbitration here is really disfunctional.Nishidani (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Right? Whats wrong with these people, I should have been banned years ago. Shouldnt be too much for you, but Id like to translate this German article. Ive started here with a google translate. I see youre still involved in some problems over yonder (thats about as Shakespearean as I get), but if you get bored I think this could be a decent way to waste a few days. Wont get to Steiner level, but could be a decent article. nableezy - 04:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Hope you are ok? I was just thinking, in view of this [2], perhaps you could apply for the same? Miss you! :) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. A similar from myself petition would be futile, and would only cause embarrassment for all, since I haven't fulfilled the key condition for redemption, writing articles to GA or FA status, and am unlikely to do so. Nishidani (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, correct me if I´m wrong, but writing articles to GA or FA status was not a precondition, was it? Though Remedy 11 imply that is the most secure way. I though "their ability to work constructively with other editors" came first :) Cheers, and take care, Huldra (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to demonstrate one can work well with other editors, since that kind of judgement is one others would make, not the interested party. One can express a willingness to work well with others. Only others can certify that this is the case. As usual, I'm hamstrung by my understanding of what words are supposed to mean.Nishidani (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, in case you've forgotten, you did assist in getting Norman Finkelstein to GA status. Anyway, good to see you haven't shuffled off the Shakespearean coil yet. I was quite amused to see this: "But Anderson did not just use it, he had it talking, gabbling away, a ball with verbal diarrhoea." --NSH001 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. Huldra, nice to see you back as well.

Well done to the Poms, the Aussies were done like a bushman's dinner, and deserved a thorough thrashing.

Of course I'd like to have my rights to edit the I/P area restored. I thought my major infraction over 3 years there (check my real record against anyone's) was gross WP:TLDR violations, as I tried to use talk pages to get across a wider commitment to informed historical knowledge. I haven't the real time to do what is asked of me, getting the SAQ alone close to FA status has been a singleminded pursuit, involving absurd amounts of work (as opposed to research, which I accept as enjoyable) to get commas in the right place. Still, I am in no hurry. If that gets to FA status, I suppose I should, pro forma, request a reconsideration, but I'm more minded to leave wikipedia altogether, than chance being caught up in that added burden to one's voluntary public activities. Cheers to you all, and thanks for the kind comments.Nishidani (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

gah! The cricket was depressing..yes. Nish you've helped me several times working up stuff, so it all counts. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Carry on without me

Nishidani, my medical situation requires that I withdraw at least temporarily. I apologize for any misspellings, as I can barely read this. Please carry on in my place and try to provide some balance between opposing points of view. Sorry we got into it over reliable sources. I will try to return if I can in a few weeks. Best regards. Ovadyah (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Etymology help

Hi Nishidani, hope you are keeping well. You may recall helping Casliber and I with etymology at the Boletus edulis article last year, I was hoping you might be able to provide assistance with some more etymology. The word in question is Psilocybe (in the article Psilocybe semilanceata, although several other articles could use the clarficiation as well), which (apparently) derives from the Greek for psilos (ψιλος) ("bald") and kubê (κυβη) ("head"). Casliber is able to source Psilos to Liddel and Scott's (1980) A Greek-English Lexicon, but cannot find reference to "kube/cybe"... would you be able to confirm this is correct and provide a reliable source I could use in the article? Sasata (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If κυβη is classical Greek for 'head' it's news to me, but then there's no end of what remains to be learnt. in classical greek the concept of a human head was denoted by a variety of words like kephale, kara, koruphe, -kranos, etc., and the 'head of a plant' (but perhaps not the pileus of a 'mukes' or mushroom) was called the kephalaion. Psilos means 'bald' of a human head, certainly, but of surfaces generally 'smooth', 'bare', etc, which is what one would expect here. Hoffman cracked a lot of acid, perhaps he was on it when he coined this. However this is just off the top of my head. I am travelling and away from my library, where I could check this out. It would help if one could retrieve the paper where Hoffman describes psilocybin and presents his etymology, since from a google glance it all seems to go back to that. Unless help from other quarters is forthcoming, I'll look into it by mid Feb. I think I also owe Casliber something on Betelgeuse. Cheers chaps, sorry to be momentarily as useless as tits on a bull.Nishidani (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The request was for some japanese material on Betelgeuse :) - Sadalsuud (talk · contribs) and I would be insanely grateful as the cultural stuff is a bit of an achillese here on that one, otherwise a mighty article and nearing FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: the use of cybe predates hoffman - he got the chemical from the genus, and there are other early genera - Inocybe (1863), Hygrocybe, Calocybe, Conocybe and Clitocybe - the culprit would appear to be Elias Magnus Fries (?)

Thanks Nishidani, we had a chat over at Cas's page which helped me remember I had access to OED online, and the etymology is now sourced. Sasata (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

...except now I am curious - where the hell κυβη comes from...? from κυβος "cube"? I wish I had a byzantine lexicon... :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Shakespeare authorship question and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, and if you are aware of any other parties who might be usefully added, please list them etc. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question opened

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 15:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:COIN#Ebionites regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, as an active editor on the Ebionites article, and a frequent participant in the ongoing content disputes (and hopefully the pending mediation), I thought you might like to be aware of this filing. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion has been made on Jayjg's talk page to resume mediation with Jayjg stepping in as the mediator. I agree, and I would prefer that he step in as the formal mediator, since we have already given our initial statements. I think we can resolve this impasse if we focus on the task rather than the editors involved. Can you work with that? Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixes

I implemented the fix to the lead section of the Ebionites article that you suggested on the talk page. Feel free to improve it as you see fit. I restored the Greek Ebiwnaioi to the lead section because that is the term the patristic fathers actually used, beginning with Irenaeus, to refer the followers of a heretical sect founded by Ebion. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I am compiling a file off-wiki of all your suggestions regarding Eisenman. I intend to address the problems of method you identified in various forums. However, it may take a few weeks to complete the task. I want to address both volumes of Eisenman's work, "James the Brother of Jesus" and "The New Testament Code", together as one huge corpus of knowledge as he intended. The problem with Eisenman remaining at odds with the radiocarbon and paleographic dating is that it tends to obscure everything else he contributed. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Nishidani. You have new messages at Ovadyah's talk page.
Message added 21:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arbcom submission here, since it is far too long, and I am far too exhausted to waste my last weeks on vacation reading thousands of diffs

Background My I/P permaban proves for some I am an inveterate edit warrior [3],[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9]). Warshy's enmity here and here is inexplicable. Our only prior contact was briefly on the Baruch Spinoza page, here. SamuelTheGhost speaks of my 'hostility' inferred from a brief exchange here, here and here, likewise inexplicable. I owe an explanation as to my involvement, clearly.

After the ban I was in two minds whether to continue. I did a few quick articles Franz Baermann Steiner, Taboo and Barasana, but kept reading the flow. I caught sight of this exasperated comment while reading this. Curious, I checked the relevant discussion. Long familiar with Kathman's work, I added a late strong comment here and here. This led to an accusation, perhaps understandable, of stalking. I went to the SAQ page, on Feb.14, and, as is my wont, first checked how it is sourced. Only some 40 of the 230 footnotes met WP:RS standards for WP:fringe articles. The text was an unreadable hodge-podge. I did 26 short individual edits often tweaks on phrasing, rewriting to neutrality, grammatical fixes or corrections of vague unsourced evidence with RS ([10], [11], [12], [13] and [14]) and was then blanket reverted by Smatprt who regarded all these edits as 'major changes' requiring consensus. He was in turn reverted by Old Moonraker who welcomed a fresh vision. My impression, reviewing the archives, was that editors adhering to wiki protocols on WP:RS and WP:Fringe were encountering a deep problem with WP:OWN, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, stonewalling on far too many minor edits by a partisan passionately convinced of his fringe beliefs, who however privileged WP:CONSENSUS and WP:AGF in a way that corralled the article into an endless sequence of dithering and meaningless negotiation. He struck me as either not construing English well or 'fraudulently' pretending not to understand it, though saying that was improper. Evidence for topic banning me for policy violations, frustration, intemperance, certainly exists from that period. See Smatprt's complaint here in March, though many of his summaries for the diffs are questionable I certainly blew my top here, esp. here exasperated by the failure, after writing up a full afternoon's checking over a dozen sources in classical texts and secondary sources, to make him understand that the WP:OR violation he was restoring was nonsense, and, even if in fringe sources, best ignored.

However in making the same accusation in October here, where he writes that abuse by Nishidani been going on non-stop for almost a year, Smatprt ignored the intervening record. From April to October, we had almost no interactions except for August 19 ([15]), when Smatprt tried to insert the Oxfordian theory onto a page dealing with Shakespeare's Plays, which cover only mainstream scholarship, and on 21, when I stepped in to defend him when he was attacked by a sockpuppet. See [16], and [17]

Writing the new SAQ article. At precisely this early point in March User:ScienceApologist stepped in and issued a merge directive, advising us to create a sandbox article to work out an alternative version, merging several articles into one, a decision I partially dissented from. Tom Reedy then created this sandbox. A month later (April 26), dissatisfied, Smatprt hived off a second page with a fork, creating Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/sandbox draft2 for us to work on, while he reverted the first page to the state it was in before Tom and I edited it, reserving it for his version. Since then, no significant interaction between the two parties took place, until his ban and the Arbcom deliberation. Tom posted on his page Ncmvocalist's counsel, which I believe the subsequent record will show we have hewed closely to. True, we no longer had the frustration of negotiating everything word by word, but finally had an opportunity to work vigorously towards the drafting of an acceptable article.

Over the following 5 months Smatprt managed a mere 90 edits, many minor tweaks, to his version, leaving the old article essentially intact. My impression therefore was that, without an adversarial context, he seemed incapable of working on articles. Over the same period Tom and I did 1,439 edits (923,464), virtually in sequence, one draft being reviewed by the other, and this involved a thorough ground-up revision, surveying all old and new sources, with only 7.5% minor edits, and this was promoted to be the default Shakespeare Authorship Question wikipage on the 7th of October. I think this is the key evidence for the difference in approach to what editing wikipedia is about. Spending years hanging about contentious pages, tinkering, talking, querying, behaving impeccably but always hairsplitting or grabbing them by the scruff and undertaking to drive them towards a quality which wikipedian peer-review will find acceptable.

I then addressed, logically, the contiguous pages, one of which was supposed to have been merged with SAQ, namely the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship but which could not be merged without creating numerous technical problems. I also began editing the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford page. Every attempt to touch the former met with blanking by Smatprt [18])([19])([20]). I explained the technical reasons for my edits i.e. his reverts were restoring patent errors Smatprt simply blanket reverted again, arguing I was editwarring, and said his reasons for this are that I am an POV warrior, and he will not answer anything I might note. My request to AN/I to have my editing rights restored to the page inadvertently led to Smatprt's I year suspension. I did not initially call for any such action against him. It seemed less controversial to do the de Vere page, which is straight biography, but whichsuffered from extremely bad sourcing despite the fact we have two RS biographies, by Bernard Ward (1928) and Alan Nelson (2003), the latter Berkeley's emeritus Elizabethan scholar is ranked the foremost modern academic authority on de Vere. In 60 sourcing notes, Nelson's book was cited, for trivia, 3 times, while much of the rest was sourced to non Rs or webpages. Smatprt had attacked Nelson's RS credibility earlier here, justifying his refusal by reference to reviews on an Amazon book website, written by members of the deVerean coterie.

Nina Green, who came back to the article protested my edits for replacing footnotes to her private website with sourcing from Alan Nelson and Daphne Pearson, two peer-reviewed orthodox scholars. She maintained the use of her site had been approved by wikipedia and replacing them with standard RS, as I did, was vandalism. Her challenging of Nelson has been constant. For this reason, I asked for her own academic credentials, and peer-reviewed publications in the field. A private researcher, without any academic background in the appropriate historical and linguistic disciplines, cannot hold an RS like Nelson to ransom by arguing for his or her superior personal knowledge of the subject, and deriding the scholar. Despite her numerous accusations, unsupported by evidence, that I engaged in defamatory diatribes against her, my discussions on the deVere page were courteous, notwithstanding my reservations, esp. after her early comment here, suggesting it would be wikipedia's loss if we ignored using her own transcriptions from primary documents for the life of deVere, and simply relied on books by peer-reviewed scholars of the Elizabethan period.

Nina has repeatedly charged that describing the fringe theory as a 'mania' or 'cranky' is proof both my and Tom's edits are biased, and that we should recuse ([21]) ([22]) ([23]) ([24]). Nina repeats this fully aware that these are the very terms the doyen of Shakespeare biographers, Samuel Schoenbaum, used [25] to characterize the sceptical position. From Arthur Quiller-Couch's introduction to the Cambridge edition of Shakespeare's works,<see note below*> (1920) through Schoenbaum to Kenneth Muir ('Baconians, Derbyites and the rest of the lunatic fringe'), it has been customary within Shakespearean scholarship for ranking scholars like Brian Vickers to speak of a a 'delusion' or 'perverse enthusiasm' when reviewing works of a 'curious psychological phenomenon'. For Stephen Greenblatt it is all a 'wildly implausible' fiction, notable not for the hypothesis but that 'a small but vocal cohort passionately believe in it'. Even for a very cautious scholar like the Jesuit expert on Shakespeare's background Peter Milward, it is 'lunatic fringe'. My third and fourth edit to the page was to cite precisely this language from Schoenbaum.

I checked in here on Dec 23, saw the work of 6 intense months under crossfire from old and new POV warriors, and, much to my wife's discontent, have, where computer access is possible, tried to assist in assuring that the gains made are not destroyed. I am by nature irritated by dithering, and here dithering was the modus scribendi of the earlier SAQ article. I'm effectively done with editing it, since several very experienced FA-canny editors have now joined to move it along. Perhaps a permaban here also would be a blessing in disguise.Nishidani (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

note* (An example of the kind of thing often encountered in high quality RS which both Tom and I agree is not proper to the encyclopedia. '"It has been computed that of the lunatics at present under ward or at large in the British Isles, a good third suffer from religious mania, a fifth from a delusion that they belong to the Royal Family, while another fifth believe either that they are Shakespeare, or that they are the friends or relatives or champions of somebody else, whose clothes and reputation ‘that Stratford clown’ managed to steal; or, anyhow, from touching up the Authorised Version to practising as a veterinary surgeon".' (Quiller-Couch 1920 intro to Cambridge ed. of Shakespeare's Works)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question closed

An arbitration case regarding the Shakespeare authorship question has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question;
NinaGreen (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
NinaGreen is topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating (broadly construed) to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford;
The Arbitration Committee endorses the community sanction imposed on Smatprt (talk · contribs). Thus, Smatprt remains topic-banned from editing articles relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed, for one year from November 3, 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 20:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The finer points of grammar

Hi Nish,

Regarding your edits: 1, 2, 3.

In the case of “became” vs. “came to be”, became as the past tense of the verb to become, here describes a process (and implicitly the result of that process). Came to be, on the other hand, to me, connotes either divine intervention (it smacks of the phraseology of the old testament; or possibly of a fable: And so it came to be, that the young prince found his fame at last.) or pure happenstance (think “happened to be”). It also has a tone more suited—again in my opinion—to a narrative style rather than an encyclopedia. I don't think either can be said to be objectively wrong, but the latter is rather jarring to me.

You are of course correct that my use of “suggestions” should have been singular. A rather embarrassing oversight. However, the gist of the change was to conform the clause with the tense used elsewhere in the paragraph. The preceding sentences use “was” rather a lot, and your version suddenly switches to “are” (and the following “from” rather than “in” is also a giveaway). I would suggest “… there were no suggestions in this period …” or “… there was no suggestion in this period …”, and I'm of not particularly strong opinion about which it is (at most I could say that the former retains the connotation of plurality, which you may or may not find salient in the context).

And finally, regarding “Bacon and his merry men” (pardon), I think you've essentially just reverted my change back to the original. You comment that the sentences now are “smoother reading”, to which I reply that this is indeed so, and hence why it needed to be broken up: to read less smoothly. The sentence is far too long, and attempts to cram far too much information into a single sentence, and the only remedy is to break it up. This can either be done by splitting it into two sentences, each with a manageable amount of work to perform, or by introducing some more obvious subdivision for the reader to reference: in effect a parenthetical, except, in this case, without using actual parenthesis. The thing is a beast, and I would wish no man to wrestle with it needlessly. Incidentally, the choice of “in order to” rather than “whose purpose was” is to both use simpler and more straightforward language, and to avoid inviting the reader to wonder what, then, the purpose of the “advanced political and philosophical system” would be (something we don't have the room to go into). With the former phrasing the new system becomes, cognitively, a goal in itself and the reader does not go looking for purposes in the last part of the sentence.

In any case, I am focussing my energies on getting through a copy-editing run of the rest of the article, rather than going back over these bits. Not least because I expect Tom will be back from his little WikiBreak soon, and chomping at the bit, impatient to finally get this thing to FAC. And as I am inexcusably tardy, owing to a bout with the flu, in my long promised application of polish to your crowning jewels, I do not wish to needlessly delay this progress. In other words, I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the sentences in question and see if you can find a way to address my concerns as outline above. --Xover (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm too familiar with your work not to tiptoe round any changes you make. The only problem I have is with 'became regarded'. A brief google shows it is acceptable English, to my surprise. For I was certain I had never come across it in my reading or hearing life. I am wrong since I've read William James, who however in his The Principles of Psychology (vl.2 p.186) has:

'But the felt object's size is the more constant size, just as the felt object is, on the whole, the more interesting and important object; and so the retinal sensations become regarded as its signs.'

and in Jack Lindsay's translation of Apuleius, in the intro. one reads:

'Such demons are therefore evil spirits and should not be used by good men as intermediaries between themselves and the gods. The fact that Apuleius like the thaumaturge Apollonius had become regarded as a magician to be set up against Christ', The Golden Ass,p.26

So both a highly literate American and Australian used it, and thus the usage went under my radar.

It is however not a grammatical form I would ever use, and my instincts bridled against it. But my preferences are idiosyncratic, so I will restore your version (unless that hasn't been done).

(2) the awkward coterie bit is unmanageable simply because introducing Spenser constrains the sentence into being ungainly. The two central elements are Bacon the leader, and Raleigh the main writer. Elide Spenser and rewriting smoothly shouldn't be difficult.Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Xover, you make some good points above. But I have to voice my agreement with Nishidani that "came to be regarded" is more idiomatic. At least that is my gut feeling as well, and, Nishidani, I couldn't imagine why you reverted your change, nor could I fathom what William James or somebody named Lindsay could have to do with it. I searched a long time on the SAQ talk page for a discussion of this change but found nothing. So I finally decided to ask you here, and now I see that it is this talk page you were referring to. I love William James; but in this context, I'll side with the "Sprachgefühl" of Nishidani. --Alan W (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Jack Lindsay won his guernsey in classics, with a first class degree (Jack Lindsay, Life Rarely Tells: An Autobiography in Three Volumes, Penguin, 1982 p.220), under a Scot, (and the Scottish reknown for intellectual rigour is confirmed by their contribution to classical philology) namely John Lundie Michie, who had himself earned a double first at Trinity College Cambridge in the Classical Tripos. That, more than anything else, convinced me that the usage was acceptable in non-American English, as well as the fact that William James's mastery of nuanced prose was as refined as that of his brother. I must confess, though, I am somewhat relieved, Alan, by your own confirmation of my instincts. I thought 'become regarded' was a solecism, until my research. I still would never use that construction became regarded as, especially. But English lessons never end. My own Sprachgefühl must have here reflected a certain provincialism with regrd to the more recondite corners of my mother tongue. Perhaps others might chip in on this curiosity of idiomatic usage.Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, as you can readily see, there is no particular reason why my proclivity in this should have preferment. It's a minor point, and neither is actually wrong, so I explain my reasoning but leave the choice entirely up to you. Since Alan's inclination agrees with yours, I suggest that is likely to be the best course. --Xover (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll put it to a vote on a page more read than this! (Whatever the outcome I wonder if 'becoming regarded' is not an unwitting miscalque ('werden/become') on some German prototype like als . . .angesehen werden/als . . . betrachtet werden? James ploughed through large vols of German. I can foresee at least a decade of my reading haunted by this phrase!)Nishidani (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This conversation has turned out rather interesting and amusing. Yes, Xover, I agree, neither expression violates any rules of English grammar. Which one prefers is a matter of personal instinct. I'll be interested to hear the results of any voting on whatever page you post this question on, Nishidani. Very interesting thought, too, that James might somehow have been influenced by German linguistic constructions. I know only a very little German, but enough to see what you're saying.

Another interesting thought is that James had as refined a command of nuanced English prose as his brother. Maybe you're right; but if so he generally declined to make use of all the nuances. I think that to him, his brother's English was a bit over-nuanced. But William certainly had a solid command of the language and could express whatever he wanted to very well. Now that you've brought up William James, I can hardly wait to resume a project of mine that has fallen by the wayside, that of reading much more of James, perhaps everything. I never did get through the full two volumes of the Principles of Psychology but that wasn't for lack of interest (I don't now recall why I put it aside). James in any case has always been a favorite of mine.

As for Jack Lindsay, that to me is the most amusing part of all this. As an American, I have only a faint notion of what all that about a guernsey is. To me that is either an island or a breed of cattle. Over the years I've read references to things like the classical Tripos and such at the Oxbridge universities, and I suppose they are some sort of honors won in highly prestigious competitions by upperclassmen, or something like that.

I should go now, especially since I'm recovering from some kind of viral infection that has thrown me off. (And I hope you're feeling better, Xover; I recall your mentioning having the flu.) And then I want to take a look at what the current state of the SAQ page is. I did want to do a read-through again, but I have held back since it seems that it has become a bit destabilized again. Regards, Alan W (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

To get a guernsey = receive an accolade, be awarded, obtain recognition. My own classics teacher loved the idiom. I've linked the other terms. I've had second thoughts on voting. An opinion is never worth a reason, and reasons are what interest me. A final thought. 'To come to be+past participle+as' is grammatical, in my mental world, whereas 'to become + past participle+as' (not adjective, as in Tom's 'naked') is idiomatic, in the sense that examples of the former structure are bountiful, whereas the 'become+past participle' construction is context/lexeme-restricted. Replaceing 'regarded' with 'considered', (become considered as, become thought of as etc.,) makes me feel stylistically awkward. Having googled this, however, I find there is: 'Amun became thought of as a fertility deity'! Not the sort of thing, however, to trouble our thoughts or distract our energies from the SAQ overhaul's key issues at this late point, though I confide my hopes in some further elucidation months and years down the track, especially if you get through the omnia opera of the great William! Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the glossing and elucidation of the above. I wouldn't be so involved in Wikipedia if I didn't love learning something new every day (as I enjoy sharing with others what I already know), especially in such congenial and sympathetic company. (This takes me back to the better part of my academic days, one of the briefer of my numerous careers.) I've started my read-through of the SAQ page, and I will do a bit more shortly (haven't looked in there yet today). Yes, we must talk more when I revisit my William James project. Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Confused

Didn't ArbCom know that your name cannot be mentioned in their presence without what an uninformed person would call a draconian restriction being handed to you? How are you not site-banned yet? I've missed quite a bit in the last few months, I just now read your latest encounter with the Supreme Council of the Armed, err I mean the High Court of Justice. How have they come to any conclusion other than you are the embodiment of all that is wrong with Wikipedia, and that justice may only be served with your indefinite block and the expunging of any words you have written on this site? Scandalous! nableezy - 00:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Which reminds me, Nab, I promised to get off my fat arse and help with a few articles, one on a German woman. Give me a nudge when you feel like returning, and I'll try to pull my finger out.Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No longer an option. During my absence some person apparently mistook the draft in my userspace as an attempt to somehow improve this "encyclopedia", and, rather than allow it to languish until either I got bored enough or you found the right mix of alcohol and swine that serves as the fuel for the infidel mind, that kind person completed the translation and moved it to the mainspace. Do you think "way to go asshole, thanks for stealing my thunder" would be an appropriate way to thank him? nableezy - 06:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as the reference to thunder is clarified by 'from my thunderbox'. It's lunch over here so I'll eat some crackers with ham, washed down by a glass of port, while chanting Ya Qazzafi, Ya Qazzabi, as the news reports from down south flick over the boobtube. Seeya, raghead! Nishidani (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

request for input

I have recently filed a requewt for arbitration on the Ebionites article. Please feel free to add any comments you believe appropriate. John Carter (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, I'm not sure if you realize it, but Newyorkbrad is expecting you to participate in the mediation, as one of the parties to arbitration. Thus, there would be no triangulation. If you are not really interested in contributing to the article as an active editor, and/or participating in mediation to resolve the content dispute, you might want to make your preferences known to Brad and the other arbitrators more clearly. It's just a suggestion of course. Alternatively, you could just change your status in the dispute to that of an uninvolved party like Llywrch. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Palkmary?

Nish, where on earth do you find these words? Once again you've stumped me. Thanks for your kind words (the ones I can understand), anyway. Regards, Alan W (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wait, you meant to write "palmary acuity", didn't you? Even your typos stretch my mind. Regards, Alan W (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the further elucidation and the high compliment implied. Alas, as meager as my Latin and grounding in classical literature are, they are probably more than the supposedly higher education of most instills in these degenerate days. Perhaps a few participating in the SAQ article immediately grasped your intent (the level of intellect and erudition is astonishingly high there) but even there I wonder if many really comprehended you. It took me some grappling and pondering and groping through dictionaries, both on line and printed on old-fashioned paper, before a glimmer of light shone through the murk. Now I know! Regards, Alan W (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I can say, with a great degree of confidence, that I rarely understand even half of what Nishidani writes. :-) —Xover (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

To put other people under an obligation to understand what one writes would smack of intolerable presumption. People are obliged only to understand what they themselves write, or rather, to make sure what they write is understandable. Once out there, in the Whitmanesque republic of letters, it's anybody's business, and right, to take or ignore what is given as an option for one's leisurely perusal, and construe it by their own lights. I have a great deal of difficulty in reading many mainstream newspapers, like the NYTs. It's almost always wonderfully grammatical, but what is said doesn't make sense, except, to me, as a well-meaning endeavour by nice people to comfort other nice people in the illusion that the world is a nice place: if only everyone thought like us. Last night, I mulled at length over what one correspondent here wrote: 'material . .which supports the future of your illusion'. It's grammatical: I know what he intended to write (suggests there are little prospects for sustaining your illusion in the future), appreciate the allusive gesture to Freud, and yet shake my head at the idea material now can take off life-support for something in the future. The whole history of thought teaches one that illusions need no support, material or otherwise, to sustain themselves in the future. Like anaerobic bacteria, illusions that would die if permeable to the fresh air of thought manage to ensure their vitality by excluding from their metabolism the catalyzing oxygen that galvanizes most forms of life. I just wrote this to nudge both of you with a twittish piece of self-irony, and neither is obliged, as per my initial premise, to reread it, (the premise here being that someone will actually managed to get past the first sentence. Improbable.) :o) Nishidani (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I may be under no obligation to understand, but I comfort myself with the anaerobic illusion that I do. (Though I applaud your announcement of confidence above, Xover. :-) I just looked in at the FAC page, and I see that things are getting ugly once again. Fortunately, the two of you, as well as others who have much labor invested in SAQ, seem prepared to deal with what is happening, as it is apparently part of a long history, most of which was played out long before I arrived on the scene. Perhaps it is easy for me to say, standing somewhat out of range of the bombing, but I urge you to keep up your spirits by remembering the words of a great orator, "that obloquy is a necessary ingredient in the composition of all true glory .... it is in the nature and constitution of things, that calumny and abuse are essential parts of triumph." --Alan W (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Note to self. Must get Bishonen to rig up a cartoon of a triumphal chariot with the central figure having this face, a snap of Tom's dial as he copped abuse, burking and obloquy in the (infamous) Shakespeare wars! Which reminds me, the bibliography lacks a ref to the lecture Gene Tunney gave on Shakespeare at Yale University. Cheers, Alan!Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that your reference to "burking" was far from accidental and its double meaning is a hint to me that you indeed picked up my allusion, even though the eponymous "Burke" was altogether another person. I should have expected no less. You are in fine form, as usual! Poor Tom, though. --Alan W (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Note to self

At last. I've waited four years for a call like this Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Interview - Shakespeare authorship

Hi - I would like to interview you in relation to the SAQ. I am not interested in the question itself. I am interested in the dynamics and politics of 'strange theories' on Wikipedia. I'm fairly comfortable about why people are involved on the side of Fringe Theories. I don't understand so well why people get involved in the 'mainstream view' side. What motivates you to continue with such an apparently demanding and painful task. And so on. If you want to discuss, here are my contact details. 86.180.186.246 (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I followed your link. You say there: (a) 'there (are) no colour words in Ockham as I recall.' (b) 'The reason Ockham does not use many colour words is not to do with colour blindness.'

Logically, if there are no colour words in Ockham, one cannot then assert that he does not use many colours words.

Actually the truth lies somewhere in between. Ockham restricts his colour terms to the illustrative albedo or its adjectival form albus, namely 'white'.

In formulating your primary question, you say the attractions of heterodoxy are, to you, self-evident, whereas assenting to an orthodox theory requires explanation. The formulation's premise partakes of a paradoxical inversion of expectations. To adopt a line from your namesake, however, 'non sufficit ista narrare, nisi manifesta ratione probenter (Summa totius logicae, 1.c.xv).'

It could be said by both parties, those who embrace the orthodox theory, and those who challenge it, that:-

'manifeste experimur, quod post multas cogitationes est aliquis habilior et pronior ad consimiles cogitationes nunc quam prius (Expositio super viii libros Physicorum. Prologus..'

In short both may be regarded as a form of habitus, in the sense used by both Ockham and Pierre Bourdieu. The difference lies in the fact that the former, if they are serious, repose their conclusions on a method that is open to evidence, and even to the revision of first principles, if the evidence accumulated exposes, and thereby undermines, some fideistic elements in one's whilom approach. The latter embrace Hamlet's method, which is espoused by those who, never interrogating their own premises, would build, careless of the rules of masonry, a house of cards with manic energy, and, when the edifice is completed, express bitter disappointment in the fact that they fail to attract the astonished admiration of, or spur frustrated envy in, the chatelain in the shadow of whose castle they have laboured so long. When logic drifts to metaphor, it is best to close the paragraph.Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

<--- (1) check your Latin spelling (probenter). (2) I suppose white is a colour (3) The link [26] does include an email. (4) I understand why the heterodox participate (Wikipedia is a magnet for cranks), but why do the orthodox participate? I agree with you that non sufficit ista narrare, nisi manifesta ratione probentur . But given that we already have this 'manifest reasoning' in the academic literature, what drives you to fight the same battle on Wikipedia? It's your own personal interest that interests me. 86.181.128.249 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

My writing probenter for probentur is evidence that, esp. at my doddering age, I should not be editing wikipedia. You may well have a point. The reason why I did so would be clear to anyone who bothered to take to heart the opening paragraphs of the review in The Times Literary Supplement, (1983: 1335). It is bruited about, in certain heterodox quarters, by those whom you define by another, more germane epiphet, that I am a fanatical ideologue, doing much harm to this encyclopedia, and feelers are being put out to strengthen the ranks of those who are appalled by my behaviour on this article. Traces are raked over with assiduous care, though in demure silence: archives are pillaged sedulously by the artful dodgers of mainstream peerspectives: offwiki murmurings about incipient assaults grow to a crescendo and beat upon my wallèd ear, not to speak of the damage to my peripheral vision's whorlèd eye as I glance about for prospective threats with Morellian focus. Perhaps I should yorick Rumpole out of his grave sojourn for assistance in rumbling this dastardly plot, ere the great Juggernaut of dissent rises to crush us, fomenters of this textual coup d'état. . .Yawn. I really do think the sutlers of heterodoxy far more interesting, once one overcomes the sheer tedium of what they think, in order, à la Shapiro, to mull why they think thus, and why, in all climes, they consume all their seasons, hours, dayes, moneths, which are the rags of time, in plying the worry beads of paranoid suspicion. Nishidani (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Very entertaining. I can see I am probably not going to get the 'human story' of the tabloid variety I was looking for, so bid farewell. Meanwhile my little post here may amuse you. Warning: amusement only, not intended seriously, although there is a serious point underlying it. Regards 86.179.187.24 (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the human story. Yes, I admt it. My bitter war against Oxfordians arises from my guilt. My wife does not know that her undeviating empiricism bored me. I just could not get excited any more by her archival exposures. I surfed the web and found Susie. She could get into intellectual contortions that would make your eyes water. What could I do? I was drawn into the perverse and dark pleasures of Prince Tudor Part II. It was wild. It was utterly unsustainable, but I just couldn't stop thinking about it. I wanted it, and more. Any girl who can believe that is up for anything, and believe me she was. She could hold several different positions simultaneously. I was drawn into a web of deception and double-dealing. At last I had to drag myself away, but still she comes back into my mind while my wife discusses the import of papers published in the Proceedings of the National Association for the Advancement of Art and its Application to Industry. I have to expiate my sins, to destroy what I desired but also disgusted me.

Is that tabloid enough for you? Paul B (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

In 'bid farewell' I detected an allusion to Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, Act 1, Sc.1, l.12, and this prompts me to ask myself if this art of logic affords no greater miracle than the examples you link. Propositional logic cannot resolve historical problems, esp. hysterical ones like this, for the simple reason that, unlike the premises of logic, discursive evidence is embedded, internally, in the infinite slippages of language's semantic whoring after double, triple meanings, and externally, in sociohistoric cultural environments, without knowledge of which even the meanings of texts cannot be made to yield their various senses. For example,

(a) Let ‘Shakespeare’ denote whoever it was that wrote the plays attributed to the man of that name.

(b) There is no doubt as to whether Shakespeare wrote The Tempest.

If (a) were de Vere, it would not follow that (b) is true since (c) J. Thomas Looney for one argued that de Vere wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare (cf.a) but did not write The Tempest. He, for one, doubted that the man Shakespeare wrote that late play. Your error was to assume the flawed premises that (1) 'Shakespeare' refers necessarily to a single person, and (2) that a single person wrote everything in the plays ascribed to an author of that name, which we know to be untrue. Your attempt to make a fist (Faustus) of these hermeneutic and logical perplexities by simple recourse to the atemporal simplicities of propositional logic looks like it's cut the Gordian knot. But, as a reader, I must dourly reply that it doesn't cut the mustard, and for me, the proof is, cordially, not. Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I said not to take it seriously! 86.179.187.24 (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I don't take seriously is myself, esp. as, with the above, I seem, not least to myself, serious. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration Ebionites 2

The request for arbitration is accepted (titled Ebionites 2). However, the case will be held in abeyance for four weeks to allow mediation to proceed. After four weeks, or earlier if the mediation is closed as unsuccessful, the Committee will reexamine the situation to determine whether the case will proceed or be dismissed.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Beam me up Scottie! I just have to keep reminding myself that every day above ground is a good day. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, as Jesus probably said to his mum at Cana, if one is allowed to Tabor up a speculative reconstruction of the episode from a putative Ebionite original: מַה-לִּי וָלָךְ!

Take care with the tractor beam on what sounds like a giddy warp drive.Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nishidani. You have new messages at Gtdp's talk page.
Message added 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Greetings!

Hello Nishidani, Knitwitted (that's me!) has smiled at you! Smiles promote Girl Love and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the Sunshine by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.