User talk:Monochrome Monitor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Editing sex differences in intelligence NOVEMBER 25 NEW POST[edit]

Some of the sources on this page are from the 90s which seems pretty outdated. The latest sources seem to be from early 2000s even though newer studies have been published since then. I want your permission if I can cite a 2008 study on sex differences in intelligence with a sample size of 7000....and I am asking this because I don't want my edit undone.This is the study I want to cite and edit with:

I also want to delete the sources from 1999 and 1998 because they are too old and update them with other newer sources that I have. What's your take?


Monochrome Monitor/ Talk


A barnstar for you![edit]

Minor Barnstar Hires.png The Minor barnstar
Thanks for the extra towns in Turkey! Any contribution is greatly appreciated. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks man. :) --Monochrome_Monitor 03:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Editing sex differences in intelligence[edit]

Some of the sources on this page are from the 90s which seems pretty outdated. The latest sources seem to be from early 2000s even though newer studies have been published since then. I want your permission if I can cite a 2008 study on sex differences in intelligence with a sample size of 7000....and I am asking this because I don't want my edit undone.This is the study I want to cite and edit with:

I also want to delete the sources from 1999 and 1998 because they are too old and update them with other newer sources that I have. What's your take?


A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
WOW! You have really helped he Turkish map forward. However, there are a couple of things to remember. Firstly, you should source all edits about Kurdish control, by including the source link in the edit description. Secondly, if there is ever fighting going on in a city, you should use this icon: 80x80-lime-yellow-anim.gif This icon will change soon, because we are introducing new colors for Turkey and possibly Kurds soon. Please source edits. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Welldone. I haven't tracked you, so these compliments attesting to your continued presence here and the excellence of your contributions is refreshing news. Keep up the good work.Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was terrified of being caught as a sockpuppet and felt terrible. I just didn't want people to know my IP address when I accidentally used it. I did so recently on the turkish talk page and had to delete my comment. Ugh it spiraled downhill so I didn't edit WP for a few months, even "anonymously" (it is true that my account is a shared IP, but others barely use it). Anyway, I've tried to avoid I&P edits, I hate the conflict even though I'm still fairly passionate about it. More moderated than most though. I accept there's truth to the "other narrative" and there's truth to my narrative, but neither are the "truth". I do think Jews have more rights in Israel than WP (and the international community) recognizes, but it's no for me to be a justice warrior. I'm just a little ticked off about the Palestine 1948 war. Someone reverted my cited troop figures because they prefer their uncited version. Annoying. Anyway, I'm ranting. Yeah, the Turkey thing is pretty interesting. I hope Kurds get their freedom without a bloody Civil War. Ergodan is a dickhead.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I do think Jews have more rights in Israel than WP (and the international community) recognizes,

You surely don't mean that, young woman? For the sentence says that Jews in Israel have more rights than non-Jews. This may be so, but generally WP articles on Israel don't argue this, and the international community doesn't fuss over discriminations there. Your error was to use Israel as a synonym for Land of Israel, and affirm that in your view settlers have more rights in the West Bank than WP and the International Community are willing to allow. This is certainly true, but again it is probably not what you intended to say (=Jews have more rights to the land than do Palestinians). Be careful, and, of course, take care in the more normal sense of the idiom.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I meant "more rights to Israel". Semantics. You know what I meant. I didn't mean more rights than Palestinian Arabs, but more rights than some Christian Swedish guy? Hell yes. Anyway, I'm majoring in Physics, not English. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you changed your edit. Cause even with the words "in Israel" it didn't mean what you wrote originally. Regardless, thanks for the Barnstar! --Monochrome_Monitor 20:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Words mean more than what we think they mean when we write them at first draft. I've read pretty widely here. Of course there are Israel-deniers, a lunatic fringe, but as Norman Finkelstein says, deny Israel and you are denying 'international law' and lose all credibility. No person in his right (or left)mind denies Israel, because to deny an historical, perfectly legal national reality is an indication of mental problems. Neither the international community nor Wikipedia articles deny 'Israel'. This whole absurd ruckus is what Israel does outside Israel, that is where 99% of the contention arises. As to majoring in physics, not English, a suggestion. Read Edgar Allan Poe's Eureka and list how many startling anticipations he makes of modern physics! Cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I hate his disgusting book about how Jews exploit the Holocaust for money, but I appreciate his relative moderation. Will read. I love Poe. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The Eureka-Modern physics connection is mentioned in an article in the New York Review of Books recently. Finkelstein doesn't talk of 'Jews' exploiting the Holocaust: the book analyses small groups using the Holocaust for polemical leverage or to extract huge sums which never went back to Holocaust survivors (the situation in Israel is a disgrace, even if the figures in this report are rubbery. Finkelstein's numbers are far lower), It's a personal and legitimate grievance. His mother got a lousy $3,000 dollars from the Swiss Bank money, whereas his father, for technical reasons, got a regular generous pension as recompense for his identical sufferings, because it was disbursed directly by the German government, without professional intermediaries interfering. His complaint is that monies due to aged survivors were put in escrow, huge retainer fees collected, and little of what was due to them was disbursed. Anyway, let's not talk of that. I hope the Eureka read stimulates your studies. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You got it. I don't know about the actual book, just how it was exploited by neo-nazis... And the many reviews which called it nazi-esque. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

But I'm done talking now. Thanks again!

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Your work on the Turkish map really is tireless. I had expected I would be one of the only people working on the map, as it is a truly underreported conflict at the moment, but here you are making the map great. Thank you, and keep up the good work. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! That makes me feel fantastic. Sorry about all the edits, It sucks that there's no "preview" function, so I have to use trial and error. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC) I think I'll add border crossings.

Turkish Map General Statements[edit]

First, the border crossings need to be placed under the dots of control of the border crossings. This is the visual style implemented on all other maps. To do this, simply place the border crossing icon before the control icon on the module, and it will appear correctly.

Second, the carte interactive de Kurdistan cannot be used. In general, we can't use other maps to edit this map, as it is unencyclopedic.

Third, the lime color was chosen to avoid confusion with the Syrian and Iraqi governments. Sunni government groups should, in general, be shown as green. André437 is making darker green icons for our use on this map, and they should be ready soon.

Fourth, cities and towns should be size-marked based on an average of 2 factors: geographical size and population density. On the Syria map, I typically mark a village with 100 houses bigger than a 40 house village of the same geographic size. So both population and size are factors.

Fifth, we're going to use the yellow color for both PKK azd "declared autonomy". In most cases, these are actually pretty close to the same thing, just a difference of branding. This may change in the future, if more groups appear/infighting occurs.

So far you have done an excellent job on the map. Keep going, and just post on my talk page if you have any questions; that's how I'll get the message quickest. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and thanks again for the barnstar. Comes with rotating action!--Monochrome_Monitor 07:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

File:Edward witten cropped.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Edward witten cropped.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 12:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1950s may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [[William Holden]]lly]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tallulah Bankhead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Portrait Gallery. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Rope (film), but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of the Israeli government[edit]

Hello, the removal of two entire sections in that article is unacceptable.--Makeandtoss (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

One section I removed was criticism of criticism. It was horribly redundant and eclipsed the rest of the article. The other section on Nazism was perfectly justified, as it is both a WP:FRINGE and a highly racist view. You aren't exactly a nuetral arbiter of what is acceptable, considering your edit history on the article. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I only add referenced content, I am not making anything up. You could have rewritten it into a less 'racist' view, I see no use in removing it. And no its not WP:FRINGE, it has been broadly mentioned in several sources. Also I fail to see how my edit history is relevant, that content was already there, I just extended it. --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The section is just unprecedented. Just because you have quotes saying it doesn't mean it's worth wikipedia coverage. There are quotes saying all sorts of ridiculous things, but they aren't reliable. The Nazi-Israel analogy is considered antisemitic by The State Department and the EU, not just one Jewish group. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
So? Even if the EU and USA consider it antisemitism, how does that make any difference? The US Department list contains several other examples, why don't I see you removing their content on their respective wikipedia articles?--Makeandtoss (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a fallacy. I would remove it if it were truly egregious, and this is. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Its not a fallacy. Discussing antisemitism is not antisemitism.--Makeandtoss (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Obviously it isn't. But the section isn't discussing it, it's presenting it as a legitimate view rather than one considered by many as racist. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
My point was that you should have rearranged it into a legitimate view instead of erasing it.--Makeandtoss (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't want conflict. It's really quite simple. The article should be about criticism of Israel, not libels considered to be antisemitic. It undermines the actual criticism on the rest of the page. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
It is simple. This is about criticism of Israel, scholars have criticized Israel's policy through the several resemblances to Nazi Germany. There is no WP:ANTISEMETIC. I too, don't want to engage on this. I am sorry but I will be re-adding that content shortly, its not your decision to make.--Makeandtoss (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
No, scholars haven't. Pundits have. Please find me one reliable source which has made the comparison. And by reliable I mean a source by a historian familiar with Nazi Germany. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't delete it because it's antisemitic. I deleted it because It's fringe, and given undue prominence. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
A quick internet search on Norman Finkelstein a prominent Jewish scholar (so that you don't give me that antisemitic nonsense, I hope you don't say he's is a self-hating Jew) here here here here. I am sorry, I will no longer answer here.--Makeandtoss (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

He's not a prominent Jewish scholar. His work is highly controversial and was described in a new york times review as anti-semitic. Also, his field of expertise is not Nazism. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

ARGH he is a goddamned Jew, how on earth can he be anti-semetic? oh lala New York times, all hail the New York Bible. I am so done here, I have an allergy to BS.--Makeandtoss (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
They called the book antisemitic, not him. Look, I'll restore the section. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, great you already restored it. Isn't that fantastic. Now the integrity of the entire page is compromised..--Monochrome_Monitor 00:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: This article is under WP:1RR. I've fully protected it for a period to avoid blocking you both. Makeandtoss has also been warned on my talk page. --NeilN talk to me 21:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --Monochrome_Monitor 21:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19[edit]

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

Marlon Brando
added a link pointing to Mark Anthony
Rope (film)
added a link pointing to Lifeboat

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


Nishidani has continued the debate at Talk:Jews#Cite_grouping at another forum, namely Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Definition_of_Jews._Gross_original_research.2FWP:SYNTH_violation, the WP:NOR noticeboard. Since you have commented at the first discussion, but not (yet) at the second, I thought I'd bring this to your attention, in case you would like to comment there as well. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Ugh. I hate conflict! --Monochrome_Monitor 00:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28[edit]

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

New York Drama Critics Award
added links pointing to Harvey, Rhys Williams, Kiss and Tell, Frank Fay, Harriet, Hasty, Anna Lucasta and George Jenkins

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You tube...[edit] not a reliable source, especially where it concerns uploads which are likely copyright violations. Reasd WP:YOUTUBE for clarification. Please do not edit war. BMK (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not what it means.

"The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. YouTube and similar sites do not have editorial oversight engaged in scrutinizing content, so editors need to watch out for the potential unreliability of the user uploading the video. Editors should also attempt to make sure that the video has not been edited to present the information out of context or inaccurately.

There are channels on YouTube for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations that are generally considered reliable sources, such as the Associated Press's channel. These official channels are typically accepted. Content from Vevo is an example of a primary source that might be used.

Anyone can create a website or video and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For this reason, self-published media is often not acceptable as a source. Self-published videos may be used as sources of information about their creator if they meet the requirements seen at restrictions on using self-published sources. The community sometimes accepts videos from the official YouTube channels of subjects, but this is not a guarantee of approval with content being unduly self-serving being just one concern.

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. This prevents editors from engaging in original research. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Editors should not use a video as a citation to present their own interpretation of its content. If the material in a video only available on YouTube includes content not previously produced or discussed in other reliable sources, then that material may be undue and inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Primary sources, such as an episode of an editor's favorite television program, can easily be incorrectly used to create trivia sections. This should be avoided. Such sources should also not be used to create articles that include only the plot of television shows or movies without additional details found in secondary sources. Although concise plot summaries are usually appropriate, failing to provide secondary coverage puts notability into question and does not provide encyclopedic content.

Editors can use the Empty citation (help) template to cite specific television programs. The Empty citation (help) template can be used for movies and other visual media. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, a link is not necessary since there is no distinction between using online or offline sources. As much information as possible should be provided to increase the likelihood of the source being accepted as reliable by the community. Including the minutes being referred to in a long video will make the source easier to verify by your fellow editors and the reader. Most relevant details can be found in the credits, any packaging, or through the Internet. External links"

This isn't a self-published source. It's a link to a record of a primary source. Such a thing is very common. --Monochrome_Monitor 08:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4[edit]

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

Marlon Brando
added a link pointing to Jack Wilson
Tallulah Bankhead
added a link pointing to Ritz Hotel
The Corn Is Green
added a link pointing to National Theatre
The Little Foxes
added a link pointing to National Theatre

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


Please stop removing cited material from the article. If you think such material should not be there, the best course of action is to go to the talk page to discuss it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, but I still don't understand why you wouldn't respond to me on your talk page. --Monochrome_Monitor 12:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Please also be mindful of the current consensus on the Olivier talk page regarding the use of an infobox. As it stands, the consensus is against one. As such, your addition of one has been reverted. If you have somerhing to say on the matter please discuss it there. Thanks. CassiantoTalk 16:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Alright then. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Classical Hollywood cinema, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The General (film) and The Thief of Bagdad. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The Scarlet Letter (1926 film)[edit]

Hi. You can't use IMDB's trivia section as a source, please see WP:CITEIMDB. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Oh, that makes sense. Thanks. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to Criticism of the Israeli government[edit]

Information.svg Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Criticism of the Israeli government without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a long-running thing. Check the talk page. I removed it because it's WP:FRINGE and WP:BLATANTLY RACIST. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rita Levi-Montalcini bandw.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Rita Levi-Montalcini bandw.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


Hello there @NeilN:. I understand why I was blocked but your "sentence" seems heavy-handed. I mean, I can't edit talkpages. Also, 99% of my edits are not Arab-Israeli whatever. Can you just block me from Arab-Israeli for a week and not every article? --Monochrome_Monitor 19:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. Blocks are designed to stop you from editing any page on Wikipedia except your own talk page. --NeilN talk to me 21:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. Most of my edits have nothing to do with the subject. Just look at my contribution history. As of late it's mostly been stuff about silent film and pre-war Broadway. It would make more sense to ban me from ARBPIA for a fortnight than everything for a week. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The fact you are advising on areas where you should be blocked, indicates your acknowledgement that perhaps a block is for the best. Sit it out and learn from it. CassiantoTalk 23:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
All right, two week topic ban on ARBPIA-related subjects. Note this covers all areas of Wikipedia including talk pages and noticeboards. Please don't make me look like an idiot for assuming good faith and believing you will edit productively in other areas. --NeilN talk to me 23:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I wont my friend. Thank you! --Monochrome_Monitor 23:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration reminder[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandR (talkcontribs) 01:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Your activity on the article for "Jews"[edit]

I think you contribute valuable and balanced insight on the topic at hand. Thank you for the hard work on such a volatile subject.

Jasphetamine (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear I appreciate that immensely but I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC) @Jasphetamine: Ding! --Monochrome_Monitor 03:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Your input on the Jews article about stuff like the population estimate and the relentless pursuit of ditching Portman for Bernhardt. I like Natalie, she went to day school near my hometown. She's no SB though. Jasphetamine (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, thanks! The population thing was absurd. In what universe are "non-Jewish family members" Jews? And with Bernhardt and Portman it's like comparing Shakespeare to.... um... not Shakespeare. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Haha, I think that non-Jewish family members being Jewish is my favorite example of Wikipedia's penchant for creating Orwellian 2+2=5 type declarations. It is alarming that it went uncontested in the first place. Jasphetamine (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I contested it before but it went nowhere, then finally I had it and was like "ARE YOU PEOPLE SANE?!!?!?" ARE YOU READING THIS?!?! I still don't understand the argument of the guy why defended it. It was something like "a range is better". And someone quipped "then why not just write 0-7 billion?" --Monochrome_Monitor 04:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Dammit some jerk changed the population again. It was good before!!!! --Monochrome_Monitor 04:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the solution is to just write "Yes" in the population field. Jasphetamine (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
That's brilliant! A sense of humor will get you far on wikipedia. I never take myself seriously. I've been here for two years but still manage to act like a newbie. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Hell, I got blocked today. (For deleting a truly odious section on criticism of israel comparing it to nazi germany, an analogy which is considered antisemitic)
I have bestowed upon the Jews talk page the solution for the Great SB vs NP Infobox Schism of 2015. I would avoid fiddling around with the controversial stuff for a while if you got wiki-trouble from it. I don't want you to go and get some excessively long block you're the first person in this place that doesn't seem crazy. seems to be exactly the right kind of crazy for me to get along with. Well I'm off to copyedit until I forget my woes. Jasphetamine (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I might suggest a vacation from editing the Jews page; I see a bad moon rising. Jasphetamine (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Suggest away! I thought so too... Hahaha I can be impulsive. Typical wikidragon! I'm going to start calling it that. "the schism" @Jasphetamine:--Monochrome_Monitor 09:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
"If I was a religion then my church... would surely have a schism. There'd be Rejewish and Rejuslam and Rejatheists but they'd all be friends, all right!"[1] Jasphetamine (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You were right all along. You're a badass. Jasphetamine (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Was I? You're so sweet! How did you do the calculations? --Monochrome_Monitor 03:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I dug up percentages from a few governments, looked at mean distribution between a few places. Everything lined up right for the lower numbers. Then I used the CIA factbook as a singular source of data, which can be cited, stating 7 billion people, .2% of which are Jewish, and poof that works out. 14 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasphetamine (talkcontribs) 05:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Brilliant! You crunched the numbers, I love it! --Monochrome_Monitor 05:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Nothing fancy but enough to confidently say we don't need to include a 25% "you tell me" margin in the info box numbers and can say 14 mil and back that up with sources. I doubt it'll ever get done though, that kid who can't deal with the idea of a median or significant digits will never quit. I kept up with him because I hate not knowing things. Now I know roughly how many Jewish people are out there and I'm done. I'm gonna go get a bunch of challah, red wine, and watch the Sopranos for a while. I wonder what infobox population on wiki i'd get put in. Heh. Jasphetamine (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hahaha sounds magnificent. I think you'd get put in Homo sapiens, but just in case that's too insular (it excludes Neanderthals after all and many people have neanderthal descent!) I'd put you in Homo :P --Monochrome_Monitor 05:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18[edit]

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

List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes
added a link pointing to Shanghai Express
Marlene Dietrich
added a link pointing to Shanghai Express

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

13/11 listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 13/11. Since you had some involvement with the 13/11 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

David Bret#Criticism sourcing[edit]

When you contribute vague citations such as the one to The Queer Encyclopedia of Film & Television missing a passing comment is hardly surprising. Moreover when you add "cites" that are naked URLs, particularly when the same sources have already been cited properly earlier in the article, you make extra work for others. Please reuse repeated citations properly, and supply full metadata for newly cited sources. Note also that in general 'Criticism' sections, like 'Controversy' sections, are discouraged, although they are sometimes appropriate. DES (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm the first to admit my cites are often poorly formatted. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Olivier edits (yet again)[edit]

You have been asked to discuss this matter on the talk page, but you appear to prefer to engage in a slow-burn edit war. This is disruptive and not a constructive course of action. The consensus of the two community processes this article has gone through was that the text should remain. Unless you can change that consensus on the article's talk page, I strongly suggest you do not delete it again. If you continue to remove the text, the matter will be raised in an appropriate forum. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't intend a slow-burn edit war. Rather I just edit impulsively, sometimes returning to old haunts. Though I do try to space it out, my sense of timing is not particularly keen. But thanks for taking it here. It's not that I'm trying to be disruptive, I just don't like confrontation. --Monochrome_Monitor 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
There wouldn't be confrontation Monochrome Monitor if you had initiated a talk page discussion; that's what the talk page is for. The way to introduce hostility and confrontation is to stick two fingers up to everyone who disagrees with you. By refusing to discuss and implementing your preferred version is, ironically, doing the very thing you didn't wish to achieve. CassiantoTalk 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I would call that unfortunate, not ironic. But I'll initiate a discussion in a bit.--Monochrome_Monitor 14:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Note: something else is going on here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Pardon? --Monochrome_Monitor 14:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
See your email. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Just realized the man who graced me with rotating barnstars has been blocked indefinitely. RIP Pbfreespace. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Your work on the Turkish map really is tireless. I had expected I would be one of the only people working on the map, as it is a truly underreported conflict at the moment, but here you are making the map great. Thank you, and keep up the good work. Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I hope that relieves the annoyance (at least until I get banned:) Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hooray! Thank you! Unfortunately the news coverage of PKK-Turkey is awfully spotty what with Syria and the like. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I would love some freePBJ right now. Space. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC) @Nishidani:

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I voted! Is there an "I voted" template of some sort? --Monochrome_Monitor 20:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2[edit]

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

Hooker with a heart of gold
added a link pointing to Shanghai Express
Western culture
added a link pointing to Hellenism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of the Israeli Govt edits[edit]

Hi MM. I notice you have been sanctioned in the Criticism article. You made another edit blanking the whole Comparisons to Nazis section which I agree was designed as heap of POV crap. However criticisms of the view are being added to the section. Its better to make the section look stupid with good counter sources than to blank the whole thing. Please take this advice on board and dont make Neil escalate any block. Again, leave it for now, and when you return to it, just counter it with sources ridiculing it. As it is, in my opinion mostly grotesque. However, we debunk, we do not delete! Simon Irondome (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I know, it was silly and impulsive. Love you Simon! --Monochrome_Monitor 09:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Turkish Insurgency Detailed Map[edit]

Hello, you can add Hınıs, Karayazı, Karaçoban and Tekman districts of Erzurum Province to map? Some districts of the Erzurum Province has declared autonomy. Bruskom (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I would love to! --Monochrome_Monitor 11:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC) In a bit.
In your scarce leisure you may like to dally with a few hours reading John Buchan's Greenmantle, which has an extensive description of Erzurum. It also is a fantasy that anticipates modern fantasies about the ME.Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Fun. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey Nish, today I realized I am a victim of the cot-caught merger. I thought I didn't have a boston accent! Phonetics is amazing, but I prefer phonemics. Any advice on how to trill? I can't do alveolar or uvular. :( --Monochrome_Monitor 21:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I pronounce cot/caught like the lady in the example ogg. To me she doesn't sound like she has an accent! --Monochrome_Monitor 21:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC) @Nishidani: --Monochrome_Monitor 21:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

'Does the cot/caught merger, for example, arise from a movement of the cot vowel up into the space of the caught vowel or from the movement of the caught cowel down into the cot vowel’s territory?' Matthew J. Gordon, Labov: A Guide for the Perplexed, Bloomsbury 2013 p.180
Ahem!, a New Year's Sonnet of Consolation and Encouragement for MM.
Nomadic vowels, dear M! They’re apt to trot
Out of the high ridge close where they were taught
To graze their accents, and, in solemn sort,
Mosey in the open fields of a lower spot.
Or –as transhumants go both ways- the lot
Up stakes, (unless they end up steaks), and sport
Back to the palate’s field of narrow talk
And season their sounds up in that lofty plot.
There’s no good reason to be overwrought
By the shift.What you’re saddled with is not
A carceral corral. A little practice ought
To get both tongue and uvula to trill
In alternate harmonies: there’s naught that’s got
A right to dictate speech. So speak, dear, as you will!
And now, back to hosing up the pond so that the goldfish can nip at the lush moss on its brink.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
That was magnificent, thank you! --Monochrome_Monitor 17:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC) I'm framing that on my user page!
I, undeserving, am honoured by my doggeral's new home! I hate to think that its propaedeutic function, getting you to distinguish those vowels in recitation, might cause time-wasting woe. No need to do that, of course. One should be proud of any accent one has. Best Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I want say something clever with the words "doggeral", "dogma", "doggedly", "doggery" and the like but you get the point. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello an Turkey location map created. I'm trying to change the map on template but It does not change. Are you can change the map on template ? Map.... Bruskom talk to me 04:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that map was where I was going, but I have no idea how to change it. I recommend asking the people on Wikipedia:Lua --Monochrome_Monitor 07:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bruskom:--Monochrome_Monitor 07:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! I'm sorry... do I know you? I'm terrible with usernames. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC) @Bzuk:
We edit in some of the same neighbourhoods, especially film articles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Fun. Anything article in particular? --Monochrome_Monitor 01:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Your work and mine seems to intersect in many articles; I recall doing some "touch-up" on Charles Lindbergh and Marlon Brando, and seeing your contributions. As an aside, some of that time, when we "dared" to make alterations to the holy script, we both also invoked the wrath of other editors that had more than a passing interest in some of those touchstone articles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I remember! Like Laurence Olivier! Yeah it's hard being a wiki Dragon. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG Bruskom talk to me 19:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I LOVE BAKLAVA! How did you know? Sorry for lashing out on the talk page. :) I'm pro Kurdish independence and unification, but I don't want anyone to think my bias and others' is affecting the neutrality of the page. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

How do we judge how actor articles should be rated?[edit]

Since you will be aware of Talk:Angelina Jolie#How do we judge how actor articles should be rated? by the WP:Ping, I'm posting this section on your talk page for those who might want answers after seeing your edits. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC) @Flyer22 Reborn: I totally agree with you, it should be high. --Monochrome_Monitor 05:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cahiers du Cinéma's Top Ten Films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Night of the Hunter. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

anterograde amnesia[edit]

Is going forwards from the event while retrograde is before the event. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Holy shit you're right! Oops! --Monochrome_Monitor 03:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Juarez. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Fuck you, DPL bot. And your mother. --Monochrome_Monitor 09:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Arabic numerals[edit]

Please seek consensus for your proposed changes to Arabic numerals on the talk page of that artice before making them again. Edit warring is not the way forward, you may be blocked if you continue to insist on your changes without a talk page consensus. Thanks, Paul August 10:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring. I'm familiar with policy. You on the other hand are exhibiting ownership behavior from your edit history on this page, and have given no valid reasons for reverting my edits aside from invalid arguments such as "no consensus" and "BRD", both which I thoroughly debunked. If you want to take it to arbitration, be my guest, I have not done anything wrong. Give me a valid reason for reversion and I'll gladly drop it.--Monochrome_Monitor 11:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Of, course you are edit warring, from WP:EW: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." The page has a long consensus for preferring to call these numerals "Arabic numerals" (hence the current name of the article). This certainly can (and perhaps should) be changed, but the way to achieve this is to start a discussion on the talk page, seeking a consensus for such a change, not to repeatedly insist on your changes, by editing against consensus. Paul August 11:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, except for violating 3RR. Damn. Whatever, I know you don't want to get into the same trouble yourself but I'll stop reverting it if you do. --Monochrome_Monitor 11:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I not going to revert again, no matter what you do. Paul August 11:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, nevermind, of course it was already reverted. Ah, sorry for yelling at you. I have not slept at all "tonight" (I'm in a UTC -5 time zone). --Monochrome_Monitor 11:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for saying you're sorry. It's not a problem. Please enjoy a good night's sleep, everything always seems better in the morning. I'm happy to discuss any proposed changes in the article later. Regards, Paul August 11:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
CATCH A NAP. That's an order!Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Just did! Oy, there are discretionary sanctions for everything! --Monochrome_Monitor 17:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, was the problem that I was calling it Hindu-Arabic numerals? I can easily change that. My edits were mostly meant to clarify the distinction of numerals vs numeral system. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Your thoughts? [2] @Paul August:--Monochrome_Monitor 17:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@Nishidani: I was thinking Nish, we should collaborate on an I/P article! It could be a true meeting of the minds, in the spirit of wikipedia and whatnot. Of course we can't abuse the middle ground fallacy, but I should think our opinions are not binary opposites.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I would much rather see you spend more time on your University studies that on writing things like the life of Manuel Musallam, a Catholic priest and Palestinian nationalist! Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I meant articles that we both acknowledge are lacking. :P --Monochrome_Monitor 21:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Albert Antébi and Gertrud Kolmar were lacking until I did them (and many others). It's good training to try and enter into another culture and another historical person's milieu and identity and, without anxiety, make a fair assessment of her place in the world. Musallem has long fascinated me, and I'll eventually do his bio. As I said, don't waste too much time on wiki work. Even Terence Tao screwed up his exams at 17 by cramming at the last moment, trusting in his powers and wits to get through, when the less talented managed, by working sedulously over the year through the whole programme systematically, to do better than him. Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Well that's not a problem, I never study for anything. Never heard of that guy before. It's weird that he's 40 but looks like 19. And are you calling me "less talented"? :P --Monochrome_Monitor 06:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Ugh. He hasn't given me any valid reason for the reversion of my edits... I hate the prevailing wikipedia attitude which is resistant to change and insists on discussions for the tiniest things which no one actually discusses. I hate being a wikidragon, it's exhausting. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Biographies of filmmakers[edit]

Hello! Just a reminder, the Film project does not cover biography articles. Therefore, please do not add the {{WikiProject Film}} banner to articles about actors, directors and filmmakers. Those articles are covered by adding |filmbio-work-group=yes to {{WikiProject Biography}} instead. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That does clear things up, I was confused because several biographies were listed in the project --Monochrome_Monitor 19:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources removed[edit]

Hi. Comparing the last few edits at Jews, I noticed that two sources were removed.[3] Why? Debresser (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

They were irrelevant. They didn't cite what they said they were citing. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you perhaps have other sources? I think we need some sources there. Debresser (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, yes we do. I'll add some in a bit. :) --Monochrome_Monitor 12:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, only one source was removed, the usury one. The maimonaides one (also not ideal) was just moved, not removed. Hah, that's funny. --Monochrome_Monitor 12:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Jews and Category:People of Jewish descent[edit]

Monochrome Monitor, few people go to a category page to read a description of the category (which doesn't exist on most category pages) and I doubt that the average editor who is categorizing an article will do so before deciding whether to categorizing an individual as Jewish or People of Jewish descent.
You have no authority to write a statement like "If this category is used without Category:Jews there should be some evidence they rejected identifying as Jewish in its sense of a peoplehood" and tell people what they should or should not do. The only guideline that currently exists is Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality and you can not unilaterally impose additional restrictions on editors beyond those that are contained in this guideline especially because these qualifications didn't arise out of a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and seem to be of your own design. Liz Read! Talk! 16:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It arose out of the fact that the category is consistently misused. I thought it was better to go de facto by how it is used. They are not used, on thousands of articles, mutually-exclusively. For instance, Irving Berlin is listed under both categories. Unlike many on wikipedia I do not like to preserve maladaptive status quos, and I go and change things.--Monochrome_Monitor 16:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Liza, see my comment at Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent#Ugh. Debresser (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)



I noticed you added some links to Attachment therapy including an APSAC report. I just thought I'd mention that a while back the article about APSAC was deleted. I noticed and requested a copy of it in my userspace to see if I could salvage it. Unfortunately I haven't had the time to give it a good shot and it's still there, in rough shape. If you're digging into relevant resources as it is, maybe you could dump any you find that are about APSAC in some way, on that talk page (or have at it directly, in which case you could move it into your userspace if you wanted).

It's here: User:Rhododendrites/American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children.

Thanks — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem! I'll look into it right now. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


How did you make your userpage name to appear in green? Debresser (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC) CLick edit on my page to view to source :D @Debresser:--Monochrome_Monitor 17:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah. I did check the code of this talkpage, but didn't think to check the userpage itself. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
No problem :D --Monochrome_Monitor 01:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I need your assistance![edit]

Hello Monochrome Monitor! I was looking to your job with the Turkish Insurgency template for a time, and I saw that you are the major responsible for the editions and updates of this war, or proto-war, whatever... Well, I am making a video for Youtube, one animated map with the Syrian and Iraqi Civil Wars and the subsequent Lebanese, and why not, Turkish spillovers. Will be a everyday video, and it is consuming my free time in this week. Now I am already in 2014 in the map, and I see that I need some assistance with a better speacialist about Turkey than me (my only exp with Turkey regions was in Europa Universalis IV when I tried to recover Byzantium lol haha). More specifically, the evolution of the insurgency since the PKK rebellion until today, only a some data. Which and when each city fell. Can you help me? Leonardo Cebin (disse e fiz) 04:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh shit, I wish I could help you. It sounds like a great idea! I'm not a specialist in Turkey, although you're right that I've done 99% of that page's edits :P Maybe ask @Bruskom:? He speaks kurdmanji. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC) @Léo Cebin:
Seems that @Bruskom: receive a block lol. Well, first, I was wondering today one thing... Why we don't build a map like the Syrian one using the template that you make? While it is only a template, the common public, the readers, don't have acess to this. It's "exclusive" to us, editors. With one map, we can upload in the PKK rebellion article for commons viewers too see. After this, will be necessary only make a upload if changes happen. And will be more easy to see where the action is happening. Um simples Wikipedista (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC) [It's me, I changed my nick]
Of course, that's exactly what I've been hoping. But the thing is it's not an actual war yet... just unrest. It shows clashes. So if the map were to be of anything it would be of "places where kurds declared autonomy" --Monochrome_Monitor 12:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC) @Léo Cebin:

I understand. Also, I was searching and seems that the 90s rebellion was much more worse than these, so probably this rebellion will not end with something big, only guerrillas and atacks to police forces. Well, I had some problem with the Hezbollah lines in my videomap, so I was stucked in 2014, but finally I reach now July 24, 2015, so the hour to paint a color in Turkey has come. I learnt much with the related Wiki articles and some things more, and think I can walk alone in this, but it has a hole that can not find sources. I need dates. What sources have you used to verify which cities have proclaimed autonomy? All the changes occur in August/September, and since October cease-fire, none changes have been reported? And in addition to Cizre, another city was conquered by the Turks? If you can help me, thank you!

More one thing. I found a source of news that I think that you will like: [4] A simple Wikipedian (said and did) 06:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thanks that's great! Here's a great source --Monochrome_Monitor 12:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC) @Um simples Wikipedista:]


I think that the Finklestein para should be restored. I didn't put it up originally: I remember that there was a lot of discussion when it was put in. I just edited it to respond to the flag that it needed more explanation. I tried to clarify briefly what his book says. It was an important book which documents its points well. It initiated a lot of discussion re: the uniqueness issue, and I believe that it forced historians to re-examine the claims to uniqueness. For that reason, I think that it is more than a fringe contribution. At the same time partly because of the Holocaust Industry, but mainly because of his continual support for the Palestinians he has earned the wrath of many supporters of Israel. Over the years, I have read a number of attempts to refute his research and writing and have yet to be convinced that he is unreliable.Joel Mc (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The book did NOT force historians to re-examine uniqueness. There has been no such earth-shaking shift. I find scholarship takes a middle road of acknowledging the unique parts of the holocaust (ie, death camps) while also acknowledging it in the context of other genocides. It's not a question of unique vs universal, which is a false dichotomy. It's a question of which side specific scholarship leans towards. Elements of specificism and universalism are found in every book on the subject I have read, with many erring towards one side. This is not an issue about Israel. If this article was about I/P it would be reasonable to mention finklestein (albeit with disclaimers). But it's not, it's about the Holocaust. His theory that Jews in America "invented" the holocaust and are using it to extort europe and defend Israel is patent, and dangerous, nonsense. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Um, did you read any books reviews in the mainstream press? His research (about distribution of restitution funds) is one thing, and he was right in debunking Joan Peter's book as baseless. But his polemics are another thing. He does not have merit in saying, for example, that the Holocaust only came into the public eye in the 70s as part of an American Jewish plot to increase sympathy for Israel following the 6 day war. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Does it not surprise you at all that the book was praised by Storm Front, David Duke, and David Irving? That's not anti-Israel, it's anti-jewish.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
And aren't you at all bothered by him saying that reparations are extortion and blackmail? --Monochrome_Monitor 17:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

His theory that Jews in America "invented" the holocaust and are using it to extort europe and defend Israel is patent, and dangerous, nonsense.

This statement means you have never read the book, nor followed Finkelstein's work except in cursory reviews from quarter baked hostile critics. I have had to restore it, as illegitimately censored. It is a minor, but significant point of view.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Aw, Nish! Since when is the new york times quarter baked? --Monochrome_Monitor 17:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't mean he denies it. I mean he distinguishes between the holocaust and "the holocaust", ie, its public perception. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Since when is the NYTs taken seriously in serious quarters. It took me 2 and a half decades to persuade an American cousin of mine not to read it. He's a high-flyer, and has finally begun to entertain doubts. I cut my teeth on Raul Hilberg's masterpiece - it constituted one of the key moments in my long reading life- and I've never seen anything that suggests Hilberg's judgement on these things is askew. His position was generally close to Finkelstein's, meaning NF's position has extremely strong credentials of informed endorsement. NF is one of 40 academics I can name, mostly Jewish, whose careers ran into a wall when they disagreed with the majority on things like this. No argument, just strongarm tactics of 'fire the bum' and make his or her career collapse. Thuggery. His dad got a good pension directly from the German government because of their responsibility for his trials in the death camps. His mother went through official Jewish channels, and got a one-time handout that was a disgraceful pittance.Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the distribution of funds. I'm talking about him maintaining this was done because of Israel. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd venture, against NF, that the lessons of the holocaust have been more deeply absorbed in parts of the diaspora like the U.S. and Great Britain (outside the incestuously self-referential lobbying bodies that presume to speak up for 'everyone in the community') than it has in Israel. 1967 changed a lot of things, unfortunately. I just get twitchy when I see a consensus or a 'public' attitude. 'Truth' is always a partial, fragmentary perception, twigged by individuals, and lost in the crowd.Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I love the Great.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
We Irish never forget!Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot, you're Irish. I remember you saying something about that. Do you live in Britain or (Northern) Ireland? --Monochrome_Monitor 18:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Neither. To be precise, I live in my library, and in my gardens.Nishidani (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Gardens? --Monochrome_Monitor 18:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I think having '4' warrants the plural.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh my. Do you have one for each genus? --Monochrome_Monitor 19:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
No. I have four for one genius! Whoops, lapsus.:) One's for vegetables, one's for social ambiance, shadily overseen by a sprawling magnolia, and hedged with the stupidly named mock orange, which in Italian is more precisely defined, given its scent, as angel's breasts. The third and fourth are hanging gardens, tiered, for fruit trees,-figs, kiwis, apples, quinces, cherries,plums, with strawberry beds- furnished with nooks for solitude, and a goldfish pool. There are a lot of snakes there, but all friendly.Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
By that do you mean non-venomous, or non-aggressive? --Monochrome_Monitor 19:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Mostly non-venomous. Snakes generally aren't aggressive, and the only one I ever killed, much to my lifelong grief, I killed because relatives were panic-stricken at its innocuous presence near their car. I've never quite forgiven myself, and make a point of picking them up, when asked by locals to do so, and relocating them in bushland close by. In my gardens they can just slither about till they find what they're looking for. That memory, now that I've evoked it, will ruin dinner, and serves me right: a small snake, reared up against a wall, its eye fixed with terror, as I thwacked it, all because folks were worrying they were late for an appointment.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh that's terrible. I have never forgiven myself for accidentally killing a tadpole by putting it in water which was too warm. Hopefully you'll get plenty opportunity to redeem yourself in the eyes of the snake gods. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Snakes?? The Irish?? not sure where this discussion is going. But seriously I find that some of the discussion seems to join those who continually question Finkelstein’s scholarship. Reacting to this, Chicago Professor John Mersheimer’s comments are relevant: "Finkelstein makes compelling arguments in almost all of his writings, and thus he has played a key role in shaping both the academic and public discourse on a host of important subjects. In my opinion, that is the highest accolade one can accord a scholar.”(see: Finally, a (the?) dean of Holocaust scholars, Raul Hilberg, has said: “...I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years, will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough." Joel Mc (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, we already mentioned Hilberg. Of course he likes him, he's his "hero", they are likeminded. So he's not exactly representative of a neutral majority... --Monochrome_Monitor 13:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

'Neutrality' and 'majority' are question-begging, and 'neutral majority' is a dangerous coalescence of words. Scholarship is obliged to strive for neutrality (Hilberg's upset a lot of people, he didn't use adjectives), but cannot avoid a perspectival framework that makes every approach to the empirical 'angular'. One must simply work with and against it, consciously. It is extremely rare to find critics of either Hilberg or Finkelstein questioning the exactness of their sourcing and data, something which is wildly askew in the polemics of Finkelstein's critics. Anytime there is a consensus in scholarship, the best scholars will start to think around its edges, or test the foundations. A majority view is a formula for complacency, thrown around in lieu of specific argument. A long time ago, people read Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
You can't deny there's a conflict of interest. Finklestein wrote the book and and said his inspiration was hilberg, and hilberg praised it. Of course. They are like minded. Saying Hilberg is a neutral arbiter is disingenuous. --Monochrome_Monitor 14:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
There's no conflict of interest. You are using an abstract assumption that may have some heuristic value at times, but contradicts everything we know about Hilberg. Scholars of his moral and intellectual caliber don't do favours. He wasn't even a 'friend' of NF's. They met only once. And they don't make calculations of personal advantage in their work. Finkelstein was ostracized by pro-Palestinian militants for many of his positions, which weren't 'politically correct'. Had he or Finkelstein made different , 'canny' choices, they would have enjoyed more prestigious careers than those awarded them, the sort of sinecures loud-mouthed smarmy louts in the commentariat enjoy.Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
And I don't know where you got the idea that Hilberg is the "dean" of holocaust scholars. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I always used words like those with a citation in mind. See here, here, herehere, here and here, for example. Some like to qualify this with 'American', perhaps in deference to his great Israeli contemporary Yehuda Bauer, but Hilberg pioneered the field, and did so at great risk to his academic future, in isolation.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I like Bauer. Hilberg is too functionalist for me. Bauer is pretty rational and even-handed. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
But I'm not arguing more about finklestein.. I'm not going to remove it, I would want a consensus for that and you two seem to feel strongly about it. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Nothing to do with 'feeling strongly'. Everything to do with evaluating carefully wiki criteria on sourcing in the face of a huge hall of heckling fools in the commentariat. I'm doing a review of the Hamas article and have read a lot by Matthew Levitt, seconded by Dennis Ross . I regard the latter as a walking disaster and thoroughly disreputable. Levitt is highly prejudiced, identifiably connected to an official Israeli position, and yet knows his subject well. So, whatever my personal views, I use him frequently. It's as simple as that. Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Oy! However you word it. I'm trying to defuse the confrontation.--Monochrome_Monitor 16:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

What confrontation? Simon delegated to me an adversarial advisory role. I'd never engage in a 'confrontation' with you:I'm too old, and you're too nice. I will however, to honour Simon's confidence, 'confront' you with reasoned views that you might find distasteful. Cheers, dear.Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
An interesting exchange about Bauer and Hilberg. I read the following years ago and was able to find it again. I doubt that Raul Hilberg had any heroes. Joel Mc (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Awwwww you're sweet Nish. It was fine when I was just er, playfully sparring with you, but it got less fun when another joined in, it started to feel like a quarrel (in which I was outnumbered 2:1). --Monochrome_Monitor 19:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Um, . . just on a point of form, I barged in on a conversation Joel Mc sought with you. It was I who 'joined in', not Joel, and therefore I must bear any blame you might apportion. As time goes on, I think you'll see the other side to being 'outnumbered' - it is the heroic role. There's no honour in the brute force of numbers, and to stand one's ground (Gloucester in King Lear has it:'I am tied to th' stake, and I must stand the course.') has the merit of dignity, the honour of sincerity and, as often as not, the witness of fidelity to truth. There, I'm being pompous . .it's time to catch my nightly film. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Enjoy the film! I hope it's something good. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

My absence[edit]

Hi MM. I got your off-Wiki communication. I have taken a prolonged wikibreak due to the anniversary of my mothers death coming up. I nursed her in her final 3 months at home. 3 years now but the memories are more vivid. Not easy watching your only immediate relative slipping away. So I have not felt much like editing. Feeling a bit better, and I would like to sincerely apologise. I was not intentionally ignoring you. Call it a retreat from the world. It goes after the 19th March. Till the next year.. Greetings Nishidani also! I hope all is well with you and yours, as always. Your friend (both of you) Simon Irondome (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Simon! Do whatever you need for your own wellbeing during your yartzeit. No need to apologize, you've been a wikiblessing for me. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
This is uncanny. I got worried two months ago at not seeing any edits from Simon, and all those Bugle posts dumped mechanically on the talk page. On the one hand, this place can be stressful, and a quiet break might have been just the thing, so I held off from an intrusive query as to whether or not all was well. After 2 months while remonstrating obnoxiously with our young MM, I thought, since she had your email, of asking her to use that channel to send on my best regards, and a request you not reply if all was well. And I didn't do that, because, again, it would look nosey. I'm delighted on the one hand to hear you are well, and, on the other, moved by your period of commemorative mourning, something I share, since I don't celebrate my birthday, it being the anniversity of my mother's death to the hour, and attentive relatives never fuss over it, intuiting that the day cannot be festive, however much I feel thankful for her bearing me (until I became obnoxious in early youth, causing her endless embarrassment by refusing to knuckle under the rules of the prestigious school she sent me to, a fucking concentration camp of bright kids and reactionary politics). Best wishes and my thoughts to you and your mother this coming month.Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Since Umberto Eco was commemorated today, at his funeral Moni Ovadia told us one of Eco's Yiddish jokes, far more colourfully than in the flat version you get at Jewish humour. It ran like this.
One day early in the morning, the rabbi of Chelm had a visit, announced, as extremely urgent, from one of his local community, Yankel. Yankel persisted in badgering his keep to be allowed to see the busy rabbi, and at last the latter relented.
'Rabbi, you must help me. Something dreadful happened today, and I need your advice.'
'Good grief! What happened? I'll see what I can do.'
'I was having breakfast this morning and. . .
'Oh come now, man, get to the matter, don't beat about the bush!'
'Right. I was having breakfast and took a slice of bread. . . '
'Now, now, I have no interest whatsoever in what you had for breakfast. Cut to the chase, my good man...
'As I buttered the slice of bread . . .'
'Goodness me, get out. I've no time to waste on . .
'The bread slipped out of my hand, and fell on the floor.'
'It fell on the floor on the buttered side up..'
'Nonsense. That's impossible. You mustn't have looked closely.'
'No, rabbi. It fell with the buttered side up.'
'This is not a religious problem. It's simple physics that every piece of buttered bread that falls on the floor must fall with the buttered side down.'
'But, rabbi, I have excellent sight, and I swear on the Torah it fell as I said it did.'
The rabbi fixed Yankel in a severe gaze, scanning his face for the telltale signs of sincerity, and quickly convinced himself Yankel had told the truth.
'Well, son, this is an extraordinary business. I've never heard the likes of it, and it will take some time for me to examine all of my books to find out an answer for that situation. At that, agreeing that Yankel would be called when a solution was found, the Rabbi retired to his extensive library, and began reading.
No solution was forthcoming over the following week, and the rabbi started to send letters out to all of the surpassing masters of the Kabbalistic tradition, the eruditi of the Zohar, and eminent sages, from Baghdad to the forsaken nooks of Jerusalem, to the yeshivot in New York. No one could come up with a text that would cut the Gordian knot in this case and throw light on the miracle. An intense round-robin of correspondence ensued through all the global quarters of far-flung Talmudic study centres. Finally, after 3 years, Yankel was summoned.
'The problem has been clarified, Yankel. All is clear. The problem was that you buttered the wrong side of the bread.' Best Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
(I'm sure at least one hostile reader of my contributions will take my mentioning this, to both of you no doubt, familiar joke, in an obscurely negative light. But as told by Ovadia, one of the great exponents of the Bulgarian Yiddish tradition, it drew a lovely knowing chuckle through the crowd for the way Ovadia cited it in the context of his memories of his friend).Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I wrote some of that article! :P --Monochrome_Monitor 21:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC) well, not the jokes part.
I'm sorry about your mother Nish. :( I'm not that young! I feel old. Can you believe in a few months I'll be 19? Ughhhhh. Simon remembers when I was sixteen! --Monochrome_Monitor 00:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't feel sorry. She died almost instantly, managing to put a smile on her face just in time, as a last message. A lesson absorbed by my father when his turn came.The genius of that specific joke lies in the delay. It's very deep, and one could say that Eco's second novel Foucault's Pendulum is an extended 509 page (in Italian) gloss on an otherwise culturally specific anecdote, teasing out from it the generic lessons for reading. In other words the 'Jewish' joke's amorously self-mocking ironies conceal a piece of acute wisdom that, mutatis mutandis applies to the most advanced forms of human hermeutic intelligence. So it can't be taken as a satire on a closed community, or religious hair-splitting precisely because we all tend to massively overread, and in doing so, conjure up either self-confirming conspiracies (politically) or deliciously foible-ridden conceptual machines in semiotics (academically), that annul the 'obvious', which however is never obvious (in classical Latin, the 'obvious' is what gets in one's habitual way, something therefore like St.Paul's 'skandalon'/'scandal' to dulled reason).Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
MM. You might consider adding to the Jewish Humour version this link, which is far more pregnantly lyrically than my quick recall of his speech.Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Nish can remember a time before I existed MM! At least in this incarnation. Grab every second and love it, use it and grow within it love. Nish, I appreciate the kind words more than I can say. And the joke. I suspect it is based entirely on a real incident. The loss of Umberto Eco is a great blow. His works are a treasure. There is an excellent short interview that was featured in The Forward that I shall send to you, discussing his final work. Yours with a roll up! Simon Irondome (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, the joke was hilarious Nish. It reflects something about human nature. Dogma is the convenient foundation of virtually all knowledge. Having nominal axioms to fall back on makes us feel secure epistemologically. The joke section of the article wasn't my work, it's very... vanilla. I did a few sentences in the lead.--Monochrome_Monitor 12:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you care to add this, here is the version recounted at the funeral, literally translated. If not, fine.

'In a Jewish hamlet in the vast Tsarist empire, there's a community of ultra-orthodox Jews of impressive distinction. Their rabbi was an outstanding authority on the kabbalah. One day, the rabbi sees one of the members of his congregation arrive at his home pallid and panting, his brow beaded with cold sweat, who says: 'Rabbi, hear me out!' Worried by his appearance, the Rabbi says:'Yankele, sit down. What on earth have you seen, Satan himself?' 'No, it's worse than that.' 'Oh dear, good grief. Well, tell me all about it.' 'Well, Rabbi. I was making breakfast, with a hunk of black bread, plenty of butter, and I was spreading the butter on the bread, with a cup of hot sugared tea and. .' The Rabbi breaks in.'Goodness me, Yankele. You ae being silly, aren't you? You come here and all you have to tell me is about your breakfast?' 'Hang on, Rabbi, just let me finish, please! Well then, I was smacking my lips, looking forward to the bounty when, out of the blue,, my cat leapt up onto the table and caused the slice of bread to fall onto the floor. Now, you go tell me what side of the bread hit the floor?' 'Don't be a moron, Yankele. It's a simple matter of physics. It fell on the buttered side.' 'No, rabbi! It fell on the unbuttered side.'At this point, the rabbi himself also was astonished, and the blood left his face. He said: 'Are you pulling my leg? Look, this is a serious matter, it's a mystical thing.' 'Rabbi, I swear to you that's what happened. And I have witnesses'. 'Go home, Yankele. This is something I have to look more deeply into.' So the Rabbi began to undertake his research, took down books on the Kabbalah, and began to write letters to all of the kabbalists the world over, to those who dwell in the most reclusive depths of Jerusalem, to those of the splendid Jewish community of Prague, to Petersburg and New York, everywhere. Letters were exchanged, responsa give, all pulling apart various conclusions arrived at, so everything had to be re-examined all over again. Three years, for three years, this intense activity by the great rabbis continued. Then at last, one day, Yankele got word that he had been summoned by his Rabbi. He arrives, red in the face, overcome with emotion, and the Rabbi says to him: 'Yankele, take a seat. Listen to me. We've managed it at last. For three full years we have worked for you. The whole world of the Kabbalah has worked on your behalf alone. And finally we have come to a unanimous conclusion- the one and only possible conclusion. My dear Yankele, to explain what happened in your case there is only one answer, one alone. Yankele, you buttered the wrong side of the bread.[1]

  1. ^ As told by Moni Ovadia:In una cittaduzza ebraica del vasto imperio tzarista c’è una comunità di ebrei ultra-ortodossi di grande vaglia. Il loro rabbino è un esimio kabbalista. Un giorno questo rabbino si vede arrivare a casa uno dei suoi congreganti, trafelato, pallido in volto ,con la fronte imperlato di sudore gelato,che dice ‘Rabbino, ascoltami.’ Il rabbino preoccupato dice ’Yankele. Siediti. Cos’hai visto, Satana?’ ‘No, peggio!’ ‘Mamma mia, allora racconta.’ ‘Rabbino, Io stavo facendo la mia colazione con una fetta di pane nero, burro abbondante, stavo imburrando il pane,e tè zuccherato bollente. . ‘ E Il rabbino dice, ‘Ma sei scemo Yankele? Sei venuto qui per raccontarmi la tua colazione?’ ‘Aspetta, rabbino, lasciami finire. Allora io stavo pregustando la bontà, quando, all’improvviso, il mio gatto è saltato sul tavolo e ha fatto cadere la fetta di pane. Dimmi rabbino, da che parte è caduta la fetta di pane?’ ‘Non fare il cretino, Yankele: è fisica. Dal lato del burro.’ ‘No rabbino . È caduta dal lato senza burro.’ Il rabbino anche lui trasecola, diventa anche lui bianco. E dice: ‘Mi stai prendendo in giro? Guarda questo è molto grave, è un fatto mistico.’ ‘ Rabbino, ti giuro - ce l’ho testimoni.’ ‘Vai a casa. Devo studiare.’ E il rabbino comincia lo studio , estrae libri dalla kabbalah e cominica scrivere lettere a tutti i kabbelistic del mondo, a quelli che abitano negli anfratti più reconditi di Gerusalemme, a quelli della splendida Praga ebraica, Petersburgo, New York, dovunque, scambio di lettere, responsa, smontano quello a cui sono arrivati. Ricominciano. Tre anni,per tre anni questo lavorio dei grandi mistici. Finché un giorno il congregante si sente convocato dal suo rabbino. Arriva rosso e emozionato, e il rabbino gli dice. ‘Yankele, siediti. Ascoltami. Ce l’abbiamo fatta. Tre anni abbiamo lavorato per te. Tutto il mondo della kabbalah ha lavorato solo per te. Finalmente siamo arrivati all’unanimita-a una, e una sola conclusione. Caro Yankele a quello che ti è capitato c’e una e sola una risposta. Yankele, hai imburrato la fetta del pane dal lato sbagliato.’

Tired of edit war[edit]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Rabenkind (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Your edit to Jewish history[edit]

I reverted your edit to Jewish history because it copied and pasted text from another Wikipedia article. Doing that violates Wikipedia's licenses, which require attribution to all users who created and altered the content of a page.

As I wrote more than a week ago at Talk:Jews#Culture dump, in order to satisfy relevant copyright and attribution requirements, please comply with WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The difference in this case is that I wrote much of that paragraph. But, whatever. --Monochrome_Monitor 06:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Turkish Insurgency[edit]

This module is always vandalized by Turks. So you can add an Semi-protection ? Kordestani (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC) I don't have the permissions for that, but I can ask. I agree, lots of people blank the page, it's really bad. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks for reverting that shit. What a pain. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested! :D --Monochrome_Monitor 02:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Turkish Insurgency[edit]

I did not understand that what is an town is in Bingöl province as conflict. So there is no conflict in Bingöl province and you can remove that ?. Kordestani (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC) I have seen it before. It drives me craaaaaaazy and I can't figure out how to get rid of it. 17:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Working on it. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I found it Haccilar before than you, but you first edited map :) Kordestani (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Muahaha --Monochrome_Monitor 18:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Do you know anything about PKK-held positions in the mountains? They should be marked as "rural areas" @Kordestani:. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but PKK now not direct part of this conflict. The PKK is waiting for spring and summer. Also PKK now didn't totally controls any mountain in Turkey. But PKK can control mountains in Turkey in the future. PKK fights in rural areas and mountains and PKK's urban branch known as YDG-H and YPS is fights in cities. Kordestani (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Aren't they in mountains of the Kurdish region in Iraq? By the way, mind if I ask, are you a northern/southern/western/eastern Kurd? And which Kurdish languages do you speak?--Monochrome_Monitor 19:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes PKK's main headquarters in Qandil Mountains of the Kurdish region in Iraq. But PKK is very organized in Iran, Syria, Iraq and Turkey. PKK has different branches in Iran, Syria, Iraq and Turkey. PJAK is the Iranian Kurdistan branch of PKK. YPG is Syrian Kurdistan branch of PKK. YDG-H and YPS is Turkish Kurdistan branch of PKK. I'm from northern Kurdistan(Turkey). I'm an Kurmanji Kurd.. Kurmanji is an branch of Kurdish nation. Kordestani (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC
Well best of luck to you! I hope you get independence. But shhhh I'm supposed to be nuetral. ;)--Monochrome_Monitor 19:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Turkish Insurgency[edit]

Alacakaya is an district of Elazığ Province but this town located in Diyarbakır Province on this map.. Location of Alacakaya is wrong and should be corrected. Kordestani (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right it's in elazig, but I got the coordinates right, so it must be a problem with the image used in the template. [5]--Monochrome_Monitor 18:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I said I removed Sapata in the edit summary but I didn't... weird. Thanks for catching that! --Monochrome_Monitor 18:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right.. There isn't a place called Şapata. Şapata named place is doesn't exist. Kordestani (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC
It's a place in Romania. But not turkey. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Monochrome Monitor, You can slide it up a the coordinates of these district ? Or put as located in Elazığ province ?.. Or we will remove this Alacakaya district. Kordestani (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The coordinates are right, I don't want to change them. The problem is the map. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


Re this Canaanites 'The Canaanites themselves inhabited the region since the 8th millennium BCE.' That appears to be sourced, but is utter nonsense. A little reflection would tell you it is meaningless, since we cannot use an ethnonym like that to speak of the deep past. It is technically impossible to identify a specific people that far back.

(2) the identification of Israel on the Merneptah stele with Canaanites whoever Canaanites were is theory, not a fact.
(3)and are archeologically attested as early as the mid-third millennium BCE.'(Aubet The Phoenicians and the West p.9. read it. It says no such thing. Second even had this source said that, it would only contradict the earlier 'since the 8th millennium BCE' nonsense.
(4)generally this is all very sneaky. Israel on the Merneptah stele =Canaanite. The Canaanites were materially indistinguishable from the Israelites, the Canaanites were there since the 8th millennium, hence the ancestors of the Jews were in Israel since the 8th millennium BCE. The problem in this snippety approach is, by the same token one can patch up a statement saying, the Phoenicians defined themselves as kan'ani (Canaanites), the Canaanites were interchangeable with the Israel of the Merneptah stele, the Canaanites were there since the the 8millenium BCE, hence the Phoenicians were there since the 8th m illenium BCE. Hilarious. Think about it.Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Since when is wikipedia not allowed to mention prehistory? I'm not trying to be sneaky Nish, I was just reading the article on Israelites and saw the reference and thought it was relevant. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Not your fault that the article is stupid. My presence is disliked there, but the article is rife with incoherencies. The point is, no one knows what ethno-cultural' group inhabited prehistoric anywhere. You have only a definition of people in terms of the cultural style, not of ethnic groups. It is epistemologically impossible to ascertain let alone affirm what the article is saying, which means it has been tampered with for an ideological end.Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I think your syllogism is an oversimplification. You can say that about tons of other pages, like about the Basques. But I'll revert it. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
If you say, but what about other pages, I'm likely to think (but not say):'So, if they get away with it on other pages, why can't our page get away with it'). I'm sure you don't think that way, but it is what that kind of argument implies. The syllogism/analogy is correct. The page regarding ancient history is a patchwork stitched up to produce an impression. Really, the history of the Jews, once you start from the ancient diversity, rather than try to mimic a superficially Biblical image of unity, is far, far more interesting that this (suffice it to read the Tanakh closely, with the relevant scholarship at hand). Of one of any number of examples of why those who have reedited back the page to its former shape, just changing a few words, take this:
'Yahweh,[50][51][52][53] one of the Ancient Canaanite national gods.' Well, again, whoever wrote that is just pasting in an ill-read snippet, and knows nothing of the subject. Yahweh in the northern theory may have emerged as an epithet for a Canaanite God, but he is not in that pantheon in that name form. To the contrary, the textual evidence, both Biblical and Egyptian points to an even more interesting association with the extra-Canaanite, Transjordan region of Edom, specifically Se'ir. The early Israelites in all probability (esp if you make them out to be Canaanites), as the -el in Israel indicates, did not worship a Yahweh. That is in Noll's book mentioned in close proximity to this, but Noll is clipped for this, some other author for that, when the whole period cannor be factually told, but only described per hypotheses ordered according to the scholarly consensuses they gain.
By the above, I am not suggesting you try and fix this. My interest here is only to make a methodological point. There is no method in the patchwork - it's a mosaic of nice bits to fit a theory, not a summation that harmonizes the know or probable facts. Anyway, I must catch my nightly movie, esp. since I've run out of beer.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Enjoy! --Monochrome_Monitor 21:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sippenhaft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scandinavian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


A certain user seems to be reverting your edits on Sikh-related articles, adding back in the "genocide" category. Any idea who the master (if there is one) might be? Thanks, GABHello! 20:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Some guy named alpha mp. It's silly how wikipedians with povs always add stuff about their favored group into genocide categories. Like, there's been some absolute bullshit stuff in there. Wikipedia needs to seriously have a decision about whether to follow the mainstream and legal definition of genocide (intentional destruction of a people in whole or in part) or to cave to everyone's special interests. It's ridiculous how in this topic people don't use mainstream definitions because they are "too exclusive". And I'm not being super picky and only including genocides recognized by multiple states or authorities. It's the same with the holocaust too. In our WP:CATEGORYies we offer the conflicting syllogism of: The holocaust is a genocide. Not a genocide atrocity (ie killing of jehovah's witnesses, siege of stalingrad) is part of the holocaust. Therefore not a genocide is a genocide. Actually only jews and roma faced genocide according to the definition. Well, counting the utashe (I would consider them different genocides but some group them together) Serbs too.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Woah, I just realized they just made an account and all their edits are reversions of my edits. That IS suspicious.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC) @GeneralizationsAreBad:
Yeah, I just didn't know who the master was, and I thought you might know. GABHello! 21:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, you mean you think it's a sock? --Monochrome_Monitor 21:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Consider a move proposal[edit]

Hello MM. It looks like you are trying to move Semitic people. Just now you created Talk:Semitic peoples by cut-and-paste. This isn't usually done and may need to be fixed by an admin. It would be better for you to make a proposal for what you want to do, at least at WP:RMTR. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It was discussed on the talk page so I figured it was fine, but if there's a proper way to do it I apologize for the impropriety. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

NOT being facetious --Monochrome_Monitor 02:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Where was it discussed? I have looked everywhere but cannot see any evidence of consensus for what you did. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
"Comment - This is going to be an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I only bring it up to rebut the argument that "We don't have an "Indo European people" article either. There is no such "people"." While it may be true that we don't have an Indo European people article (yet), these "Foo peoples"-type articles, where "Foo" is a language group are quite common on WP. We have: Indo-Aryan peoples, Tai peoples, Austronesian peoples, Polynesian peoples, Uralic peoples, Pearic peoples, Finno-Ugric peoples, Samoyedic peoples, Celtic peoples, need I go on? I'm not saying this article, as currently written, is particularly good, but "Semitic peoples" is a valid concept. It just needs to be rewritten with a different focus.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 21:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The trick is in the plural -s. It might indeed be possible to write an article about the many different Semitic peoples and their history. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)"

"Ah, yes, the plural -s. I'd just assumed this was already at "Semitic peoples". I would have sworn I saw an "s" up there. Funny the way the brain works (or doesn't) sometimes. In any case, it doesn't invalidate the point, it just means the article should be moved to Semitic peoples."--William Thweatt TalkContribs 22:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "If it is unclear, my point and initial proposal is exactly the same as that put forward by Maunus. As for there not being an Indo-European cultures article either, good, there shouldn't be. But there is an article about Proto-Indo-Europeans. FunkMonk (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)"

--Monochrome_Monitor 16:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing CFD tag during discussion[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Categories for discussion notices from category pages, or remove other people's comments in Categories for discussion debates, as you did with Semitic peoples. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion, merger, or renaming of a category, please comment at the respective page instead.

It is particularly disturbing that you were warned once,[6] and still did this again.[7]

If you had not participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_26#Category:Semitic_peoples, you could have done a WP:Non-admin closure on it, but having disagreed with the proposal, you should have left it to run its course. As it is, removing the CFD tag from the page looks as if you were seeking to avoid drawing attention to the discussion. – Fayenatic London 12:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I wasn't trying to avoid discussion. I thought it was silly that the complaint of one user can deface a page like that. Anyway, I don't even remember when I deleted it :/ --Monochrome_Monitor 12:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


If you see the intro at WP:AADD, it makes it clear that the reasoning in it generally applies to deletion-of-content not just deletion of page discussions, and see the first link referred to, a section at WP:AADP, which is written more generally; it's the exact same "this has to be kept because I saw it somewhere else on here" reasoning. I appreciate the self-revert, but really this should probably just be WP:RFCed, since having or not having flag icons at one article isn't going to address the use or non-use of them at the rest. I also have no desire to squabble about it, it's just a community review that needs to be made. I think MOS:ICONS is pretty clear, and there are good reasons to not use flag icons in a case like this, but WP:MILHIST regulars might feel differently; I can't read their minds. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: Sorry, I'm confusing myself; I was thinking of a similar discussion around same time that referred to be AADD and AADP sections at same time. What I meant in this case was AADP's section WP:OTHERCONTENT.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining and being very nice about this. I love your signature :) --Monochrome_Monitor 04:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you have a consensus! Nice precedent setting. Myself I never minded the flags but didn't care for them either. :/ It is difficult how some are flags of the perpetrating force and others of the place where the atrocity occurred. That's very problematic. --Monochrome_Monitor 05:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement in a few minutes regarding your recent edits. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I knew you would do this, so typical. Enforcement isn't even the right page for it... --Monochrome_Monitor 20:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Fa goodness sake, MM. Why on earth did you, a bright-as-button young woman majoring in physics, make an edit summary calling the professor Emeritus of Linguistics at TAU 'not a reliable linguist'? You really deserve to be served coffee brewed by a Tierra del Fuegan, or spaghetti cooked in diesel fuel. No something worse, a big mac at MacTrumps for that, i.e. something far more indigestible that an AE/AI penalty. Look over your edits, and if some even are as bad as that one, apologize for the lapse.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
You're sweet in a weird, ambivalent way Nish :P

Don't appeal to authority! I don't think he's reliable because his views are so fringe. I suppose that's not synonymous with being an unreliable source... but god, his theories are outlandish. He thinks Sephardic Jews are descended from Berbers, how bizarre. Anyway, it's not about him, it's about the article being a soapbox for minority views, which is mentioned on the talk page. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Let's take the discussion here, eh? Apparently I can't reply in your section and I'm all out of words. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, Wexler's views come from a very bizarre need to deny that jews exist. "‘I deny the existence of the Jewish people. Ninety-five percent of the Jews are of Iranian origin.’" Thinking that's bullshit isn't a "zionist ideological need". It's anti historical revisionism. His views themselves come from an anti-jewish ideological need.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, he freaking praised his own book and bashed everyone elses under a false name and then lied about it and continues to lie about it. That doesn't reflect positively on his integrity. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
MM, have you been editing John Wayne again? I told you it was to be Dr.Strangelove. I shall send you a new one time code. The password is "Wexler". Keeping you in the project has been my only major achievement here. I am proud to have given you a measure of guidance, when things did seem critical. But you are still here and developing intellectually and emotionally and doing good work for the encyclopedia. Your honesty and directness will see you through. Irondome (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Simon, that's very kind of you :) You've been a huge blessing to me. I'll get to Dr. Strangelove when you've finished copyediting Shakshouka! --Monochrome_Monitor 22:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


Hi MM,

Thanks for your willingess to help with mentorship. I saw your comment at Cullen328 (talk · contribs). I am 100% ready to work with you and I promise not to disappoint you.

Thank you. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 17:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I said I would try to help you and advocate for you, not be a mentor. :P I do think they are blowing this out of proportion, my advice is, come clean. Tell them why you made the page about yourself and made the sockpuppet account. I don't think it was malicious. If you're honest I do think they'll give you a break. @Wikicology:--Monochrome_Monitor 17:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much MM. I appreciate your help. I'm currently compiling my statement and I will put it on the evidence page any moment from now. Warm regards. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 18:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! ping me so I remember. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I will ping you. Warm regards. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 20:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

A bird sent me to ask you about Mentorship.[edit]

Welp, I was offered mentorship for three months and avioiding ARBPIA for a while. But what Mentorship is exactly? I found WP:MENTOR to be lacking a lot of important details and I also not sure who will be the mentor (although IronDome offered himself). I stopped violating 1RR rule long ago (long ago means September) and I don't remember an incident when I actually violated a consensus while knowing it exists.. I am starting to think that Mentorship is maybe useless, and people offered it only because of a heated debate between a mute person (me) and deaf people (some of the rest). So what is really mentorship?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bolter21. Check this link Wp:Mentorship. It gives a very broad overview, although individual arrangements can be tailored to requirements and mutual agreements. Simon. Irondome (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Simon is stalking my talkpage, like a good WP:MENTOR. :P --Monochrome_Monitor 15:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Went through the entire essay again, still not sure how it will affect me.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


Your editing behavior has become disturbingly puerile on this topic. I jhave absolutely no ideological interest in this argument and I know it thoroughly. The page before, later, now and after will have structural problems, things to weed out or improve, but you get nowhere simply reverting blankly. Use the talk page before you jump the gun, like Galassi.Nishidani (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for being patient with me and coming here, I'll explain my thoughts. The largest study of Ashkenazi Jewish genes found no evidence of any Khazar origin. The entire theory is specious at best. For one, the evidence that the Khazars converted in mass is non-existent. For two, we know next to nothing about their civilization, we barely even know the language, yet we assume these people somehow became jews and their history, language, culture vanished without a trace? I do like to keep an open mind about things, but not to entertain thoroughly disproved theories. There have literally been two genetic studies that lended any shred of credence to the theory. One by the thoroughly biased "Jews don't exist" Elhaik, whose methods were completely deceptive and whose findings were rejected by the scientific community, and another on Levites whose results were contradicted in later studies. That's it. Hell, even David Duke, who used to espouse the theory like many jew haters, stopped believing it do to the overwhelming evidence against it. So, yes, part of my loathing of the "theory" is it being inimical to decent scientific methodology.
Another is, you have to understand how offensive it is. And I know wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but I am a squishy meatbag and I have feelings. It's like with the article holocaust denial. Some people wanted it to not be point blank called "antisemitic", and called me biased for saying it was terribly offensive NOT to call it that. No, in both cases I advocate for what I feel evidence strongly supports as truth, but also in both false things have particularly harmful consequences. This isn't some silly I/P article. Wikipedia affects how many people see the world. It shouldn't pussyfoot around about holocaust denial or about the legitimacy of Jews as a people. And yes, it IS similar. Not just because the theory is beloved by jew-haters. Do you understand what I mean? Shver Tzu Zein A Yid, European Jews were burned alive and gassed for being Jews, but survived against all the odds. This bullshit theory negates their suffering by saying European Jews aren't Jews. It's absolutely disgusting and its proponents know that. Even though showing human emotions harms my credibility on wikipedia, I'm telling you this because I trust you. Hell, it's not even about me. Half of my lithuanian forebears are originally from portugal, so I'd only be half khazar according to the theory :P It's really about human dignity and not feeding the racists. --Monochrome_Monitor 07:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
'The largest study of Ashkenazi Jewish genes found no evidence of any Khazar origin.' Elhaik's paper is no longer Khazar-focused. Genetically, it actually overlaps with the consensus perspective on Middle Eastern origins of the Ashkenazi founding lines, which is what rush readers are missing. I expect the intelligent thing to do is to acknowledge and differentiate the two papers, explain them briefly, air serious criticisms of the former and, when specialists comment on his second paper, outline their reactions, which means waiting several months. It's methodologically incorrect to confuse the two positions, and ethically improper to jump to conclusions about the 2016 paper in terms of what a few critics said re the paper written 4 years earlier. To rush and crush simply flags one's nervousness about a topic. Serious critics win arguments because they write and review with an informed but detached serenity, something most newspaper spinning of this hi-falutin work can't manage because it is all written to a deadline, and invariably in a sensationalist climate to win readers over. Neutrality means giving a fair exposition of what is being said, in a way that readers can make up their minds. We do not make their minds up for them. If we do, we play politics. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
MM, I understand your feelings. Your feelings are important. But I don't share your view that citing reliable sources in a WP article 'negates their [the Jews] suffering,' simply because nothing can ever negate, or even reduce, their suffering. And I share your concerns regarding racists and anti-semites and other shit-heads like that, but please see WP: Wikipedia is not censored. WP does not censor itself just because we (including you and I) may be worried about what some fucking racists and/or anti-semites might think. Fuck all the racists and all the anti-semites in the world, and may they all rot in hell. The best way to fight back against racists and anti-semites is to dis-empower them. Let's not empower racists or anti-semites by giving them the power to censor the encyclopedia.
The racists and anti-semites shield/censor themselves from the truth (e.g. holocaust denial, etc). This weakens their positions. In contrast, WP editors (including Jewish editors such as yourself and myself) don't censor. This empowers us and strengthens our positions in the long run. Ijon Tichy (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh I'm totally anti-censorship myself. I like the approach of the nizkor project, the best way to fight hate is to educate people, not to censor dissenting voices. That's why I'm not saying we shouldn't include the one or two studies purporting to support the theory, as long as we include the counter-studies. My issue is not with the details but with how its summarized in the lead. Saying "some support it and others don't" is just nonsense. It's giving people the idea that's it's not as fringe as it actually is. I think it should be summarized in a way that makes it clear that it's not given a thought in scholarship except in passing when researchers say "oh, of course this also shows no evidence of khazar origin". That's my problem. Not the content, but the way it's reflected in the lead. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I've guests for some days, and can't handle this adequately, but I will note this. The Khazar mother page was an absolute mess, identical to the sheer chaos of the Shakespeare Authorship Question. It took Tom Reedy and myself, along with more than a little help from wiki friends, two years out of our lives to (a) battle the idiot clique that had taken over the page to push a crazy fringe POV with no academic endorsement (b) rewrite it from top to bottom (c) drive it to FA level. I played a secondary role:Tom is the expert of that, but the hard labour was eased by knowing several editors with different perspectives could work on trust to improve it, and get the details right, because every source was scrutinized by all, evaluated and then edited according to stringent wiki protocols. I found the Khazar page in a hopeless mess, dominated by nutters,wholly out of whack with contemporary scholarship. I had to fight my way into it, which I dislike and then gradually managed to give it a top to bottom review by gathering in all of the best contemporary scholarship on the subject. Several editors could see that this attempt to 'fix' it was a positive improvement over the bickered POV battled versions that preceded, and watched over it to keep out the niggling messers and reverters. What was interesting to me there(apart from a semi-professional interest in the anthropology of ancient central Asian tribes) was the way anti-Semitism, on one hand, or Israel-legitimacy panic merchants on the other, tussled and pushed articles into the public purview to spin the complex history of the Khazars and the more complex history of the how that history was interpreted, predominantly among Jewish scholars. Politics was everywhere in the public domain for some decades in discussing the subject, there was scarce attention to what Turkology, Slavic historiography and Byzantine scholarship was actually doing. Politics, fucking politics, everwhere. It's the great sop to minds that desire clear cut ideological answers, that do not exist for a subject as abstruse as this. Well the politics is pretty straight forward: you either get anti-Semitic scumbags using it to attack Jews, or you get ultrapatriots dismissing what was an honourable belief or reasoned theory in Jewish scholarship because since 1967, an atmosphere of reading everything in terms of 'does it legitimate or delegitimate Jews =Israel"? predominates among controversialists. I wanted to get rid of that, unplug the endless bitching over POVs by simply giving a fair synthesis of what scholarship in the relevant fields has said over the last century or so and esp. recently. I couldn't give a fuck how either side, the anti-Semites, like David 'Dook' or the panic-stirring constituency of 'pro-Israeli' controversialists, spin things. I have no certainly about anything regarding details on the Khazars, it's all as if, perhaps, likely, less probable, etc. Nearly everyone who jumps into this page, or has tried to split it, return it to its old state, mess with it without closely parsing all of the scholarly sources, has a strong belief that I find absurd, and appears to entertain a private conviction that I am a very devious editor pushing either an anti-Semitic cause under cover of scholarship, or using this to help the Palestinians. I take the first suspicion as something not worth answering: as to the second, well, it's obvious I wish Israel to decide whether it will become a crowning honour of a millennial Jewish dream to have a state where one is amongst one's own, hypermodern, a showcase and light to the failed states around it for what will, vision and hard work can do to forge a democratic bi-ethnic if fundamentally Hebrew-cultured state, or whether it persists in playing the ambiguous game of colonialism for an extra few kilometres of real estate carpetbagging driven by nationalism, religious fundamentalism,ethnic enmity, pure mythological prevarication, and Americanoid dreams of superpower exceptionalism. But while a partisan for the Tibetans, I did the Epic of King Gesar rewrite because I've always loved that epic, not to prove something against the Chinese occupation, and likewise, while a partisan for the Palestinian cause, I did the Khazar article because I've been reading the ethnography of the central Eurasian tribal worlds for half a century, and the scholarship on them had by the time I wrote been so intense that it enabled me to do what one cannot yet do with a dozen other large tribes in that configuration (and it had the sexy attraction of being a real historical whodunit, full of obscure tantalizingly obscure mysteries that cannot probably be resolved. You don't have to believe this: but I'd sacrifice any preconception or belief in a strong probability, if evidence came out contradicting it. To the contrary, such controversion of a likely hypothesis always makes my blood tingle. I live in books, and regard the political side as sheer toxic waste, and I pity the upcoming generation when it fails to feel the thrill of hermeneutic complexities. Politics is stupid because it's a confession that you cannot hold in your mind several conflicting hypoitheses with equanimity, skepticism, doubt, or allow the surprises of alternative ways of thinking to titillate that curiosity which, if it withers, means you're effectively dead to the world. By all means, at your age, espouse some politics, but keep in mind that political minds suffer intellectual burnout because they dwell on simplifications, certainties and electoral group think. When both you and Galassi, without reading all the sources kept reverting back to a statement that said this has been definitively refuted you were simply inserting an outright POV lie. There is only one inferior kibitzer reviewer who uses that term, and it belies the scholarship. Must run, but all I am saying is that the habit of reverting on this underworked page is otiose and lazy. It needs to be substantially developed by close examination of sources, and through fair discussion on the talk page to overcome disagreements. Regards Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Your assertion that "it was a valid opinion in jewish scholarship before israel" is off-target. It has little to do with Israel. It's about European Jews and the Haskalah, and the stream of Jews fresh out of the ghettoes who did away with Yiddishkeit for socialism as soon as it was convenient. The Khazar nonsense was only entertained by a few intelligentsia as part of the extreme end of the stream of Jewish thought which sought to solve the jewish question by redefining what it means to be Jewish completely. Case in point, the reform movement in Germany and America declaring that Jews are not a people, but merely a religion. From its onset it was used to deny Jewish peoplehood, its no coincidence its supporters (wexler, elhaik) today do the same. Koessler himself said he advocated the theory as a way to make antisemitism obsolete. Of course, the alternative solution to antisemitism was to defend the jewish people by restoring the jewish state in zion. But it's not a question of pre-israel vs post-israel, it is a matter of being loved as a gentile or hated as a jew. That ultimatum precedes modern Zionism by milennia. In the glory days of the Labor Bund a significant number of quixotic jews preferred the former, but today most Jews prefer the latter, and the few who don't are rightfully deemed wicked sons.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I had my first genuine health scare last week. Blood pressure and potential ticker issues. However it would appear to be stress related, as, if I cut down smoking and take my full dose of tranquilisers, I find the buzzing in my ears stops. So I have been taming a magpie and a large black beast I take to be a raven. Fat magpie and the dinosaur-like black thing are bitter rivals for the cheese and inferior quality chicken roll I put out for them. Consequently my balcony has become a small battleground. I am teaching them to co-exist by timesharing the space and giving them an insight into the complex idea of different times for their feeding. I sit on a beanbag so the beasts are at eye level when they feed on the balcony ledge. The full -length French windows give me an excellent view. Viz:
Queen's Club London.jpg

My flat is the top floor of the mansion block immediately facing the viewer, to the extreme right. You will notice the small balcony. You can see the sunlight reflecting off one of my French windows. The picture appears to have been taken at about 8 - 9pm on a summer evening judging by the shadows. The clothing appears to date it to approx 1908 - 1912. The play of light on the windows is still the same today. Seeing it in the commons gave me goosebumps. The Khazar's thing. It is a delightful aspect of Jewish history. I like the legend that the Khazars received delegations from the Christian, Islamic and Jewish faiths. Islam was rejected because the Khazars liked a drink. They were unimpressed by Christianity so chose Judiasm. My nan's family were Khazars. I get my colouring from my grandads' lot. In a hot summer I make the late Faud of Saudi Arabia look like a Norwegian ski instructor, whereas my nans lot had the colouring of Kirk Douglas. So what? After 15-1700 years we are all Jews now. These interminable arguments are a sign of insecurity MM. The politics do not help either in trying to find an academic way forward in a complex article. I have seen assurances from colleagues above that they would fight to keep nutters and anti-semites away. Wexler I believe to be wrong and his viewpoints sometimes odd, but the Jewish people will still be around in the morning, and so will Israel. Neither are going anywhere. Relax MM, and tame some example of your local wildlife. Love from Irondome (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You're just the master of understatements, aren't you? ;) YOU SMOKE?!!?! I'm going to get you to quit, this is an intervention. I'm happy you're feeling better now.:) --Monochrome_Monitor 22:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
No time to answer, I'm still a tour guide for friends for some days, aand with Simon's note, I feel that if helping Wikipedia is related to stress I'd rather drop editing here, than be, even marginally, associated with his health worries. I can't see anything you wrote above about this being a key issue related to the whole historical crux of the persecution of Jews. The Khazar theory had long roots in a certain vein of Jewish thinking because it showed it was possible to have a Jewish state, which banned sectarianism, the underlying message of the Kuzari book being -if history allows us to establish a state, we will not persecute Christians or Muslims as they have us, either by pogroms or dhimmitude. We will teach them tolerance among the children of Abraham.
I'll set you a bit of productive homework (I must be off) inspired by your mention of Lithuanian forebears. The Karaites of Lithuania escaped the Holocaust because that communities convinced the Nazi racist world that they were descended from Turkish royalty, and therefore did not have what the Nazis thought of as the taint of 'Jewish' blood. They survived, and then went to Israel. Koestler for one knew that, and it affected his rather shaky book (Koestler supported the use of terrorism, and was an Irgun man). The development of the theory section of the article should mention this curious twist in the Nazi use of the Khazar theory. The anti-Semites use it to call Jews racially inferior: the Karaites turned it against the anti-Semites to step round their genocidal plans. Read Steven Bayme Understanding Jewish History: Texts and Commentaries,

KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1997 pp.147-148. It should be in the article. Must rush (cheers Simon) Nishidani (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

And please read Simon's post in its deeper, if you like 'psychoanalytical' drift. On that level he is gently nudging us to appreciate that a 'right' argument can be flawed by the wrong motivation, and a 'wrong' argument inspired by genuinely good motives, not that I think he is judging the merits of who of us, magpie and raven, is in the right or wrong. The dialectic of argument clarifies both the argument's status, while acting as a corrective to each interlocutors private self-understanding, which tends to disrupt intuitions of truths, formal and personal. Acute.Nishidani (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh my Litvak forebears were not Karaites :P They were lucky fuckers though. They were well-to-do enough to have their house raided by the Bolshevics (and my great grandmother's sister and grandmother shot in broad daylight while they were at the market) and so they got the fuck out of there in the 20s. Thank God, if they had stayed there's a 95% I wouldn't exist. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
That's mom's family. Dad's were out of vilna by the 90s-10s to escape the pogroms of czarist Russia. They are the ones who were originally porteguese. My great great grandfather was out because he deserted from the Russian army! Hahahaha.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Of course, I never thought they were Karaites. The Lithuanian connection reminded me of that curious irony of what happened to the Karaites, and that is an angle the page should include. I think my first encounter with anti-Semitism was on being invited to a Lithuanian schoolmate's home, and overhearing a quip from his grandparents. The second was when a teacher, noting my radical politics at 15, tried to swing them the other way, and passed me on an American book explaining the New Deal as a Jewish conspiracy. I returned it, not personally, but placing it on his desk, after forcing myself to at least read to the end of the first chapter.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I knew you didn't actually think they were Karaites, I was kidding. Hence the ":P" As for a lithuanian schoolmate, yeah, lithuania is a very jewhatey country. This article describes it quite well. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh and Simon, where exactly are your folks from? --Monochrome_Monitor 21:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I said from Khazarland and my nan was from Kirk Douglas. Now give it a rest MM. Sod lithu bloody ania and stop visualising a top ten of jewhatey places. It will make you ill. I am serious. Irondome (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Jacob Pavlovich Adler, Stella Adler and Luther Adler are distant relations. My grandmothers family were country people, from outside Lodz. My nan's brother, Conrad (Con) was a successful professional lightweight boxer in London before he volunteered for the Eighth Army and was gone 6 years. He drove lorries resupplying tanks with fuel and ammo. He ended up a sergeant. Did all of North Africa and Italy. He was the finest Black cab driver in London and drove till he was 80 something when he was forced to retire in the early 1980's. He had a green badge and was a musher. They were called Rosselovski (?) but anglicized their name to Lewis. Probably because they got off the ship at Cardiff. We are the dumb English Adlers who got off the boat early also. There is also a Viennese chunk of family that I am trying to research. Stop winding yourself up Georgia. Reflecting on the bad sides of our experience can be corrosive for the soul. Celebrate the positive, the huge achievements, the spiritual beauty. There is actually far more positive than negative. Focus on the light, G. Please. Simon Irondome (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Ooh, I have edited Stella's wikipage before! I am a proud relative of the guy who ruled that Coca Cola is kosher. Because of him the world's Halakhic Jews can enjoy the beverage. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Nothing to be proud of this, this last one. My brother or best mate, as you will, raised his children (of part Jewish descent) telling them from the cradle Cola Cola was actually cat's piss and they believed it (I think it a fairly reasonable hypothesis from an experienced pub crawler's perspective) until they were old enough to sip the sort of stuff Simon and myself regard as a proper drop, starting with a shandy which was ritually consumed just after taking a religious vow at 13 never to touch alcohol until 18. Till that age, they were slaked on lemonade pressed from home-grown lemons :) Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I was a Tizer man myself. Goes very well with fish and chips. Or it used to. Probably changed the formula now. But that was before I graduated to the top shelf. The rest, as they say on the charge sheets, is history. Irondome (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: Evidence Comment[edit]

MM, I'm very sorry that you had an unpleasant experience earlier. Taken alone, the sock-puppeting and the COI autobiography issue might have been resolved without any serious action. Even the legal threat that he made could have been smoothed over. However, when editors began looking at his contributions, the true damage to the project became apparent. As someone said, that was "the line in the sand". The falsified medical articles were just the beginning.There are @ 500-plus articles to be read and corrected, plus references that he has added to other articles.This situation is really sad, for everyone. I suggest you read this section for an overview. First article I read: here. Random from today- click on the citations and compare them to the sentences: Nigerian Academy of Science, Isa Marte Hussaini. Then read this,and I think you will understand why people are so angry. Your good heart does you credit. It's much better to err on the side of kindness, than the side of cruelty, and I would send you a kitten, (if I knew how!) Love the "monotone monitor". (The first computer I used was a year or two older) Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, you're amazing. Yeah, the evidence is pretty damning, it was probably silly of me to gloss it over. HAhaha, "monotone monitor" :P Chrome! Monotone is cute though. Would be a good joke account. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Ouch, that article. Yes there's a lot of stuff that needs combing through. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for the replies on the "Workshop" page. They're greatly appreciated :) Claudia 20201 (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank YOU for your reply on my talk page. This must be my lucky day, everyone is being so nice to me. :) --Monochrome_Monitor 22:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
You're most welcome! Monochrome Monitor You deserve it :) Claudia 20201 (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European-speaking peoples[edit]

Hi! Сan I invite you here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_28#Category:Indo-European-speaking_peoples ? Cathry

Disambiguation link notification for May 2[edit]

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

Early Modern English
added a link pointing to Ligature
Modern English
added a link pointing to Ligature

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Undiscussed deletions[edit]

The most objectionable component of your editing style is your tendency to make large and undiscussed deletions. The related edit comments invariably include emotive and subjective language explaining why you personally believe that such information is not good.

WP:UNDUE is an important but nuanced policy. You will never succeed in proving an argument of UNDUE in an edit comment. It requires thoughtful analysis, and usually a healthy discussion.

Separately, in case you think hiding information from readers is a good thing, I suggest you read Censorship#Criticism_of_censorship: removing information hinders discussion and progress in society.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing block quotes of fringe opinions which dominate an article, thereby putting the representation of those viewpoints in proportion is not "censorship" and calling it such is not only ridiculous, but revealing of an unhelpful, polemical approach to editing. Drsmoo (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
My point is more subtle. There is always a middle ground in debates around UNDUE. Full censorship of sources is rarely necessary - what may be reasonable is a reduced weighting of text in the article itself, but retention of the underlying sources. Why hinder readers who may be using wikipedia to do some research by removing high quality sources describing well known scholarly debates. If you think it's overweight, then reduce the weighting but keep the sources. Hiding the existance of dissenting opinions by deleting everything is censorship in its most basic form. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The most objectionable component of your editing style is your tendency to pull stunts like this after this and then to hypocritically patronize me like a self-righteous prick. But yes, my edit summaries are atrocious. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep it WP:CIVIL MM, please. I really don't want you going backwards. Irondome (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on Modern Hebrew[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jeppiz (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ghetto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Segregation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Bad editing again[edit]

For the last time, meddling and frigging about with text in defiance of evidence (which may be partial or wrong, but can be correct) given on the talk page is tantamount to edit-warring. Go there before tampering with the text. Both Entine and Yanover are shit sources, but, unlike edit warriors, I haven't removed them. I try to get the nonsense they are pushing correctly paraphrased. But there are a whole bunch of issues there, even in paraphrase. Go to that page, but before you do, read Nadia Abu El-Haj,The Genealogical Science: The Search for Jewish Origins and the Politics of Epistemology, University of Chicago Press, 2012 pp,.120-3 (at least. And don't tell me she's of Palestinian origin and therefore suspect, since the same would apply to many of the 'Jewish' newspaper hacks used on that page, and at least she underwent peer-review in an academic publishing house noted for its severity about quality) I've been using that source for years, but no one reads it. They, like yourself, prefer self-grooming promotional snippets from newspapers. Don't reply here, please.Nishidani (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

First person, singular[edit]

Maybe I too belong to Category:Wikipedians with way too much time on their hands, but I thought I'd point out that, on your user page, you change from third person to first person, not from plural to singular. Face-smile.svg

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC).

Wow, thanks! Haha I didn't notice that. --Monochrome_Monitor 11:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Shuafat is not Jerusalem[edit]

Mimi dear, this is a first! Let's raise one to it: you removed one of my more substantial edits, and I reversed it back, of course. And this while I'm hardly editing anymore :-)
Some smart newspaper guy - or municipality PR smart... donkey - made up the line "Jerusalem's age pushed back: now 7000 years old". BS. Shuafat has only been "included" (pro forma, administratively) into J'lem after 1967. Not 7k, 6k, 5k, 4k, 3k, 2k, 1k, 500 years ago, or 100 years ago - no, hardly 50. Finding Chalcolithic or other prehistoric traces in Shuafat and basing a new "birthday" for J'lem on that is... it starts with "bull" and ends beneath his tail. Take a better look at it and I hope we can leave it at this. I'm off & back to real life, cheers! ArmindenArminden (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Um.... kay. I think you're talking about the article Jerusalem? Maybe clarify? :) And I've never heard someone I apparently reverted be so gracious! --Monochrome_Monitor 05:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Jerusalem. I have separated "Shuafat" and its prehistoric findings from "City of David & J'lem proper" and its own prehistory. Now Debresser has re-reverted... Once you get a ball rolling in the wrong direction, you can't stop it that easily anymore.
We do go back quite a while, so the tone between us "goes without saying". OK, now don't push me :-) ArmindenArminden (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

If it's not technically part of jerusalem proper we should put it in the article on shuafat. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Boooo I wanted to discuss it in email but you don't accept it! --Monochrome_Monitor 00:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You have my email??? / The discussion is ongoing on the talk page. Sorry, I have a "real life" backlog from here till Timbuktou :-) ArmindenArminden (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

tada!--Monochrome_Monitor 14:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

How does that work? I mean, being sure it doesn't go into the public domain? I'm kinda shy (or not, but that's the thing: Arminden can say anything, the other guy with an email... not so much). ArmindenArminden (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

What, the emails? The email adresses of users are stored in wikipedia's private servers. They don't have any access to the emails you send.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hindi languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hindustani. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Madagascar Plan has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That's absolutely ridiculous. I used one sentence with the source's wording, which I sourced.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Adding the same copy vio with a different citation is still a copyright violation. Please refer to the policy page WP:copyrights for more information on this topic. — Diannaa (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't add the same violation. I used wording completely different from the source paraphrasing text in the article's body per LEAD. If whoever put that cite in wasn't chastised for it, why am I?--Monochrome_Monitor 21:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
So sorry, I made a mistake. The wording of the second edit was not the same as the source webpage at all. — Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks :) --Monochrome_Monitor 21:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Decimate implies total destruction[edit]

It makes no difference whether one has 'decimate' or 'devastate', but the edit summary was incorrect. 'Decimate' etymologically means reduced by one tenth, and is still used in literate circles to mean the substantial reduction of a community or population, never its entire destruction. Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know where decimate comes from. The roman army, yada yada. But it sounds like near-total destruction... To me, at least. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. Either way I was the one who put in "decimate" originally :P--Monochrome_Monitor 21:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Irony of ironies, Debresser, who can't stand the sight of me apparently, reverted your edit. The only problem was the edit summary, but 'devastate' is probably more vivid, and less clinical than decimate, and your sense that a better term might be used was (this time round!) sure-footed.Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Hahaha, you are united in opposition to me! Debresser seems to have a problem with me too. Check out this clusterfuck.[8]--Monochrome_Monitor 21:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


You'd wear down the patience of Job. And half of your edits require wasting hours fixing them, when they are not irreparable. You are profoundly superficial and careless in your editing.


Christian commentators have long been concerned with the fate of the ten lost tribes. Prester John placed them somewhere in Inner Asia. Matthew Paris speculated that the Tartars could be from the ten lost tribes. However, Christian commentators and polemicists described the Khazars as a people without a known faith

There is no mention of the Khazar-Ashkenazi on those pages, and therefore it was to be removed, as I did, as WP:OR. You didn't even check it, because anyone who checks it would have added the proper attribution, not to those editors but to Adam Knobler, 'Crusading for the Messiah;Jews as Instruments of Christian Anti-Islamic Holy War,' on pp.83-91 of that book.
  • 2. You challenge the use of scholars like James Parkes and Michael Prior on Palestinians, and yet restored in lead sourcing what nondescript cub journalists like Cnaan Lipshiz and Yori Yanover say about subjects they have zero training in, Khazar studies and genetics. That means you don’t apply the same criterion for WP:RS to all articles, but lower the bar for comments you like, and raise it against scholars you dislike.
  • 3 You erased, while reintroducing Lipshiz and Cnaan, the references to the views of 2 qualified scholars Alexander Beider and Bernard Spolsky. They state points of view that disconcert your self-assured beliefs in the truth, therefore, you cancel them from the page, even though they are infinitely more acceptable as sources than the crap you drag in.
  • 4 Like Galassi, the evidence is that you did not look at the nature of what you were doing. You made a blind, blanket revert, even if it meant re- introducing that prester John original research.
  • Above all, since I’ve taken considerable trouble for some months to write boringly long talk page analyses to try and at least make you see the world of scholarship is not simple, that magisterial thinkers and historians can disagree, and that it is not our privilege, as anonymous editors to adjudicate who is right and who is wrong, and –it’s almost a year now – you have shown no signs of budging an inch from your pertinacious desire to have your way. I’ve given up. This is the last comment I’ll exchange with you. In the future, if this kind of behaviour recurs, consider yourself to be just assisting me with compiling further evidence that you are of no use to some areas of this encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Prester jon is a mythical figure, you were right to delete that. I'm working on it.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
YOU restored things said by entine that I deleted. "most dismiss it as a fantasy". I added new sources.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
MM the “Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry” seems to be a relatively good article to me. I am not sure that it can be improved further. I think a lot of good work was done but now it is probably best if it is only improved on the margins.Jonney2000 (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree its pretty good right now but I think my edits are an improvement. You?[9]--Monochrome_Monitor 20:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)@Jonney2000:
Honestly I cannot tell a significant different between the two version. So in the interest of stability it is probably best to leave it alone.Jonney2000 (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Did you look at the difs....? I added a whole new paragraph. @Jonney2000:--Monochrome_Monitor 20:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the current version is fine. If you don't think so can you explain why?Jonney2000 (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the current version is bad but there's always room for improvement. My edit removed weird tone things like "intriguingly", it gives a new paragraph about the history of the khazar theory. It replaces the unsourced "most dismiss it as a fantasy" with sourced parts. It's minor overall but it's an improvement. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC) @Jonney2000:

@Jonney2000: tell me what you think about the version I just put out. The intro keeps the current one's basic structure with the exception of deleting a quote I think gives a false balance.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Canaanite and Phenocian[edit]

Hello. In this edit summery you wrote that "Canaanite" and "Phenocian" are the same thing. You might know this and you might not, but,

The city states on the coast of Lebanon and modern-day northern Israel coast were called "Phenocian" by the Greeks and the Romans. All of those spoke (dialects of) the "Phenocian" langauge and they were sometimes federated and sometimes dominated by one city state (if I am not wrong it was for the most part Sidon). Those people called themselves "Cannanites" and they indeed lived in (parts of) Canaan. The problem is the Romans and Greeks have ruined historical etymologoy. They created the "Palestine" thing and renamed Aram as "Syria" which I mourn until this day. It's a sad thing that people say "Judea is a name that refers to hill region in southern Palestine".

So don't assume that because logically you are right, that Phenocians are technically Cannanites, but historiography is annoying and we have to work according to it.

Someone told me recently that I am patronizing, so if you feel that way, it wasn't intended.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

My point was that saying "or" is bad, considering phoenicians are canaanites. You're right they aren't synonymous. I agree that the greeks fucked things up. You're not patronizing, you're sweet. :)--Monochrome_Monitor 16:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
But for some reason there's a Phenocia and (the rest of) Canaan. If the Phenocians heard that they would roll in their graves, but so will the Arameans and Israelites. The Philistines will be touched to say they were revived in the 20th century.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hahaha, YES. The פלשtim, eh? ;) --Monochrome_Monitor 20:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Cute.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I know there is. No need to rub it in.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I was referring to my report, I didn't know of the other one. Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I really really would request that you take a 7 day break from editing MM. I think it is affecting your nerves. You want to get ill over what is effectively a hobby? This stuff can spill into real life interactions MM. Just state you are experiencing some wikistress and are taking time out to recover your spirits. Make the announcement on your userpage. You badly need a break here. Simon Irondome (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia calms me down simon. It makes me feel like I have some control over the chaotic world I live in. My life is a mess right now. I can't figure out how to get fucking housing for college. It's my life that spills into wikipedia, not the other way round.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


Stop tag-teaming me with your Zionist friend. No sooner do I edit an article on Zionism than I get irritating messages on my talk page. Do not post there again. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not tag-teaming with anyone, those are persecutory delusions. I wasn't going to comment on your talk page or about Sand. What bothered me was you using the word "zio", that's it. And you still haven't apologized either.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Apologise for what? The fact you are stalking my talk page (with perfectly innocent intentions, of course) in the wake of some Zionist editor and kicking up a fuss over nothing? If you don't like the edit summaries I give when removing rubbish from my talk page, don't troll it. This is my last message to you. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I was stalking drsmoo, not you. It's just not a nice word. It's a very mean thing to say.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction[edit]

Commons-emblem-hand.svgThe following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from the topic of the Khazars on all pages of Wikipedia

You have been sanctioned per the discussion at WP:AN3

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This ban may be appealed in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

πάθει μάθος[edit]

The measure adopted is one that will cause you some grief, and, probably anger against myself. The latter is neither here nor there. It's far more severe than what I expected. Wiki however is like reality itself: things never play out as one anticipates. If it is any consolation, I was permabanned for 9 reverts over several articles in 49 days. I took it on the chin, as Foreman did in Zaire, and only got back because, unknown to me, two editors from either 'side' (Ravpapa/Nableezy) thought that after some time spent in the cooler, I should be invited back unconditionally. Oddly, their proposal was accepted. I say 'oddly' because normally one was expected to make a personal plea. I didn't. I was raised never to whinge, let alone 'grease' one's way back into someone's good graces. I think you should reflect on the psychodynamics of what happened: all it needed from you, once Simon put in his avuncular suggestion, was a sign of contrite regret ('Sorry' is enough) and some imagination ('I accept Simon's offer, but will extend the voluntary wiki break for a month,'etc) to convince the board you recognized you'd gone beyond the limit. When I came back from my permaban, I imposed on myself a discipline of self-suspension, for a month each time, whenever I made an infraction, even if no one reported me. I was off Wikipedia on several occasions. The aim is, whatever the group dynamics and power plays out there, ignore them: make the battleground one's own impatience, intolerance, self-conceit, or whatever the focus, and expect of oneself higher standards than the community requires. At a certain age, one gets slack, and I found this a corrective spur to fend off the complaisance of being 'grown up'. If you parse what Simon said, it was the opposite of throwing you under the bus: he went out on a limb, allowing you to see the stress this incident caused, while nonetheless making a last minute bid to stave off a sanction which, I suspect, he might have thought deep down, to be due, but which his empathy and avuncular care obliged him to ward off. You missed that, by expressing disappointment at what struck you as a failure to back you to the hilt. All nurture begins with indulgence, but the hardest thing in parenting is to apply the rod, those forms of angry reproval or punitive actions (I would be locked as a child in the laundry if I didn't eat my greens, or don an animal costume) that send us the message that indulgence has its limits. The limitation is only on two article, esp. the Khazar hypothesis which I am not now rushing to 'fix' unilaterally by undoing your work. If I edit it, it will be after collegial agreements with Jonney and anyone else, on the talk page. By all means revert this if you think it condescending.Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jewish peoplehood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ethnos. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Palestinians[edit]

The sources you cited in your recent edit to Palestinians were mostly garbage. What makes, a family website, a reliable source?, another of your sources, is a Wikipedia mirror and thus not a reliable source. You cited a book by "Joudah", but neglected to provide any meaningful information that might help an interested reader find it. (See WP:CITEHOW.) And you cited a dead link on the website of Al Riyadh. Please fix the citation problems. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

1. I fixed the deadlink. 2. I literally copied and pasted cites from the clans respective pages. I didn't know about pink, I'll delete that and add a tag.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't know where the sources came from. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how the family website is problematic. If they were claiming something ridiculous maybe, but they're the one to know. Who better to know the origins of their family than them?--Monochrome_Monitor 02:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
In the case of the Nusseibeh family, you would be on more solid ground if you wrote that they "claim" such origin, though it's relevance to the article is debatable. The Al-Riyadh article is obviously way below the line (do you honest believe everything that is written there?). This edit] is also unacceptable; Tsvi Misinai's fringe theories are not accepted by scholars. Zerotalk 04:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's a self-published source with no obvious fact-checking. I can create a website that says I am descended from Solomon and Sheba, but that wouldn't make it a reliable source for that fact. (Let's assume for the moment that I was notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article.) I'm not saying the claim is wrong, just that the family website isn't a good source for it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, but it's the source used on that clan's page. Also, why'd you delete the samaritan part? That's actually a very mainstream observation, as opposed to say, nationalist claims of descent from jebusites.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

You do have a wikipedia page :P --Monochrome_Monitor 04:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Israelites[edit]

Please stop. Your edit is nonsensical ("Black Hebrew Israelitism are groups") and poorly sourced. Please read and follow WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. In what world is a tabloid-style news article about a murder given more weight than multiple academic sources? The SPLC report is mentioned in the article already -- and given appropriate weight. If you have concerns about the article, please start a talk page discussion. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't like it. Fine. I'm just trying to make it comparable with the british israelites article, its a double standard otherwise. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC) You're also misusing the term "vandalism". Reverting an edit and addressing its complaints is not

vandalism. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC) And please clarify what "academic sources" contradict my edits. None of them do.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

(1) There is no "British Israelites" article. You're comparing British Israelism, an article about a philosophy, and Black Hebrew Israelites, an article about people. Apples and oranges.
(2) What "complaints" are you addressing?
(3) I don't have Black Zion at hand, but I don't believe it describes Black Hebrews as Afrocentric. Nor does it say -- as you wrote, attributing it to the book -- that the movement is rooted in the Pentecostal Holiness movement. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly the point. There is no Black Hebrew Israelism page. That is like having a page on Christians but not Christianity. A page about the movement should be the priority over a page about the movement's adherents. Right now page fails to mention much of their ideology and their arguments. The complaint I refer to was the use of apologetics index. As for its roots in the holiness movement [10]. As for its afrocentrism [11] it's been termed as such by some scholars, but this is complicated by the fact that black hebrews hate africans and think they're from israel, not africa. Sp I can understand your objection to such a characterization.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't use black zion as a cite, I left it uncited, but that could be easily fixed.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


I have no interest in editing the Palestinians article.

Since you seem to you should read page 122

Jonney2000 (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Thanks jonney, you're always awesome.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Baruch Goldstein[edit]

This article is under WP:1RR due to ARBPIA. It my be in your interest to undo your last edit. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC) Thank you for telling me but the date says it's a new day. :) --Monochrome_Monitor 02:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The definition of a WP:1RR violation is two reverts within a 24-hour period. It doesn't matter whether the reverts are on the same day. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks then!--Monochrome_Monitor 03:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks like I already undid it ooops.Jonney2000 (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

1RR violation[edit]

At Dahiya doctrine. Please self-revert and instead of imposing your will through reverts attempt to gain a consensus at the talk page. nableezy - 03:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC) There's nothing to talk about. Reverts should not be used wantonly- as you reverted me. It's obvious that the term is a politically motivated label not supported by the content of the page. Namely it accuses israel of "state terrorism", a fringe concept, and in the case of Israel riddled with anti-semitic motifs. It's a ridiculous characterization.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

So your position is that whoever reverts you does it wantonly (it clearly wasnt, I gave the justification for the revert in the edit-summary), whereas your reverts are what exactly? Righting the great wrongs of the world? As far as the term is a politically motivated label, well, that really isnt all that relevant, whats relevant is do reliable sources call it this? If you want to say "state terrorism" is a "fringe concept" you can, but thats laughable on Wikipedia because WP:FRINGE has a very specific meaning here, and that clearly doesnt apply to this topic. As far as in the case of Israel riddled with anti-semitic motifs well Im just gonna go ahead and call bullshit there, what anti-semitic motif could possibly be there? To accuse Israel of terrorism is by default anti-semitic? You want people to take you seriously when thats the argument you fall back on? I dont really care what you think about it, just dont continue reverting or you may be reported. Im of a mind to report you anyway for some of the personal attacks Ive seen in your revert's edit-summaries, but in the hopes that you calm down with the reverts Ill wait on that. nableezy - 03:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Ohohohoh that's rich. You call bullshit. No connection at all between calling israel a terrorist state and antisemitic motifs, huh? Here's some: American officials are bought off by AIPAC, Jews stage "false flag" terrorist attacks for their political gain, (hilariously that site is called "Zionism: The Poison Apple of the World", yet it claims to be "anti-zionist" and not "antisemitic") The Holocaust never happened and in fact Jews wanted to commit genocide against Germans, Israel did 9/11 (remove asterisk in link). and in case you think this mysterious correlation only reflects the views of loonies on the internet... it also applies to real-life loonies! Like this fellow, and everyone knows this guy loves the Jews, oh look it's David Duke!--Monochrome_Monitor 08:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

And what personal attacks are you referring to exactly? Me saying "stop POV pushing"? --Monochrome_Monitor 08:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC) I am sorry for my tone, it sounds hostile but unfortunately that's way I debate things.--Monochrome_Monitor 08:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

So you believe that if an antisemite makes an argument or comparison that renders the argument itself antisemitic? And anybody, say a Jewish international law professor educated at Penn, Yale and Harvard and UN Special Rapporteur who makes such an argument, they are engaging in antisemitism? Also, you need to re-write some of the above. We have a policy on what can be written about living people, and Im pretty sure calling the president of Turkey a loonie falls under that policy. nableezy - 08:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You are talking about causation. I am talking about correlation. Richard Falk has anti-semitic views[1], he only proves my point. He is jewish by ethnicity but that doesn't mean anything. Gilad Atzmon is an admitted antisemite[2], and falk endorsed him. If a black man is president of the KKK, does that mean he's not a racist? (that's a reference to the chapelle show) Hated minorites can internalize their hatred and direct it at their in-group, it's not just a jewish thing. Nor does it matter where he was educated. He's a 9/11 "truther"[1] who posted a blatantly antisemitic cartoon. As for Erdogan, you are talking about biographies of living persons- meaning I can't call him a loony on his article. That's fair. It doesn't mean I can't engage in free speech on my own talk page. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No, BLP applies to every page on Wikipedia (see WP:BLPTALK). It applies to calling somebody a "rabid antisemite" or a "loonie" on your own talk page. Please remove those comments, otherwise I may ask that they be removed by an administrator and you be sanctioned. There is no free speech here, sorry to be the one to break that to you. I for one will not continue to discuss this until that is complete. nableezy - 18:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Monochrome Monitor Please do not argue with this gentleman.Jonney2000 (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
You going to redact any of the above? nableezy - 04:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Nableezy, from close inspection of the at least one of above individual's record, including intense criticism of his utterances by pro-Palestinian groups, It would probably not be wise to push this. Ample evidence of R/S published claims as to his apparent anti-Semitic attitudes are noted in the individual's article. As to Erdogan, I have no opinion as to his sanity. Irondome (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Here I have to disagree, Simon. I've broken WP:BLP more than a few times on a talk page, and if another editor objects, I have no temperamental problem in striking it out. As to the merits of the issue, MM is showing that she is relying on any casual source to label a living person a loonie or anti-Semite merely on the strength of absurdly dumb secondary sources, or blogosphere gossip, which thrives on loose citation and guilt by association. I've checked one item, and here are the results (without wanting to get into an argument over Atzmon).
this, by Yair Rosenberg, a freelance journo, is cited as proof Atzmon is a Holocaust denier. Yair cites Alan Dershowitz, a man with a distinguished record for his . . . . . . Dershowitz in turn cites Atzmon’s own words in the following way:

He declares himself a “proud, self-hating Jew” (54).

Well, any competent lawyer would shoot down this eminence grise for systematic distortion of the primary source material on numerous topics like this. What Atzmon wrote was:

I was what some call an ‘independent critical thinker’. I may also be what some Jews regard as a ‘proud, self-hating Jew.’

Atzmon is using a rhetorical ploy, conceding tactically in an argument that what his adversaries say of him might be the case. He doesn't assert that definition itself, he adopts the words used by some critics, and says perhaps they have a point. Distortion based on a refusal to appreciate the value of nuance in an argument.
And what allows Atzmon to hate himself? He goes on to say:

'I came across an interesting insight into the subject of anti-Semitism. It goes like this: ‘While in the past an “anti-Semite” was someone who hates Jews, nowadays it is the other way around, an anti-Semite is someone the Jews hate’.

Atzmon at least here aappears to be saying he hates that part of his Jewishness which defines itself, in a recent tradition, exclusively as hatred for antisemites, whose ‘Jewish’ identity is nothing other than a trend, he argues, to single out some ‘other’ and define them by hatred. This is a extremely touchy issue, but the debt to Jean-Paul Sartre’s classic analysis of the antisemite, Réflexions sur la question juive, (1946) is obvious to anyone trained to read controversies with skeptical ears pricked for allusions.
The antisemite, Sartre argues defines himself by hate (Puisque l’antisémite a choisi la haine, nous sommes obligés de conclure que c’est l’état passionné qu’il aime p.20/’Cette phrase;’Je hais les Juifs’ , est de celles qu’on prononce en groupe; en la prononçant on se rattache à une tradition et à une communauté’p.25 (Gallimard 1954). In short, an antisemite uses ‘Jews’ as a pretext to define an otherwise feeble identitry. I hate Jews therefore I exist. Unless you have Sartre’s text (or comments on it) in mind, you will completely misread Atzmon here.
As to the holocaust denial, Yair, then Dershowitz, and numerous other airy bloggers pick up to get at John Mearsheimer,R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and the Co-Director of the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago and American Academy of Arts and Sciences fellow, Stephen Walt, holder of the Robert and Renee Belfer Professorship in International Affairs in the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Richard Falk,American professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and for several years United Nations Special Rapporteur and many distinguished scholars, what bloggers of this kind never mention is that Atzmon wrote in that same book:
Atzmon writes that as a youngster:

’In the 1970s Holocaust survivors were part of our social landscape. They were our neighbours, we met them in our family gatherings, in the classroom, in politics, in the corner shop. They were a part of our lives. The dark numbers tattooed on their white arms never faded away. It always had a chilling effect. Yet I must mention that I can hardly recall a single Holocaust survivor who ever attempted to manipulate me emotionally. Recently I spoke to a Scottish friend who volunteered in a Kibbutz in the 1970s. This Kibbutz was known for its high percentage of Holocaust survivors. My Scottish friend pointed out to me that he really enjoyed his time there working and talking with these survivors. They were largely very quiet and polite, they never used their past as a claim for fame. It was the young Israelis who he couldn’t stand. My experience was very similar – as far as my personal experience is concerned, it is always the alleged sons, daughters and grandchildren of survivors who exploit the Holocaust as a political argument, or a claim for some form of exceptionalism.’

That rings true to me, since I have friends whose relatives, some of them, survived the holocaust. There are a great many people in that community who like Norman Finkelstein, get pissed off at what they take to be the obscenity of endlessly using this argument to get at critics of Israel's policies in the Palestine territories. And if Atzmon or Finkelstein, from within that world, gets annoyed, shouting 'antisemite' only feeds the beast.
Jonney gave as usual and eminently sensible piece of advice. The request was innocent enough. Learn policy compliance, and strike those words out.Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you two can find things to agree on.[12] (I'm actually horrified)--Monochrome_Monitor 12:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice to see that it took you just 12 minutes to read the above, and, ignoring it except for what looks like a point of agreement, repeating your error. An anti-Semite hates Jews period: Atzmon hates, there, what is 'Jewish' in himself, and in some other who may be 'Jewish' which he then defines as the desire everywhere and on every topic to stake one's claim to be exceptional, beyond normal history and universal rules and principles. The entailed obverse of his statement would be : 'I love you in so far as you are a fellow human being/I love myself in so far as I lose my narcissistic self-identification with one ethnic group, and its religious exclusiveness'. That's his problem. It is not, on that evidence, 'antisemitism'. This is pointless. Just strike out what you wrote, and drop it.Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not striking it out. This is ridiculous. --Monochrome_Monitor 13:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Well Nish, we disagree on nuances here. My advice was by the way a request not to escalate this, in the scheme of things, rather minor issue. I have slept (a medicated one alas) on my comments above, and I feel A-S to be too crude and simplistic in this particular case. However I can only use one tool of comparison as a gauge for this individual's utterances if taken in their entirety over years. The very recent Chakrabarti Inquiry. [Full report here]. If the individual concerned was a member of the British Labour Party, they would appear to be on the road to disciplinary action, if the report is to be implemented. What this individual is, is difficult to "classify". I suspect certain inner contradictions which go beyond political analysis and enters the realm of Psychology may be an aspect. I would suggest the term "antisemitic" be struck as it highly problematic. Self-hating Jew would sadly, appear less problematic, including to this individual, who tacitly and tactically, concedes aspects of this as you show above. Now all have vented, I suggest this be hatted, the entire section. Off to a choral recital now Nish, to lower the BP. The readings have not been good lately, to say the least. Simon Irondome (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
That's interesting, but I never take any official political judgement seriously. Drama like this, Jonney caught it on the wing, only happens because a sensible request has the person digging his/her heels in. It's lamentable. This may be piddling, but MM has, I've continued to note, been consistently reverted (and not only by me or Nableey, the usual suspects, i.e. by User:MShabazz and by User:NPguy (see here. From what I understand NPguy is an expert on these issues), and won't learn to just ease up. I see Richard Falk is still up there, u struck out, as someone with antisemitic viewes. Wikipedia is not a place for missionary work, - at it's best, when collegial, it is actually fun and creative. I've dropped these notes here because, as in the past, she can't take a premonitory hint. She digs her heels in for trench warfare.
I have no idea where the truth lies. That Atzmon has it in for one of our most authoritative voices in the I/P area, the deeply anti-Zionist editor User:RolandR, who has also been the target of massive and persistent anti-Semitic attacks, would suggest to me Atzmon cannot make the distinctions anyone should in this minefield. At the same time, I looked at the standard claims made by Yair Rosenberg and Alan Dershowitz regarding Atzmon's putative anti-Semitism and found that virtually all of their quotations are distortions that appear to be sourceable back to Yaniv Halily, 'The protocols of Gilad Atzmon,' Ynet 14 November 2011, which MM also cited as proof that the accusation Atzmon is an anti-Semite is not a claim, but a truth/fact and therefore can be stated objectively without infringing WP:BLP. That article is an appalling comedy of decontextualized dyscitation, and MM fell for it.
I'll defend anyone who is the subject of collective antipathy, even if he or she's a cunt, if there is the slightest evidence of hysterical smearing that ignores the evidence, or regards rumour as proof, without source control. Whenever, in the massive flood of meme circulation which we are deluged with, I sit down to ferret out what was actually said by this or that person, I find that 95% of the time there is a complete skewing of what was said or written, ripped from context, to be spun for some political end. This has been diagnosed as one of the major threats to democracy - universal access to an internet that does not exercise, as we try in our wiki culture to do, acute control over the reliability of information. That's my only point.
I've read Otto Weininger, and Israel Shahak, and, in reading what little I googled from Atzmon, I can pick up a range of allusions to the extremely intricate, sometimes decidedly neurotic world, a byblow of anti-Semitism, from which he comes. The greatest trump card in the hands of anti-Semites, esp. on the internet, is that the word, like the Holocaust, has been so insistently abused that people generally no longer pay attention any more, and that, dear friend, is what I object to. It's the old Greek moral in The Boy Who Cried Wolf. People like Rosenberg, Dershowitz, Halily, and by the same token MM who gets her info from such poor sources, are lowering our guard, while thinking they are keeping the world on its nervous toes.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hahaha poor sources. Being reverted does not mean you are wrong. I am right about terrorism vs war crimes. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, another 8 minutes without thinking over advice. You fell hook line and sinker, taking at their word frankly libelous distortions, because you don't study in depth, you google around for smear stuff. I.e.
To buttress what I said about the other two using an irresponsible smear source to make their charges against Atzmon, example the following:
  • Eventually, he writes, a nuclear war will erupt between Iran and Israel, which will lead to the killing of tens of millions of people. "Some brave people will say that Hitler was right after all." (Yaniv Halily, 'The protocols of Gilad Atzmon,' Ynet 14 November 2011)
You found this horrifying. Yeah, but it turns out to be a total, probably libellous distortion of Atzmon: The original text has:

‘Ethics, as reflected in Kant’s categorical imperative, is also bound up with temporality: ‘act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.’ Kant reviews the moral act in respect to its temporal perspective. The universal law is looked upon from the perspective of the future and the past. Ethics and temporality can be seen as an endless dialogue between ‘yesterday ‘ and ‘tomorrow’. The present should be understood as a creative dynamic mode where past premeditates its future. But far more crucially, it is also where the imaginary future can rewrite its past. I will try to elucidate the idea through a simple and hypothetical yet horrifying war scenario. We, for instance, can envisage an horrific situation in which an Israeli so-called ‘pre-emptive’ nuclear attack on Iran escalates into a disastrous nuclear war, in which tens of millions of people perish. I guess that among the survivors of such a nightmare scenario, some may be bold enough to argue that ‘Hitler might have been right after all. The above is obviously a fictional scenario, and by no means a wishful one, yet such a vision of a ‘possible’ horrific development should restrain Israeli or Zionist aggression towards Iran. As we know, Israeli officials threaten to flatten Iran rather too often. In practice, pre-TSS Israelis make this devastating scenario into a possible reality. Seemingly, Israeli and Zionist politicians fail to see their own actions in the light of history. They fail to look at their actions in terms of their consequences. From an ethical perspective, the above ‘imaginary’ scenario is there to prevent Israel from attacking Iran. Yet, as we all know, Israel and its lobbies are desperate to dismantle the so-called ‘Iranian threat.’

That is a perfectly normal example of philosophical illustration of a keynote in Kantian ethics. No where can you find a basis for what Atzmon is reported as saying, i.e. "Some brave people (distorting some may be bold enough) will say that Hitler was right after all."Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to report you for this, someone else may, and would have solid grounds for doing so. But you've learnt nothing, and if you persist in not taking a hint, it's gunna happen.Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I never mentioned iran.

We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously.... American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least.


The Protocols is widely considered a forgery. It is a manual for a prospective new member of the “Elders”, describing how they will run the world through control of the media and finance, replacing the traditional social order with one based on mass manipulation. Though the book is considered a hoax by most experts and regarded as a vile anti-Semitic text, it is impossible to ignore its prophetic qualities and its capacity to describe both the century unfolding and the political reality in which we live.


You may wonder at this stage whether I regard the credit crunch as a Zionist plot. In fact it is the opposite. It is actually a Zionist accident. The patient didn’t make it to the end. This Zionist accident is a glimpse into Political Zionism’s sinister agenda. This Zionist accident provides us with an opportunity to see that as far as misery is concerned, we are together with the Palestinians, the Iraqis and the Afghans. We share one enemy.


It is rather obvious that some Jews are rather unhappy with Charles Dickens’ Fagin and Shakespeare’s Shylock who they regard as ‘anti Semitic’. I get the impression that the prominent Zionist enthusiast and London Barrister Anthony Julius would like to see these cultural iconic characters diminished from popular discourse... It doesn’t take a genius to gather why Julius and others are concerned with Fagin or Shylock. Fagin is the ultimate plunderer, a child exploiter and usurer. Shylock is the blood-thirsty merchant. With Fagin and Shylock in mind Israeli barbarism and organ trafficking seem to be just other events in an endless hellish continuum....As much as Julius and others would like to remove some crucial stereotypes from our collective cultural discourse, they can actually expect the complete opposite. Fagin and Shylock are now more popular than ever before. Devastatingly enough, it is Fagin and Shylock who shed light over the Jewish state and its lobbies around the world. Fagin is neither alone nor is he an isolated fictional episode.


65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews?


If there is one Jew I fully admire, it must be Paul Eisen


--Monochrome_Monitor 18:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You are retroactively attempting to justify your taking on trust two reports about Atzmon each of which, on examination, was shown to utterly distort his views. I'm not going to take the bait and flatter you by taking each of these and examining them. Looking at Atzmon's wiki page I see it is full of source distortion, that has to be fixed, and then there's a more important issue than debating your impressionistic opinions, the Uefa cup.Nishidani (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree that the quotes were deceptive. When he says "some might call me a proud self hater", he is embracing it. [19] Here he explicitly calls himself a "profound self-hater". Similarly, omitting the clause "some might be bold enough to say" (with bold having a positive connotation) does not make it less heinous. Some might say you are an apologist for racism that even he who once said "zionism is the continuation of nazism in spirit", condemns. Your fastidious verification of quotes is also hypocritical, which I will get to later. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I share your horror. Atzmon is one of the most outspoken and least "subtle" antisemites in the world. He doesn't hide or obfuscate his anti semitism in any way. The sections on his website are titled "Jewish Power" and the like. Attempts to twist him into being an anti Zionist strike me as dishonest. Btw, the self-hating Jew quote that nishidani removed was “I’m not a self-hating Jew,” he replies, “I’m a proud self-hating Jew! It’s a big difference… I celebrate my hatred towards everything I represent – or better to say [everything] I’m associated with." Drsmoo (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed a link that proved to be dead and the wayback machine failed. You found the correct link, fine. Does anyone as a Jew, have a right to get hysterical because another Jew repudiates his being a Jew? If he or she does, it means that for the outraged person, being Jew means having 'property rights' over what someone of the same ethnicity thinks, and that is, I suspect, what gets Atzmon to make his extreme statements. No. I've seen an Albanian try to harass a Macedonian friend of mine in exactly this way. No one has such an invasive meddling right to mind control over his fellows. No more than any German would have had a right to take to task an acquaintance of mine, a senior bureaucrat, who left Germany, and, with my assistance, took up life in a new country because he wanted to erase all associations with his ethnic and national origins, because of WW2, and because he was convinced Germany would try to establish a reich in the European Economic Community. An anti-Semite hates Jews: Atzmon's parents are both Israeli and Jews: his mother is proud of him, and when his father, working in the defense industry, finally grasped what his son was arguing against, it moved him deeply. These cheap blogosphere clichés twisting a personal struggle into a threat to Israel, or a threat, akin to the run-up to the Holocaust, just pander to off-the-shelf prejudice.Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

He hangs out with Paul Eisen. That's not anti-zionism.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Eisen is a Jew who denies the Holocaust apparently. In this there is a similarity with Elie Wiesel, who complained whenever genocide was used of the Armenians. The world is celebrating the latter's memory for bearing witness.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
[url=] You are wrong. Don't be so callous, the man just died.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Not quite. But thanks, that is something I did not know. Adam Shatz disagrees. I originally read this in Finkelstein, and have now checked him. He sources everything he writes. The issue is more complex. Norman Finkelstein writes:
The Holocaust Industry, Verso 2003 pp.69-70

'the one truly holocaust denier is Bernard Lewis. A French court even convicted Lewis of denying genocide. But Lewis denied the Turkish genocide of Armenians during World War 1, not the Nazi genocide of Jews, and Lewis is pro-Israel. Accordingly, this instance of Holocaust denial raises no hackles in the United States. Turkey is an Israeli ally, extenuating matters even further. Mention of an Armenian genocide is therefore taboo. Elie Wiesel and Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg as well as the AJC and Yad Vashem withdrew from an international conference on genocide in Tel Aviv because the academic sponsors, against Israeli government urging, included sessions on the Armenian case. Wiesel also sought, unilaterally, to abort the conference and, according to Yehuda Bauer, personally lobbied others not to attend.(source:Israel Charny (1982), Haaretz 20 April 1990) The US Holocaust Council practically eliminated mention of the Armenians in the Washington Holocaust Memorial Museum, and Jewish lobbyists in Congress blocked a day of remembrance for the Armenian genocide.'Verso 2003 pp.69-70

Elie Wiesel's version of this many decades later is completely different and contradicts what Yehuda Bauer, one of the greatest Holocaust historians of our time, said. He said that the government put huge pressure on him and he resigned from the conferenced chair in order "not to offend out Armenian guests')(Elie Wiesel, And the Sea is Never Full, Knopf 2010 p.92) a statement that is frankly ridiculous if one takes Bauer's testimony seriously.
I have no reason to distrust Bauer. I'm glad you noted to me he had signed with Bauer a letter to the New York Times much later, protesting Turkey's approach. See the method? Anything, I keep repeating, needs multiple sourcing, and control of the original sources being used by third parties in this case. In Wiesel's case, he admits that what he would say on such an issue is determined by a calculation of how it might affect Israel, or because of lobbying pressures from Israel, and not on the intrinsic merits of the argument. it is precisely this that the Atzmons of this world protest over - the failure of individuals within a community to think for themselves, because they learn to calibrate everything they might say for its political ramifications for the state of Israel.Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You make a great effort to not judge him and to rationalize his views, whereas you assume the worst of my intentions. Using finklestein as proof makes me think your antipathy towards goldberg is from finklestein. Goldberg is the leading voice of the American Jewish left. Finklestein is a pariah of the american jewish community whose following is the far-left and the far-right. He's nowhere near Atzmon nor is he an antisemite but he borders on conspiracy at times. Also I don't appreciate his admiration for hezbollah.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Your views[edit]

Would you please comments on my updating the page Shahrbanu here or at the talk page of the article. Nannadeem (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Monochrome_Monitor nableezy - 22:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

AE request closed[edit]

I have closed the request at arbitration enforcement concerning you. The result is that: Monochrome Monitor agrees to a voluntary restriction and mentorship by Irondome. Given this, no further action is required at this time. Monochrome Monitor is warned that further disruption or failure to abide by the voluntary agreement is likely to result in a full topic ban. Please give careful thought to editing in this area going forward, as I really hope that won't become necessary. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your time :)--Monochrome_Monitor 05:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

There's an AfD about a topic that might be related to you[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallel Yaffa Ariel--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

MM, please refrain from any input in I/P areas for the stated time. Bolter21 acted in good faith in alerting you to this AfD but I think it is unwise to participate. I appreciate your understanding here. Simon Irondome (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I wish you would've told me that earlier. I thought that talk pages and articles were different for some reason. Sorry, I'm not angry with you or anything.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
ohh sorry--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Fact is, I received a similarly highly irregular message re: this AFD from Bolter on my talk page, a message that I interpreted as an attempt to tweak or game me in an aggressively WP:BATTLEGROUND manner.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
There was nothing highly irregular about Bolter's note to MM. He had no way of knowing MM had undertaken a voluntary break from this area. His editing is neither aggressive nor gaming. To the contrary, he is open to changing his mind, ready to listen to advice for a mentor or others, fair in his judgements. We disagree frequently, - thank goodness, we need independent spirits here -and he would have not unreasonable grounds to think most of my views on a world he knows well disreputable. He contacted me, he contacted MM, and MM and I often end up on the opposite ends of an argument: which means he was seeking wider input from people of distinct POVs on the I/P area. That might or might not be borderline WP:CANVASS but it was in good faith.Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely Nish. As our U.S. colleagues say; there is nothing to see here ;) Simon Irondome (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Gregory, if I wanted to call people who will agree with me, I wouldn't call you. I simply called the 10 people I"ve seen involved in previous talks. I explained it to you on my talkpage and you brought it to the AfD thread, someone explained it to you on the thread, now your bring it here..--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Bolter I honestly didn't know my sanction applied to talk pages. You did nothing wrong. :)--Monochrome_Monitor 20:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

And MM you were not sanctioned, your rap sheet is probably cleaner than mine. Simon's proposal for a voluntary suspension was accepted, another sign that the excellence of his judgement is acknowledged by third parties. Just dotting the i's.Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
ps. If this is any consolation, MM, you might get a laugh from noting that another editor wrote of me:

Let’s keep in mind that Curly Turkey, in reference to Nishidani's edits to the History of Japan article, said the following about Nishidani. "Any citations provided by Nishidani need to be double-checked—he has demonstrated that he doesn't understand the how or the why of sourcing on Wikipedia." "improving the encyclopaedia is not what you're here for" "Leave the copyediting to the competent, please." "you don't understand what sourcing is about and are willing to disrupt article space to push the slightest of POVs. This brings all of your sourcing into question"

This was said, with links, by an editor I now work well with, and was cited and challenged as a proper description of me by an editor I think a disaster.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


for that MM ;) Simon Irondome (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arameans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaldeans. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arameans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaldeans. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a note[edit]

Regardless of the merits of the edit, I think this too (4th time?) violates your voluntary agreement.Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Simon checking in[edit]

Hi G, hope all's ok with you and yours. By my calculation your voluntary topic ban expires at midnight London B.S.T. on the 6th of August. There are a couple of minor infractions which were due to T/P restriction confusion, (it was not made clear) and the above, which is minor, but a breach. I'm overlooking it but any more will result in a re-think. Just saying. After the 6th the mentoring conditions will come into force as agreed at the AE. I'm hoping you are still good with that. I'm expecting more info as to what areas you are editing G, at the mo I am getting none. Remember this is an explicit condition, as is briefing me on proposed edits before they are made. I am not being hard on you love, but it will do you good ;). Your friend Si. Irondome (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I was always irritated by the "don't edit anything jew-related" thing. It's way too vague and indiscriminate. I edited the page because it was linked to on beheadings in islam, which I edited also. Regardless, please call of Nici. He's being a jerk as usual and I've deliberately restrained myself in my interactions with him.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Beheadings in Islam. Sure, but you might also keep in mind that when you are parking your car in the Mamilla Mall parking lot, underneath are the skeletons presumed to belong to several thousand Christians beheaded by Jews, who were revenging the massacre of their own by Byzantines, who were revenged the crucifixion, . .till you go back to the splendid warrant for mass murder that is the Book of Joshua, pure fiction of course. But, no one identifying with any one people in antiquity should adopt a 'holier than thou' approach, looking at their barbarity, while ignoring one's own. We all descend from barbarians, -it's all over every sacred book, apart from historical chronicles, and no one is innocent.Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Good old moral relativism and the "cycle of violence"... I suppose that chain of events ends with the holocaust "in revenge for the crucifixion". There's a difference between the prophet of a religion massacring hundreds of defenseless people and the adherents. The massacres by joshua are a fiction. The massacres by muhammad are historical fact. Regardless, what piqued my interest in the article was not battles in the 7th century.. it was recent events.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Concentrate. That is not moral relativism, but ethical universalism, meaning all behavior, irrespective of ethnic interests or defenses, falls under the same rule. Have you forgotten Kings 18:16-45, where the prophet Elijah, like Mohammad, had 450 prophets of Baal slaughtered because he did not like their religion. Elijah has an important place in Islamic tradition. God is a fiction, the promised land is a fiction, the exodus is a fiction, the invasion of Canaan is a fiction, as you yourself admitted: fictions inflect reality, as divine warrants for genocide inflected the Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheistic world. That's why I'm a pagan. Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not talking about theology. I'm talking about real people getting killed. The devastation of the Peloponnesian war cannot be compared to that of the Trojan war. The real massacre of 800 surrendering jews cannot be compared to the fictional massacre of 450 self-mutilating cult leaders.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Theology influences behavior because it underwrites cultural practices, according to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Tanakh is full of endorsements of pious murder (Psalm 137), and it has influenced all three traditions. I mentioned the Mamilla massacre because it is roughly contemporary with the massacre of Jews. They were barbarous times, less so than ours, and no group comes out clean. Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think a better comparison would be to Yemenite Jewish convert Dhu Nuwas's massacres of 20,000 Arabian Christians. By far the most brutal and deadly non-fictional act perpetrated by Jews in their 3 millennia. Of course no one comes out clean, not even buddhism and certainly not paganism. (cough cough) Your strongest point is that Christianity and Islam are byproducts of Judaism and thus the violence they wrought is indirectly a product of Judaism because culture influences behavior. I generally don't think x made y means that x made f(y) though. Just because Australopithecus made Albert Einstein doesn't mean the genius of Einstein reflects on the character of Australopithecus, the fact that Judaism made Christianity/Islam doesn't mean that the of actions of Christians/Muslims reflects on the character of Judaism. But I digress. Just because no one is clean doesn't mean distinctions can't be made. How many people have been killed for Judaism? Islam? Christianity? Saying that it doesn't matter how much the latter two exceeds the former because none = 0 is moral relativism. Americans bombed civilians in Dresden and Tokyo and dropped two a-bombs but a distinction can be made between their behavior and the Nazis. The argument that "none are clean" is precisely the equivocation of neo-nazis who say that "germans suffered a lot too in the war". Feel free to call godwin's law, I'm by no means calling you a nazi, I'm just comparing two forms of moral relativism. One is far more heinous than the others, but both are fallacious. (Note how I'm not equating the two) When I note that muslims murdered a bunch of people recently, it's fallacious to say "so did Elijah 3000 years ago!" --Monochrome_Monitor 16:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Your strongest point that the Christianity and Islam are by products of Judaism and thus the violence they wrought is indirectly a product of Judaism because culture influences behavior

If you read closely, I didn't say that. I said the 3 traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam were influenced by the Tanakh. Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

In my thinking the Tanakh, being the primary sacred text of Judaism written/compiled by jews, influencing the two later religions is pretty similar to judaism influencing them. Sure it can be argued that this influence doesn't make them byproducts. Anyway I extrapolated based on the fact that Christianity is directly a product of Judaism (or at least a jewish movement that was commandeered by gentiles who perverted it into something Jesus would find abhorrent) and Islam is also a product of Judaism.... because the abrahamic tradition starts with judaism.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The Tanakh and the New Testament were all written by 'Jews'. Judaism as we know it was formulated later, like Christianity, both in polemical boundary setting between the two. To take Christianity as a 'perversion' of Judaism is ahistorical, in that sense. Jewish religious movements from the Hellenic period until way past post-Kochba times were characterized by great diversity. History is in the details. Once you adopt a broad-brush ethnonym and identify it with an religious essentialism in such abstract nouns as 'Judaism', 'Christianity' and 'Islam' all you get is confusion. One partial motivation for my doing the Khazars article was to outline that, in the conflict between the three, the steppe converts to Judaism are shown to exercise more political intelligence than their proselytizing monotheistic competitors. Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Second temple judiasm was very diverse. But neither the saducees, essenes, nor pharisees would deify a human being. I say christianity is a perversion of judaism with thorough knowledge of its history and development. Saying christianity is a jewish movement is oversimplification, given how its jewish members were condemned as heretic "judaizers" and had no influence on the development of the religion post mid 2nd century. And early christianity actively reinvented itself in a reaction to judaism- or to quote the council of Nicea they moved the date of easter so they could "have nothing in common with this odious people, the jews". No christians of jewish extraction were invited to that council by the way.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It's easy to play this game:'No Christians of Jewish extraction were invited to the council of Nicea' = 'No Christians of Jewish extraction were invited to the Council of Jamnia.' Jesus was thought to be a messiah? Akiva thought Bar Kochba was the messiah, etc.etc.etc. Pointless tit-for-tat dialectical point scoring. Everything I read from you on this topic smacks of grievance. You may not think that way, but it looks to me as though you have a case to make against Christianity and for Judaism. Judaism has no need to be defended (that applies less to Christianity, which since it allied itself with secular power, has a huge amount of explaining to do), MM. The litmus test for judging historians is to what degree they show themselves capable of studying a potential rival, or even an object of cultural antipathy, and seeing beyond one's feelings to grasp why they are strange to one, at first sight. That is why I count myself fortunate to have encountered early works by scholars like Ignác Goldziher, Maxime Rodinson and Reuven Firestone re Islam. With regard to Christianity, Albert Schweitzer famusly said that the best works on the life of Jesus had been written (o the shame of Christian scholars) by non-believers who disliked Christianity. By which he meant, they could look at the evidence without partisan animus against Christianity as a reactionary sociopolitical institution and exercise sufficient detachment to look way beyond the enmities of history to retrieve some objective core to the figure. The best film on Jesus was, notoriously, made by a homosexual communist sympathizing atheist, Pier Pasolini, namely The Gospel According to St. Matthew (film), who dedicated to the pope of that time. The blogosphere is full of resentment, point-scoring, grievance, by sifters who search for the ammo to justify their own partisanship, and vindicate an ethnos, or a cause. Don't go there.
I don't contest your right to be a wiki missionary for Judaism, however. That's okay, but you won't find much help in editing from modern scholarship. Christian, Jewish and purely secular scholars are quite detached from point-scoring, because ultimately it is tedious, and better left in the hands of evangelicals and biblical tub-thumpers. In short, if I may be allowed to offer a piece of advice, stick to the minutiae of history, for all sides, and forget who may be the beneficiary.Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

A mission for judaism? What nonsense is that? Are you on a mission for paganism? My mission is more against the deep-seated christian bias in wikipedia than it is for judaism, which I know little about and don't pretend to. I have much more respect for islam as a religion. And I wasn't talking about calling jesus the messiah. I was talking about calling him God. Two very different things.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC) I'm a secular deist with jewish flavor. I love the altruistic writings of the prophets but there's no reason I should accept the virulent misogyny of the talmud. Whenever I make a point that can interpreted as pro-jewish, you immediately accuse me of shilling, as if I'm a mindless automaton and Chabad feeds me the punch cards. (or a "tribalist" who only cares about "my own kind") My views are far more nuanced than you believe, certainly more nuanced than your own, which are actual regurgitations of hamas talking points.[20] "The role of the occupation is attack, and we in Palestine are fulfilling the reaction", "The locally manufactured shells fired by the resistance are a natural response to the Israeli occupation". (the locally produced home-grown grass fed rockets you called "harmless".)--Monochrome_Monitor 19:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

'the deep-seated christian bias in wikipedia than it is for judaism'. Really? Let's drop it. I've fallen into the old aavuncular role of presuming to be able to give you some general advice. It's condescending, I know. Well-intentioned, I think. But if I review the above, I see a disappointing tendency to just talk rapidly past things I've thought over for a half a century. If I point out 4 narrative sections of the Tanakh are fictions, you automatically jump at that to dismiss the whole of the Tanakh as unhistorical: thus if I cite Elijah, without a glance at the scholarship, you undercut it as part of the Tanakh, which is then fiction, ergo no priests of Baal were ever killed. That may be true, but it is not how an historical imagination works: it is the way a political mind functions in debate. If I make a general point about the epistemology of interpreting another group's beliefs, you think of Hamas. Pointless, utterly pointless. Good luck. Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That's what you object to? Of course english wikipedia is biased by the fact that the anglosphere is overwhelmingly christian. Some pages have overt apologetics, such as the Shroud of Turin. Some pages while critical in tone are approaching the topic from a fundamentally christian perspective, when I say deep-seated I'm referring to this permeation of christian thought in enlightenment thought which leaks into wikipedia.Thus Category:Hebrew Bible is in Category:Old Testament, "because it's convenient". (even though the old testament is a derivative of the hebrew bible, not vice versa.) I never said the Tanakh is fundamentally ahistorical. I believe it's a historically reliable document post 9th century or so and that earlier texts are either semi-historical (ie united monarchy) or genuine oral traditions with kernels of truth (ie Judges). I believe Elijah (9th century Israel) has a historic counterpart but I'm hesitant to take stories like his contest with the baal worshipper literally considering the improbable miracle of fire raining from the sky. Later prophets are more like poets than wonder-workers so I'm less inclined to think their stories have been embellished. Also I generally disregard your constant griping about my hopelessness because for whatever reasons you keep coming back to my talk page. This time it was the need to tell me I've broken sanctions that I agreed to despite never actually getting assurance that I broke 1RR. 4 times.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

a fundamentally christian perspective, when I say deep-seated I'm referring to this permeation of christian thought in enlightenment thought which leaks into wikipedia.

I revel in jokes, and a touch of hilarity is a good way to end a meaningless conversation. That one must not go down the memory hole. Nishidani (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I see you adhere to the outdated views of Peter Gay who viewed christianity and the enlightenment as diametric opposites. Enlightment thought and christian thought were bedfellows. Read Two Treatises of Government and then get back to me.--Monochrome_Monitor 07:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

That's even more hilarious, asserting you've read one primary source like Locke (I don't believe you), and then saying anyone who disagrees with you, like Peter Gay, who had actually read all of the thinkers of that period in their original languages, and had taken on board the critical scholarship of historiography over 3 decades, doesn't know what they're talking about. You're 19teenish and can see through the bullshit.
My first impression on reading that cosmic presumption in your declaration was an image I retain of Theodor Adorno spending every Saturday afternoon for a year when he was 15 reading, under the close tutelage of Siegfried Kracauer, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. He later wrote with Max Horkheimer a Dialectic of Enlightenment, some passages of which (pp.92ff) are not dissimilar to Ernest Gellner's summation of that same phenomenon (Plough, Sword and Book, 1988 pp.113ff.), though from a diametrically opposite approach etc.etc. So I won't get 'back to you', except to suggest you read a book that came to mind instantly, Lewis Samuel Feuer's Ideology and the Ideologists 1975. Feuer argued that the Judeo-Christian worldview did survive the enlightenment assault on religion, taking shape as the 'Mosaic myth' in the millenarian utopistic ideologies ('ideology' was coined in 1804 or thereabouts) that afflicted the world for the following 2 centuries. No doubt, like with Gay and a few hundred key thinkers of the last 2 centuries, you will have an instant impression Feuer too is stupid, wrong like everyone else about the Judeo-Christian tradition's impact within the secular reformation of the 18th century onwards, since they disagree with your impressions of John Locke. Everyone older than yourself is 'outdated'? Really! Farcical.Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Now there you go again reverting to your old "argue against MM by saying she's lying because she can't actually know what she's talking about because she's 19". Cool it with the hysterics. There's a little thing called "civics class" where the teacher is at liberty to assign reading, did you ever consider that? I generally avoid the neologistic term "judeo-christian" given its unsavory usage. You may not be aware (this is a fundamentally American term) but "Judeo-Christian" is less used today as an interfaith bridge between Jews and Christians than it is as means of excluding Islam from having any place in American society. Peter Gay's work is outdated and I'm not the only one who's said it. And most significantly The Enlightenment and Religion: The Myths of Modernity is a more modern perspective on the role of religion in the enlightenment. And here's a review of it which takes the outdatedness of the "Gay paradigm" (their words) as axiomatic.--Monochrome_Monitor 11:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Now this is silly and I want to stop arguing about it. It would be so much easier if you could admit to your fallibility just this once, say your view of the enlightenment as enlightened vs religious is antiquated, indeed that's the version of history I was taught in school so I would not blame you.I never pretended to be wiser or more knowledgeable than you but when I am "right" about specific things it would be gracious to say so, or at least to end the discussion on the pretense that you don't want it to (further) devolve into bitter polemic, not because I am hopeless or you have "given up" on me or talking to me is "useless". That is hurtful.--Monochrome_Monitor 12:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

:'the deep-seated christian bias in wikipedia than it is for judaism'.

a fundamentally christian perspective, when I say deep-seated I'm referring to this permeation of christian thought in enlightenment thought which leaks into wikipedia.

I revel in jokes, and a touch of hilarity is a good way to end a meaningless conversation. That one must not go down the memory hole. Nishidani (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


I see you adhere to the outdated views of Peter Gay who viewed christianity and the enlightenment as diametric opposites. Enlightment thought and christian thought were bedfellows.

It would be so much easier if you could admit to your fallibility just this once, say your view of the enlightenment as enlightened vs religious is antiquated,

Nowhere did I mention my views of Peter Gay's interpretation of the Enlightenment. To the contrary I cited works by Ernest Gellner (the enlightenment as a completion of the (religious) Reformation), Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno (a totally different way of reading the enlightenment), Lewis Samuel Feuer (on the Judeo-Christian structure of the revolutionary ideologies that emerged from it). All Christian thought is profoundly grounded in the Old Testament/Tanakh, and you can't see the obvious, what every scholar, not to speak of every serious Christian, knows.
See, you don't read closely. You confused my views with those of Peter Gay, and used him as a strawman or rather 'projected' his views on me, and triumphantly flourished research which challenged Gay, as if it somehow related to me as his putative spokesman. Weird. All of our conversations are like this, - you're angling to win some victory over the old guy, without understanding syllogistic reasoning indeed trampling over the step-by-step construction of a logical argument from evidence -and that is why I am dropping the bad habit.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This is what happens when I check in. This is why I don't go out much. Irondome (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Since I regard your getting around and about more important than my annotations on this page, Simon, I undertake to shut up. Now you have no excuses for not hitting the tiles and enjoying an evening out. Best. Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Never shut up, anyone. How dreary that would be! Simon Irondome (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course christian thought is rooted in "old testament" thought. I affirmed that above, although I noted the pagan influences. It seems our views are not dissimilar at all. I don't have an agenda to "win" and beat the old guy, but I do have an agenda to achieve some respect from you- not even for my merits (or lack thereof) but as a human being. You make me feel shitty about myself, to put it crudely. I spend most of my time learning (I aced that psych class by the way) and you belittle almost everything I say about what I've learned as superficial. Otherwise you deny I have any connection to my words at all and simply say "you know nothing about X" or "you didn't read Y" and "you plagiarized Z from a blog". --Monochrome_Monitor 01:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Imagine any culture as the precipitate of a major combination of disparate influences, just as water combines hydrogen and oxygen. The constituent elements can be isolated, but water chemically is a tertium quid with respect to its constitutive elements - it behaves differently. Christianity, began as an intensely Jewish revisionism of several strands of thinking, and for millennia it was and still is in intensive contact with the fundamental texts of Judaism, and has thoroughly absorbed them into the texture of its thinking. That is why Zionism, otherwise an absurd proposition, worked, because the Christian constituency it pitched itself to was thoroughly imbued with the Old Testament stories (indeed believed them perhaps more ardently than the secular Zionists). Now, with this rough analogy, what you were doing in your assertion was a bit like the miraculous water imagined by Poe for Too-whit's island, (The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket, ch.18) which had two distinct veins which never commingled though forming the same liquid. You were using the word 'Christian' as an antithesis of Jew when much of it is compounded of ideas and material that lie at the heart of Jewish tradition. The Enlightenment - decentered the Christian hegemony of discourse by opening up to the 'Orient' within, absorbing it and led directly to the Great Sanhedrin, that liberated the French Jews, and resistance to the Enlightenment was the seedbed of modern anti-Semitism, which regarded this equality as a subversive. That is why one speaks of, except perhaps in the lunatic zones of American 'Christianity', the Judeo-Christian tradition. The OT is as much a part of Christianity as it is of Judaism. No one has proprietorial rights. In that sense it is not 'Jewish'. When Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were nudging George W. to destroy the middle eastern congeries of sovereign state dictatorships, what they did was, every morning when decisions had to be taken, prime him with selected readings from the Old Testament culled from the most bellicose sectors. They weren't using a 'Jewish source'. They were, in that cultural code, prodding him with a foundational source for Christian militancy, from what they took to be the Christian Bible, just as Crusaders did as they slaughtered their way to the 'Holy Land'.
Of course, the Jewish traditions retained their separateness, not taking on board Christianity, but the obverse does not hold - Christian discourse thoroughly metabolized the former, and can't detach itself from it. Most Jewish editors here are comfortable about not knowing even the basics of Christianity - and that is historically understandable - who wants to know what bugged anti-Semites, just tell'em to fuck off and leave me alone - but Christians who are ignorant of the core Judaic structures in their tradition are doomed to be historically illiterate - anti-Semitism arose from this failure to acknowledge the huge debt of derivation (just as Japanese traditionally denied their huge roots in Korean peninsular culture, or Islamic radicals their debt to European fascism, or ultra-orthodox literalists the debts of Judaism to all sorts of Near Eastern cultures. Why I take you to task is that this feeling for the complexities of history, the complicated strands of identity, is absent, so far. You make dichotomic generalizations, think of self-contained units or essences. We are, culturally, mongrels and that's why as a child when we pleaded with our parents for a dog, my mother told us:'Okay boys. Just wait until a stray comes your way and hangs about. If it's a mongrel, we'll adopt him.' Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The formation of water is a combination reaction, the formation of precipitates is a single/double replacement reaction. I know what you meant to convey, but if you're going to use a technical analogy you shouldn't bungle the details. I have said, numerous times, how Christianity is a mixture of Greek philosophy,Gnosticism, and Judaic religion, so I don't see what nuance I'm missing. I also know that the Enlightenment directly led to the emancipation of the Jews, and I'm not saying the Enlightenment was a bad thing, I'm saying it was never free of Christian influences, which also isn't a wholly a bad thing. I don't know what the Great Sanhedrin are, unless you mean the Grand Sanhedrin? Lastly your denigration of Zionism as "ridiculous" was wholly unnecessary. You haven't explicitly admitted to anti-Zionism but it was to be expected (even though I was told that you were "a Zionist, just far left").

Thanks, for the usual laugh in your trying to teach me rudimentary chemistry,but I memorized the Mendeleev periodic table when I was 13, when I wrote my first adolescent book on the history of the discovery, industrial production and uses of every element in it. My mother was a chemist, and that was my first career option. This is verifiable. I still have the manuscript. I'm sure I can get a nephew to photograph, say 'Aluminium' and send an uploaded copy if doubts persist. Generally, this is again proving that I am a bad influence, MM, and we should just quietly agree to adopt an interaction ban. I've failed in trying to get you to sharpen your wits so that you don't get into trouble.
When I thought it was worthwhile helping out Simon to train you, I privately thought of myself as Clint Eastwood in Million Dollar Baby, with the irony that I’d be teaching you to go 15 rounds, probably with myself among others. Simon could take you only so far, as a Zionist, unlike a post-Zionist like myself. You needed to learn to shadow box with a real adversary to fulfill the promise he saw in you.Adversary in the sense of someone who is in the game professionally, but would prefer fair strong competition, rather than a thrown fight because the odds of the rival were minimal. One plays by the Marquess of Queensberry Rules, and if that obliges an old pug to drop a tip to a bantam weight how to avoid leading with one’s chin while swinging a haymaker, it’s all to the good. No self-respecting pugilist, unlike your average streetfighter, relishes a pushover. I was deeply impressed when my father, discussing who were the best soldiers in the world, told me the Gurkhas would come first by general repute, but he preferred the Maoris, illustrating the point by an anecdote about a Maori chief,who was perplexed on seeing a surrender flag flown above a white settlement that his tribe had laid siege to. Enquiries led him to understand his adversaries were surrendering because they had run out of provisions and ammunition. He immediately arranged for some of his men to go into the settlement and give them supplies from his own ammunition stocks, so they wouldn’t have to surrender out of necessity, but either win or lose the fight on fair terms.
Perhaps I’m just not a good tutor.You still keep leading with your chin while telegraphing your punches. I'm fairly certain I know why you play this silly game, let me use a metaphor to ease my tedium - trying constantly to trip someone up and hurting yourself because you use a gammy leg to topple a marathon walker wearing shin guards. Virtually any sentence you write in polemic with me leaks like a sieve. Time and again I’ve tried to show you how your prose doesn’t fit the complexities. Take this from the above.

I don't know what the Great Sanhedrin are, unless you mean the Grand Sanhedrin?

I used ‘Great Sanhedrin’ because that was the term used by Franz Kobler when I read his book Napoleon and the Jews when it first came out (1975).(Masada Press, Jerusalem pp.157,esp.pp.158 ‘The Session and Decision of the Great Sanhedrin ’. ) I’ve seen it used thus for decades.
But, Nope. You know better because evidently it didn’t ring a bell, you had to wikicheck it and found that someone in wikipedia gave the title Grand Sanhedrin to the topic. That you relied on wikipedia’s arbitrary, negotiated language to think you could score a point, ('Oh, you must mean this, because what you wrote is wrong') is again silly. A moment’s checking in google books would have yielded ‘Great Sanhedrin’
For me to persist would mean slipping from tough mentoring to bullying a sophomore. For you to persist, would mean making yourself feel, as you put it, 'shitty' by, in my view, insisting on respect while doing everything to undermine such a recognition, by assertive statements that are either hideously superficial, provocatively incoherent or just plain wrong. Neither is a pretty prospect, and to allow this to drag on would be to make myself culpable of confirming a Wiederholungszwang. So let's agree to ignore each other. It's the 6th. I'm sure Simon's mentorship will prove more practical than mine. Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
We shall see. The slow-motion judo match above worries me slightly in how you can match up to the intellectual heavyweights you will encounter in the future. You will have to raise your game G. We may as well use it to advantage. Please minutely re-read the above G, note each blow you let through, and note each self inflicted wound. Learn the technique, think of it as a masterclass in WP Martial Arts. It will get you through, Grasshopper. Irondome (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
In the coincidences that plague my life, I found confirmation a minute ago when watching the under 48 kg judo gold medal fight between Jeong Bokyeong and Paula Pareto. After the Ist 30 seconds, I said to myself the Korean had the gold sewn up. Objectively, she is the better judoka- quick off the mark like dad's pants on wedding night, technically fast, fluent, etc. Pareto won.Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice inference that I used wikipedia,actually the term I learned was "Grand Sanhedrin", part of Le Grand Sanhedrin de Napoleon. Grand can be translated to great, but I prefer grand as it provides distinction from the original Great Sanhedrin.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC) And there's nothing good about post-Zionism, which is akin to a white person telling a black person "racism is over because we passed the Civil Rights Act, so stop whining". Of course it's better than saying "I wish the Civil Rights Act wasn't passed in 64" (a la Anti-zionists "I wish the Jewish State was never established in 1948") All of the great (non-militant) Civil Rights leaders were Zionists for a reason. But you know this already and have overlooked it in light of the works of Noam Chomsky, so this discussion, like all of our others, is futile.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Your one month voluntary topic ban has expired[edit]

Congratulations on your self-restraint MM. I am glad that you are free to edit the subjects that interest you most. Please however remember the terms of our ongoing mentorship:
  • You review all edits with me with references for approval on my T/P or via email.
  • You keep me informed of all articles you are working on, preferably before you start. T/P only.
  • If I ask you to desist from a thread or article, you comply with the request.
  • Mentorship progress will be reviewed on the 6th of each month, taking all terms under review.
  • There will be two overarching quarterly reviews, the first taking place on the 6th November 2016.
  • That you keep your cool and remember all disciplines are evolving.

Please re-read the "Simon checking in" thread. It may be painful, but it has valuable insights.

I am on your side MM, I just want you to prosper and develop both on WP and more importantly, in that place called Real Life. Simon. Irondome (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC) They aren't the subjects that interest me most :P I edit them because I think they're biased or inadequate. But thanks! :)--Monochrome_Monitor 00:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Just stick rigidly to the above points G and we will take it from there. Irondome (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Voluntary interaction ban[edit]

I would add as a requirement of our mentorship agreement that you immediately agree to an informal interaction ban between yourself and user Nishidani. Nishidani has already quite subtly requested such an agreement. It complicates my assistance to you and it demonstrates your urge to always have the "last word", which really does not help in any sense on WP. This behavioural issue we will address at a future time if it persists in other venues. I would ask for your co-operation on this issue as a core point of the mentoring agreement. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
You know I can't agree to that humiliating proposal. He can choose not to talk to me, and I will gladly reciprocate. In fact I'm working on it right now. (Hence me telling him to leave me alone).--Monochrome_Monitor 01:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Then I will request a formal interaction ban MM. You just made a completely unprovoked comment. Nishidani does not wish to communicate in order to make my job easier. Please respect that. There is no humiliation involved on your part. Irondome (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

You know you're supposed to use both carrots and sticks, correct? --Monochrome_Monitor 01:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Incorrect. You have had enough carrots. This is no stick. The subject is closed until tomorrow. Please exercise enough self-discipline not to respond. Goodnight MM. Irondome (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Checkin in[edit]

How are things going Georgia? You have been quiet lately on the editing front. I understand that you may be busy preparing for your first year at university. Please drop me a line on my T/P. Si. Irondome (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Did I miss[edit]

The proposed edit summary on my T/P that you just made to GpOst? Remember the terms of the mentoring. Irondome (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You made an undiscussed edit to Generalplan Ost. It is likely to be reverted due to it adding nothing of substance. I have asked you to discuss proposed edits. Irondome (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

How was that not of substance? It's called wikignoming. "Partial extermination" is an oxymoron."Partial Destruction" applies.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You made an undiscussed edit, breaching our mentoring agreement. Your terms for genocide stated above appear to be WP:OR. Is there a R/S which uses these terms? Stick to the agreement G. Irondome (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
There were redundant parts I added in the confusion of simultaneously editing three other pages. I fixed that. Is that what you're referring to? I don't recall the plan being to discuss every edit but rather every controversial edit (which I have admittedly forgotten to do). I wouldn't have agreed if it were every edit, I would much rather quit completely. As for my sources, "destruction in whole or in part" is from the legal definition, and I've seen total partial used in many sources but can't recall where I got it it from, one source is here [21] --Monochrome_Monitor 02:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I got it from genocide watch.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It was every edit Georgia for a set period of time. The terms are quite clear, see above. You are in addition keeping me in the dark as to your proposed editing areas, another condition. I note your posting to Iryna Harpy's T/P about your perceptions of genocide. Again, without the basic courtesy of even pinging me. I will leave you to either change your behavioural patterns, or draw the necessary conclusions. Irondome (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Iryna and I have collaborated a lot in genocide topics in the past. Again, it's not "my view" of genocide. I use the legal def and I gave you sources.I'm not going to talk about this with you here, I would do it over email but please respect it's uncomfortable for me to do to it on talk.--Monochrome_Monitor 13:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please alert me on my T/P when emails are expected G. I accept that some traffic can be carried out by email, but it must be expected that material should be on display in community-acceptable spaces such as article and talk pages in addition. I aam sure you understand. Irondome (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Some copyeditying[edit]

On Temple Mount your edit introduced a new mistake: "tzhe Noble Sanctuary of Jerusalem". :) By the way, the easiest way to do some copyediting is to revert my undo. Debresser (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

cat:Aramean people[edit]

I reverted this edit purely on the basis that any changes to do with ethnic identity in the Levant needs to be discussed to death before it happens, and the status quo should normally be retained until that discussion has happened. Also it's really, really bad practice to leave anything with no categories at all. If you want to take it to WP:CFD then go ahead - I've no bone in this fight, I'm just trying to ensure that due process is observed.Le Deluge (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Didn't mean to orphan it. No need to justify, I totally understand. :)--Monochrome_Monitor 21:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow up from Peel Commission. A small sample[edit]

The point was that Soviet soldiers who happened to be captured and who turned out to be Jews were take n there, as one can see at Alexander Pechersky. You evidently didn't care to read up either wiki or many relevant sources, objecting just to the perceived implication of the text.

On 18 September 1943, Pechersky, along with 2,000 Jews from Minsk including about 100 Soviet Jewish POWs, was placed in a train cattle car which arrived at the Sobibor extermination camp on September 23, 1943. Eighty prisoners from the train, including Pechersky, were selected for work in Lager II

I've deliberately not looked at your contribs record, as stated. These are just absurd edits with no intelligent justification on pages where I have edited, and note that I am not the only person who regards this kind of rewriting you indulge in as problematical. Perhaps you need to talk more extensively with your mentor. Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Half of those edits were a restoration of the article to the way they were before you messed with them. I don't even have to read your contribution history to spot them, they stick out like a sore thumb. Your assertion that my edits were "pro-jewish" and "anti-christian" is hilarious, can you even hear yourself? Your edits obfuscate the place of the Temple Mount in Christian thought. The fact is when you look into traditional Christian views of the Temple Mount you find that "The destruction of the Temple, prophesied by Jesus’s 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands' (Mark 14:58), in addition to the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem, was seen by the Byzantine Christians as proof of Christianity’s victory over Judaism. In the centuries preceding the conquest of Jerusalem first by the Sassanids, then by the Rashidun, the Temple Mount had been completely overlooked in the Christian religious topography of Jerusalem in favor of the Holy Sepulchre."[23] You don't find drivel like "both christians and jews think the temple was destroyed becuase of jewish sin" in there. My edits are not pro-Jewish any more than dartmouth college is pro-jewish. Perhaps it is you who is anti-jewish? Zero's edit summary "its unacceptable" is just that. I added a pro-return argument in a section filled with pro-return arguments. I could have made that clearer with "they point out that", but I thought it was obvious. Per the Banu Qurayza there is no primary source (hadith or sunna) affirming that Muhammad let the non-traitorous Jews "go as they wish", rather an unreliable clearly apologetic one, "International Islamic Publishing House". If an article quoted Chabad saying something too "pro-Jewish", you would be the first to question its reliability. Next is the "Soviet POWS who turned out to be Jewish". Yes,everyone just happened to be Jewish by mere coincidence, they hadn't been been segregated from the general POW population and sent to Sobibor precisely because they were Jewish. [24][25] But Holocaust revisionism is no laughing matter. Pechersky was one of many Russian POWs captured in the Battle of Moscow and a German doctor giving him a medical examination found out he was circumsised and sent him to Sobibor for this reason. Your conflation of victim and perpetrator is a mockery of the dead. And lastly I'm not sure where you get the ideal that Epsom is "the usual chap", considering I barely interact with him. He's one of the many users who have complained about your behavior. Now have fun glossing over your ignorance in your reply with retorts about my age.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Just what the fuck is going on here?? I am going to bed. Tomorrow I want a really good explaination of just why the mentorship agreement is being not just breached but treated with contempt? Where is the agreed discussions on edits PRIOR to them being implemented? ETC. Irondome (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
THAT'S what you're worried about?!!? No one confirmed that I breached 3RR, and I was editing against my POV. Sanctioning me was the epitome of adhering to all rules even when they are harmful to wikipedia's mission.I accepted an unwarranted temporary topic ban to get some peace. I did not think you would have me solicit your permission for every edit I make for an indefinite period of time after that ban ended. All I wanted was peace. Go ahead and report me to whatever initialism you like, you'll be the second "friend" to do so. Who knows, maybe this time they'll actually ban me for good?--Monochrome_Monitor 01:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The rules of my mentoring you were explicitly stated, underwritten by the closing admin, and you agreed to them. They explicitly stated that every edit was to be discussed and sources provided, before they were made. A six month period was agreed, I believe. That is what has effectively kept you here. Now you claim that was not your understanding. You are WP:GAMING MM, and I will have no hesitation in withdrawing my mentorship and recommending an indefinite topic ban from the I/P arena and all Jewish and Israeli related subjects. I will give you a day to reflect and to agree to the specifics of our agreement. Again you appear to confuse friendship with a blind, unconditional support, whatever your actions. You confuse friendship with a you are either with me or against me mindset. You seem blind to all the nuances of true friendship. The rest is entirely in your hands. Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
You KNEW I was slowly easing back into AI, we talked about it on your talk page. You're a human being bestowed with the ability to determine right from wrong. I would have never agreed to six months of digital slavery, conditions which would effectively amount to a six-month topic ban, which I explicitly said I wanted to avoid. My interpretation was that the sanction was for two months and only involved controversial edits, and it's been two months. "I would strongly request that this be the main control mechanism that MM adheres to from now on, for a period of 2 months initially. If any edits of a controversial character infringing the above be made, then a 6 month IP and Jewish-related topic ban be immediately imposed upon notification of any such infringement to Administration. Monochrome Monitor I need you to accept this, urgently. Simon." I genuinely don't think any of the edits I've made were "controversial", or at least the vast majority of them. Now you've completely changed the terms, tripling the duration and extending it to all edits, not just controversial ones. And you're threatening an indefinite topic ban, which was never even an option. Now onto your suggestion that I've been "gaming" the system. That's like saying an innocent man is "gaming" the system by violating the conditions of his parole. My "violation" was not a reversion, it was the changes I discussed on the talk page. In the spirit of wikipedia I thought a nuetral definition of Zionism was better than the current one, which it has been stuck at because the proposed alternatives are equally if not more loaded. Gaming is defined as using wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith. My supposed transgression was made with entirely good faith and the intent of helping the encylopedia, not hurting it, and unlike my accusers, I do not make appeals to the laws of wikipedia, but rather to common sense. You have ignored the justification for my actual edits above and instead focus on the fact that Nishidani said them. My editing has gotten better, not worse. The last actual edit war I was in was over the Khazar hypothesis, which wikipedia entertains as legitimate despite mainstream science rejecting it. Any nuetral arbiter would see that its completely illogical to argue Ashkenazi Jews are Caucasian converts to Judaism when they have an insignificant amount of Caucasian genes and closely resemble other Jewish groups genetically. Any nuetral arbiter would see that the punishment you propose is vastly disproportionate to the crime. I still think wikipedia is not inherently broken, a place where people are judged by their actions rather than what others say about them, regardless of the merits of either. If wikipedia's a place where an editor is indefinitely topic banned for a possible 3RR violation committed in complete good faith against their POV, it's not a place I want to be. I have nothing to lose except my faith in the project.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
MM. I was permabanned for 2 diffs of a game played by 2 sockpuppets,known to me, and only discovered by arbs a month after my ban: by a diff to a joke to a good friend which led to a suspension immediately overturned, but left in the record and misunderstood; by evidence of 8 reverts on several articles in 45 days. It's on my page. I never complained. I just worked elsewhere for a year or two, and was invited back. Apparently a few saw I could contribute well outside of the IP area, and thought I'd earned a right back. You are really taking this far too hard, surely. In the good old days, we were really hit hard for things. Thanks to a change of air, but above all, Simon's very astute and persuasive diplomacy, you're still in. Think about it.Nishidani (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't respect verdicts I find unjust. To me that's tacit acceptance of and complicity in an injustice, and a betrayal of my own conscience. A gesture made with the intention of getting others to trust my commitment to the spirit of the project was used against me towards the exact opposite end, and I find that outrageous. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
'Complicity in injustice'? Is that personal or a general world view?Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

i believe life doesnt always have to be unfair. Theres always a cost benefit analysis, as in when its life or death. I dont care for martyrdom and for the people who choose death over honor or faith. (however i greatly respect people who die rather than implicate others a la salem witchcraft) But if its a choice between one lash for a false confession and five for maintaining my innocence id take the 5 lashes. Neither are fair but i think the former is a more grevious injury. This can get into philosophical territory ike would you rather kill one person or let 100 people die? Again everything is cost benefit. But this is tangential. I dont know what you want from me. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I want nothing from you. I hope simply that you develop a certain detachment, and take broad issues less personally. The greatest friend, other than my brother, I ever had took even the shift of a wine bottle during an argument as a personal attack, of disruptive intent. With age, he grew detached, without loss of acuity. The problem with a cost-benefit approach, apart from the fact that ethical decisions cannot be reduced to a mathematical algorithm to discover the economically most 'rational choice', in such contexts is: 'benefit to whom' vs.'who bears the cost'? In Sophie's choice, the ostensible benefit is the son saved, the cost is the daughter killed, and the compromised conscience the mother must bear all her life (not to speak of the brother). In most cases, there is no universal rule, cost-benefit-based or not. Lactantius rightly deplored the sexually euphoric masochism of many waves of martyrs in early Christianity. Martyrdom however can be a good thing, eg. Maximilian Kolbe. Salvo D'Acquisto made a false confession and was shot dead, thereby saving 22 lives. The problem is not whether one would rather kill one person or let 100 die, but who places one before that dilemma. To the sadist who presents me with that choice, pleasure is satisfied either way. If I refuse to act on the choice, 100 die and he is happy. If I kill someone, he is happy, because the person whose moral will he hates enviously is broken, - 'See, he's just like me: we all kill under given circumstances'. He has the benefit, either way, whereas his victim pays the cost either way. I don't want to disturb your thoughts, though. The point you raised happened to enrich me, by setting of a train of abstract thoughts I won't derail into this siding. Thanks, and keep well.Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
You agreed to the specific terms of the mentoring. Now do not insult me or the community by claiming that something else was implied. I will not bother at this stage to link the ANI discussion here. It will just be embarrasing to you. You are gaming MM. And do not bullshit about "slavery". Your claim that you want to be left to ediit in "peace" I can only construe as being left to edit as you wish, regardless of the rules of this project, and to promote your evident WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and distressing WP:BATTLEGROUND way of approaching things. I asked you a simple question over 24 hours ago. Do you agree to the original terms of the mentorship agreement or not? Your apparent qualms should have been stated then, and not now. I have been a great friend to you MM, sadly, you have not been one to me. Irondome (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You didn't hear anything I said. Gaming is done with the intent to harm the integrity of wikipedia, which was and is never my intent. I agreed to the original terms. 2 months of asking you for permission to make controversial edits. It's been two months. You are changing the terms of agreement. I quoted your own words, right there. Do tell me what orifice you pulled 6 months out of. And please stop misusing the WP pages. Righting great wrongs is for promoting OR in the belief you are setting the record straight. This has nothing to do with that. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The orifice I pulled it out of, is the AE archive. Here are the conditions in full:
  • You take an immediate 2 month wikibreak from IP and articles related to Jewish-related topics. When returning, you submit all areas you are working on to me, on an ongoing basis. All edits apart from grammar, etc, are to be submitted to me before making them for approval. It may take a couple of days, but if you edit without my consent I will recommend an indef topic ban. It may take a few days for me to get back to you. Tough. You are going to learn patience. Certain behavioural issues will be discussed off wiki. That's all I have to say. Irondome (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
As you can see it is actually open - ended, and only finishes when I judge that the issues you have, have largely been modified to an extent that you are no longer a danger to yourself. You took the 2 month wikibreak. Now you are in the mentoring process. These "two months initially" was referring to your two month vol topic ban as part of the initial process, which you barely scraped through. So its actually indef, until we can discuss your release from it. But you have completely ignored the fundemental points of the mentoring agreement, in that you do not discuss you edits prior to making them, you do not update me on what topics you are working on, basically the important stuff. So I am expecting a radical change in your editing style, as per the agreement above. I am now asking you to agree to stick to what you have already agreed to. It's quite simple really. Irondome (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't see anything about six months in there. And I did not "barely scrape by". I adhered to the wikibreak in full. (unless you think using a talk page is a violation, which is absolutely moronic) --Monochrome_Monitor 14:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes or no? Irondome (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

What you said could reasonably be construed as 4 months, two of ban and two of "guidance". Not indefinite. That would be grossly disproportionate and against the blocking policy.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be better if the mentorship was ended speedily. You have fought it all the way, and hate any attempts to control your intemperate editing patterns. Your above comment is the final straw. I will contact the closing administrator to communicate my request. Irondome (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I have asked for your help many times in sensitive matters. That to me is mentoring. Now I am quite familiar with wikipedia rules and haven't needed a mentor in the usual sense for at least a year - you seem to think I don't know how wikipedia works, and assume I don't know what a reliable source is/what proper editing is. That's highly condescending. What I want your help with was and is the wikipedia community, since many people hate me and are sure to tell the admins how much they hate me. Frankly I'm a very aggressive debater so I can understand why they are frustrated, but I wish they would appeal to substance instead of saying "please ban MM she's awful". That's what you saved me from- a feeding frenzy, and I greatly appreciate that. After Malik and Nish wrote disparaging remarks about me I knew my responses to them would be ignored and that what I said was effectively meaningless, the outcome was decided. I couldn't say "I didn't even violate 3RR and I was editing against my POV for the good of wikipedia", no one would hear it. My editing is not intemperate. I have been following the rules consistently, using the talk pages, etc, for weeks. Nishidani doesn't like some of my edits, fine. I hate plenty of his edits. But I don't complain about him to anyone for it, even on the occasions when I think he is arguing in bad faith (for example, saying BRD doesn't matter because it's not policy) I do respect you Simon and I respect your prior lack of hatred of me. I would be perfectly fine sticking to our agreement if I knew it had a specific expiration. Most of the stuff I edit now is not israel related anyway- that's not what bothers me. But you have to admit the scope and duration you propose (everything for an indefinite period of time) is disproportionate for a good faith edit. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Apparently you have reported me already. I'm not going to defend myself because historically speaking that doesn't seem to work. Personally I wish we could retain some level of friendship after I'm banned, but I doubt you'd be comfortable with that.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Points below:
  • I have not "reported" you in any sense. I have very discreetly and with zero drama informed an administrator that the mentorship has not worked out. I certainly have not yelled it from the rooftops. I would not have dreamed of such an approach.
  • You are confusing mentorship with advocating. I have no doubt as to your ability to competently edit WP in a technical sense, and with growing confidence in intellectual contribution. Have I ever doubted your enormous untapped potential? Never. My concerns had and have been always about your approach to editing. My concept of mentoring was to hear your proposals for potentially controversial edits in a safe space, before they were made. I only ever wanted to advise you about the wisdom of proposed edits, after discussing the sources you would provide and your line of reasoning. I was attempting to protect you by dissuading you from ill-advised edits in a timely fashion. I cannot provide air cover for you however. If you have been wronged I would always defend you, whether mentor or not. Nobody "hates" you MM, and I wish, and urge you to discard that mindset. I will always be a friend to you on here, regardless of any formal arrangements.

I believe you will no longer get involved in any issues involving the boards, and I beg you, yep, beg you to re-read all the points made over the months in many of the above threads both here, and on Nish's and my talkpages. I believe firmly that you have developed sufficiently to avoid vexatious editing and have achieved the necessary self-discipline to avoid drama. My model of mentoring was obviously stifling you, and perhaps ill-suited to your temperament. That was my misjudgement, and you have nothing to reproach yourself for there either. I will continuue to be open to re-negotiating a mentoring model that more suits your evolution on here and will always be open to that possibility. I will always be there for you G, and will always think of you kindly, and look forward to working with you for many years to come. Your friend, Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I never thought you hated me, that was melodrama. I don't think you're the hating type. Did I think you thought I was impudent, bitchy, and a lost cause? Yes. Frankly I still think you believe at least one of those things. Now please don't start blaming yourself or your mentoring because I'm quitting the pedia. It's not your fault really, I've been thinking about it for a while. And frankly I've been an impudent bitch and I think I'm a lost cause.You were a breath of fresh air more than anything. I've worn out the community's patience and when I inevitably go to the boards again you'd just embarrass yourself defending me. You know that's true but you're too nice to admit it. PLEASE don't be upset. Sorry I'm going to blank this page.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sergei Eisenstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montage. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


Hi. I was wondering what you were objecting to on John Garfield? In what way does the current wording confuse the system and the method, or confuse the work of Strasberg with Adler and or Mesiner? I couldn't tell from the edits what you found troubling... Many thanks,  • DP •  {huh?} 02:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It's based on a definition of method acting which lumps together Brando (Adler) and Dean (Strasberg), and it implies there's a linear connection between Garfield and the Method, when its more complicated. I wanted to use the technically correct definition (I'm a film and theatre geek, its common even within our circles to call adler and meisner method, but the orthodoxy and the film historians and critics still maintain a distinction) but since we are acknowledging the other definition its accurate on those grounds. Thank you for working with me on this. :) --Monochrome_Monitor 04:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


Are you absolutely sure you want your user page deleted? Do you want to think about it a bit? --NeilN talk to me 00:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been really depressing for me lately and I've come to the conclusion that won't be changing in the future. So yes I'm not bluffing. Thank you for asking though. :)--Monochrome_Monitor 00:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

All right, deleted. --NeilN talk to me 00:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Thankya. What about my talk? I don't care for that either.--Monochrome_Monitor
We don't delete talk pages, sorry. See WP:U1. --NeilN talk to me 01:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Damn. Can I blank it?--Monochrome_Monitor 01:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that is certainly allowed. --NeilN talk to me 01:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

sorry to see you're apparently leaving, I enjoyed our discussions. If you are interested I can tell you about my own frustrations with Wikipedia and how I ended up handling them, just use the e-mail function if you don't care to talk in public. --dab (𒁳) 19:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC) I'm not exactly leaving. I'm going off the record, on the QT and very hush-hush. So no worries. In fact I'll restore my talk page and eventually delete the drama .--Monochrome_Monitor 19:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Some clarifications[edit]

Hello MM, and glad to see you haven't left the project for good. I wanted to clear a few things up, since I noticed the arrangement was mentioned here.

  • I am not going to sanction you just because your mentorship has ended. That is not, in itself, cause for any sanction.
  • I am not going to sanction you for anything that happened before, either. That already went to AE, and the agreement was to try out mentorship. I hope that's been sufficient that you can do well going forward, since of course future inappropriate edits would still be subject to the normal resolutions.
  • Formal mentorship or not, I would bet you that Irondome would give you a bit of advice if you ever were to need it and ask for it. Certainly I would if you need. If you'd prefer not to go those two ways, there's also editor assistance and the teahouse, if you need some advice or just a sympathetic ear. If you start getting upset, might not be a bad idea to slow down and ask for some help.

Best of luck going forward. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

In truth my mentorship ended two years ago. Since then Simon's been more of a guardian than a mentor. I'm quite well versed in the rules and regs of wikipedia. But thanks! :) --Monochrome_Monitor 17:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Memorial to the Victims of the Deportation of 1944, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chechen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable[edit]

I find it totally unacceptable that you remove the fact that the population was all Muslim in the 1922, or 1931 census-data. Please don´t do that, and undo the ones you have removed. (say, like at Beit Iksa, Hizma etc) Huldra (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious that if you start with "they were all muslim in 1800" and end with "they were all muslim in 1945", it can be assumed in the interim they were all muslim. At a certain point it becomes an issue of tone. I repeat, at a certain point it becomes an issue of TONE. See what I just did? That's not wikipedia's voice, it's mine. Wordings such as "they were still all muslim" and "segregation barrier" are not wikipedia's voice either, they are the words of an impassioned editor trying to convey a particular message. Of course the article is about a Palestinian village and its natural it would be biased towards that narrative. So I don't expect it to talk about the suicide bombings that killed hundreds of Israeli civilians leading directly to the establishment of the west bank barrier. Instead it describes the barrier and its effects on palestinians (and not Israelis)- again, all natural. You don't need to describe the barrier as segregation, which is blatantly POV, and should just let the reader decide based on the information that is offered them. Since the information offered is that israel (for mysterious reasons) wants to separate israelis in the west bank from palestinians and makes their lives miserable (for mysterious reasons) the message is sent implicitly. I'm being completely straight with you. Everyone knows articles edited only by editors in specific niches are naturally biased. What I'm saying is you can convey the same point you're trying to make in the voice of wikipedia rather than your voice- which from my perspective as a reader can sound angry at times.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Notified, Huldra (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
You tell me to please revert my edits. I tell you why I made them. You report me. Logical sequence of events.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, I guess you could conclude from that that I wasn´t very impressed by your answer (most of which was a rant about suicide bombings and the barrier: subject´s which I had not mentioned.)
When I see how much care there is to mention *each and every* occurrence of Jews in Israel/Palestine (take a look at Tiberias#Ottoman_period: on even the chance that they would move to a place (when they didn´t)), why on earth do you think it is ok to remove factual information about Muslims inhabiting a place? What is the difference between this and censorship?
(Just for the record: I do not object to the mentioning of *each and every* occurrence of Jews in Israel/Palestine; I *do* object to info like, say: "In the 14 century 2 Jewish families lived here"...*without* mentioning how many Muslim/Christian families there were (5? 300? 500??)...and I have seen a lot of articles like that, over the years.)
User:Irondome: sorry, no, I will not remove AE complaint; I think there are far too important principles here, Huldra (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to impress you, I was trying to speak to you like a human being. I was trying to address you as the primary creator of that article about the article you primarily created. I'm not censoring anything- it is first and foremost a tone issue. The village has been presumably since the ottoman period thoroughly muslim, its simply redundant to restate it when nothing has changed as if it were otherwise. This isn't anything like jerusalem or hebron, there were no major population changes in the last 200 years and jews were never a majority or even a significant minority (in byzantine times they certainly wouldn't have lived in the greater jerusalem area in large numbers). Raising the issue of religion and ethnicity makes it an issue, and it is a non-issue in the way the demographics of Mea Shearim is a non-issue. It's making an argument against an imaginary opponent.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I would ask Huldra and Monochrome_Monitor to talk this out at the relevant T/P. In addition I would ask Huldra to withdraw the complaint. Whatever it's richter scale of ARBPIA related issues, it is still essentially a conntent dispute. I would suggest recourse to the boards at this early is somewhat premature. MM, your claim on seraphimblades t/p that I never mentored you is somewhat strange, considering official agreements made at ANI. You are still under mentorship and you still require it. I in turn require up to date information on your editing plans. It is not too much to ask. Irondome (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall saying never. You were totally essential the first few months of wikipedia, when I didn't understand the rules. Since you have been more like a guardian than a mentor to me, and I would most likely leave wp if you did. I didn't mean to diminish your efforts to keep me on the straight path.(Well, maybe I did, but it's a pride thing. I'd rather intentionally fail at a mentorship than unintentionally.) Also re Huldra I think you're putting it a bit lightly. :P The fact that they were all Muslim does not contribute significantly more to the article when stated the third and fourth time than it does the second and first.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Mentor, schementor, guardian, just semantics love. I know your pride "issue" :P so we will use the term guardian ok? And its a moot point whether you "understand the rules" even now. Most editors are still trying to find them, if you get me. Now I need to eat more paracodeine. ouch. Irondome (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Dental hygiene is an imperative! When I got my wisdoms out I took vicodin. It made me sleep for like 18 hours.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arabs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Your copy-paste page move has been reversed[edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Semitic people a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Semitic race. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to remind you[edit]

This sort of envenomed, wholly off-topic edit summary is not acceptable. You ought to know by now that most of those types of Qur'anic or hadith statements can be paralleled anywhere in the Tanakh, indeed more abundantly 'of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth,' (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)even down to targeting for extermination a specific people, like the Amalekites (and those verses are used frequently by West Bank rabbis).Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

There are half the violent statements in the quran than the christian bible, but the quran is 10x shorter. Consider that. No venom involved. Hamas chooses to use that passage from Sahih Muslim to refer to its political goals. Likud does not have "of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth" in their charter. Indeed your edits are unacceptable. You added that nonsense formulation not once but three times! It's ridiculous. It's one thing to hate likud but this is just apologetics for hamas. I wouldn't be suprised if an arbitration case is opened for that.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The 'Christian Bible' descends from a Jewish translation into Greek of the Hebrew scriptures. All of the passages, predominantly in the Pentateuch, and the Book of Joshua, are a common property and virtually identical, so in this, it is pointless talking about the 'Christian' bible. Their diffusion profoundly influenced the writing of the Qur'an. That's where a good part of Western and Middle Eastern ideological fanaticism comes from. It's not a matter of hating Likud, or apologizing for Hamas, but getting the factual record straight, something you, unlike Bradley Burston, for one, wished to erase. If you have an objection to contentious material, try for once to notify a talk page, and see if editors can help out. Preemptive removals, which you frequently had recourse to in the past, don't look good. Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
You do realize by saying Christian Bible I was including the New Testament? The onus is on you to reach a consensus for your edits, not me.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The Christian Bible does not mean the 'New Testament', which, again is largely an early Jewish document. The onus on editors is to build articles, not run about to remove material they dislike at sight. Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
You misunderstand again. I was referring to both "Old" and "New" Testaments- the Bible, in common parlance. By saying "Christian Bible" I was making it clear I didn't mean just the Jewish one. And WP:ONUS is not about onus to add content, it's about onus to to get consensus for adding controversial content. Please self-revert. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
If there were little plastic figures of the 12 disciples and we were in school during break, I would def swap you my Jesus for Judas. I like Judas. Thoughts? Irondome (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
G'day Simon. I first learnt Santa Claus didn't exist at 6, when my older brother told me to keep awake for a surprise on Christmas eve. Sure enough Santa came though, beard and costume, as far as one could gather in the dark, with a swag. Then just as 'Santa' plunked some object on the chest of drawers, my brother shined a torchlight that showed mum putting a statue of Jesus there, groaned' aw, Jeezus!' in disappointment (at the present), and her hand trembled, it fell and was smashed. In a hushed voice she remonstrated, 'oh, you little devils!' and fled from the room. We told her the next day we'd already cleaned up the mess and put the pieces into the rubbish bin, so she didn't have to worry about tidying up. As to the question, well, it's a bit of a Hobson's choice for a pagan like me, who thinks the world went off-course with the death of Aristotle, and the victories of religion. Of course, anyone who gets a bad press will attract my underdog sympathies- Judas indeed as the vector of God's will, that his son die, eventually did get a sympathetic treatment in certain theological circles and recent novels, but I'd choose either James the brother of Jesus, the writer of the Epistle of James, with its tenacious insistence on compassion for the downtrodden and who, like Jesus, lived and died as a Jew, or Thomas, i.e. either compassion or skeptical rationalism, preferably both. Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Evening all. Hope all is well with you Georgia. Good choice. Thomas encapsulates that fascinating period between the death of Jesus and the outbreak of the war. What was happening in Jerusalem in that 30 year period? I like the material that didn't make it into the N/T canon. Obviously their exclusion speaks volumes, due to their content. The Gospel of Judas is fascinating. We appear to have a scenario where the family of Jesus is attempting to shut this mad interloper Paul up. I recall letters that are extant being sent to various communities where Paul is headed protesting his claimed authority. He basically built his own cult. The torchbearers of "true" Judaic Christianity seem to have centered themselves in Jerusalem which doomed them during the siege and sacking. What was their role in the uprising? Do you have any material on this Nish? It is one of the most interesting and enigmatic periods in western history. The Oz book looks good b.t.w. Remember you telling me to tell you if you were ever editing a little intensely? Relax a bit Nish on the editing front. You are sounding a bit strained. Frustration. Sod it, candle. it. worth. not. Irondome (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that period is part of 'Western' history, which, when it is sane (not often), derives inspiration from Greece. Christianity wasn't Christianity till some centuries later, as with Judaism. All you have is conflicting sects making large claims for everyone else, each claiming to be a unique vehicle of some unknowable truth and studying texts attributed to someone they called God instead of the functions of the syllogism, how to classify and measure natural phenomena, and how to write poetry of elegance and depth from known myths. The one solid thing given was the idea of a system of social welfare, better than the Roman annona, which was too imperial.Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

What the hell are you guys doing here? And Simon I highly reccommend Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity for info on the "true" Judaic Christianity. I'm not too fond of Aristotle, nor would he have been of me.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Simon was subtly playing Clint Eastwood in In the Line of Fire, when he thought the presidentessa might be in danger. Thank him, even if I wasn't thinking of John Malkovich, but of Jiminy cricket in Disney's Pinocchio. If that's your criterion for evaluating a scientist/philosopher, then you should dismiss the Theory of Relativity because Einstein maltreated Mileva Marić.Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not a matter of maltreatment and you know that. Albert Einstein did not consider women inferior beings. The prestige of Aristotles name kept alive ideas that (with the help of the Church fathers) kept women disenfranchised for millennia--Monochrome_Monitor 19:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thinking therefore in terms of the Western logic formalized by Aristotle, that implies Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Negative statements about Jews written in the Talmud by the sages have helped to keep religious Jewish women disenfranchised for millennia. I don't have a double standard if that's what you're insinuating.I deplore Jewish sages who deplored women, and I deplore Aristotle.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I hope you read the passage above, on Alexander's Hellenism and its effect on women. Alexander was a student of Aristotle. Of course, anyone can 'deplore' anything, like logic, the basis of Western civilization, whose foundations go back to Aristotle's magnificent synthesis.Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

A good 5777[edit]

To you and yours love! Kind regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

L'Shana Tova u'Metuka! --Monochrome_Monitor 19:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Palestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aram. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

IR violation at Palestinians[edit]

You are testing my long-standing resolution not to take anyone to A/1 or A/E (that is not a threat). Please self-revert. Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, shit.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouldn't have reported you, in any case. But this is an old problem, and one just has to get over rushing things.Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, thank you.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting research in peer reviewed journal[edit] (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Does not exist. :/ woops I forget to take out the "--". Reading.--Monochrome_Monitor 05:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Assyrian continuity[edit]

I think it wholly unfair that you have attempted to alter the Assyrian continuity page, removing the mention of sourced and often modern experts, and placing an assertion that modern scholarship refutes any Assyrian continuity, something which is clearly not the case. The intro (and other sections) is balanced as it is, mentioning both those that support and those that refute. In addition, most of the references are in the main body of the page, and do not really need to be duplicated in the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I can understand how you think it's unfair. The fact is modern scholarship is dismissive of claims of direct continuity and almost all of the supporting claims are from the 19th and early 20th century- and Parpola is not a real scholar in this area. (yes, he's an assyriologist, but he claims that everything great in the world is assyrian) What I wrote was both primarily and secondarily sourced. I suppose I could have been more nuanced. Anyway, assuming you're Assyrian, you shouldn't rest your pride on descent from a dead civilization which was infamous for its brutality. I'll quote jon joseph (you should really read his book, its very rigorous) "The people who today call themselves Assyrians are, strickly speaking, members of a cultural and religious group, molded together into a minority by ties of a common language and, until the nineteen century, a common church membership which, until the birth of the modern nation-state in the Middle East, was the strongest tie among people. The lineal origin of the community, like that of most Middle Eastern nationalities -- and nationalities the world over -- is hidden in the mists of history. The religious and linguistic minority under discussion is naturally a mixture of ethnicities, mainly Aramaean, but also Persian, Kurdish, Arab, and Jewish, just as present-day Arabs are the result of a similar merging of a variety of nationalities. But just as it was the speakers of Arabian language who gave most of the converts to Islam in the Middle East and North Africa the name "Arab," so the Aramaeans gave the various converts to Christianity their mother tongue, and for the next 1,800 years, bequeathed to them the language of their literature and liturgy as well as the very name by which they have for centuries called themselves -- Suraye, Suryaye."--Monochrome_Monitor 11:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

My issue here is not that Joseph and Fiey were mentioned in the intro, it is balanced to mention them. It is more that the intro was weighted in favour of their opinions. It is not particularly impartial to suggest that their opinions are superior or the most accepted. The original intro mentioned both those in support and those against, which is perfectly balanced and fair. Particularly as there was no suggestion in said intro as to which set of opinions was correct.

Parpola is no less relevant than Joseph, who actually is not an Assyriologist. And neither are as eminent as Saggs and Frye,who both also support continuity.

You say to me you shouldn't rest your pride on descent from a dead civilization which was infamous for its brutality!!! In all honesty, what business is it of yours to tell me that? And what relevance does that have to the impartiality of the page? In addition, as Saggs himself says, much of the brutality was later Biblical propaganda; for example the Assyrians never carried out genocides and ethnic cleansing, which the Israelites certainly did.

Joseph is a well known proponent of Arameanism, noted Assyriologist-Iranologist Richard Nelson Frye disagrees with him strongly upon his assertions, particularly his claims about the term Suraye, Syrian, East Syrian. Modern scholarly opinion does too, as these terms etymologically derive from Assurayu/Assyrian, thus Assyrians were called Suraye many centuries before Levantine Arameans.

I have read Joseph's book, and he has his opinion, one which many disagree with. He should be quoted, but in no way at all be given primacy, nor should the article suggest his opinion is the prevailing and correct one.

The Kurdish, Arab, Jewish and Levantine mix does not stand up, genetic studies show Assyrians are homogenous (Cavalli-Sforza), and they also predate the arrival of those other peoples by some considerable time. Nobody, of course, should claim the Assyrians are ethnically pure, some Assyrians do, and it is a nonsense, but there is pretty strong evidence to suggest that at root the modern Assyrian ancestry dates back to Ancient Mesopotamia, even UNPO accepts that the Assyrians are indigenous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

First off, Israelite "ethnic cleansing and genocides" are biblical propaganda. Read Israelites#Historical_Israelites, the book of Joshua is bullshit. And your characterization of descriptions of the brutality of the Assyrians as being biblical propaganda is odd. The Assyrians themselves boasted about their brutality against rebels and there's no reason to think the Israelites were an exception to that.

Joseph is not an Arameanist (believing in direct descent from the Arameans.) He believes Assyrians are more Aramean than Assyrian in the genealogical sense, but does not assign a specific national character to them. Homogeneity means they are a unique and distinct group- it doesn't mean they aren't a mixture of peoples. Look, I'm not saying that Assyrians are "Christian Arabs" as some do or denying they aren't indigenous. They aren't and they are. I'm not saying they have no link to ancient Assyrians whatsoever either. The Assyrians living in Assyria proper likely have some Assyrian roots, but there's no reason for Syriac Christians in Syria, whose population was majority Aramean since the Iron Age, to be "Assyrian". That is personally what bothers me about Assyrianism- it dominates wikipedia and absorbs communities that don't consider themselves Assyrian.Now in my view both Arameanism and Assyrianism are problematic as pan-Syriac movements claiming exclusive legitimacy for their identity. For extreme Assyrianism this means claiming the Syriac-speaking people of the entirety Mesopotamia and sometimes some of the Levant as "Assyrian" merely because the Neo-Assyrian Empire conquered those places (because everyone in the roman empire is a roman) and for extreme Arameanism this means claiming all Neo-Aramaic speakers as Arameans because of their language.

When I say John Josephs view is a majority that is from secondary sourcing. I literally looked up "most scholars think assyrian nationalism" (no quotes) to find it. But the way you edited it from most to some is completely fine considering I only had one source for that, its better to be nuanced. What you say about Assyrians being called Suraye before arameans arrived is untrue, considering 1. the word Suraye itself is Aramaic, and 2. "Syrian" is a Greek word inconsistently applied, there are many examples equating Syrian with Aramean, most notably the Septaguint, which translates "Aramean" as "Syrian". It is clear that the word Syria is derived from Assyria, but that doesn't mean Syrian is derived from Assyrian. If that were true than the British would be Britons (a roman celtic tribe) because they live in Britain which is derived from the roman word Britannia, land of the Britons. A similarly empty argument is pointing out that many provinces were called derivatives of "Assyria" after Assyria. That does not testify to the continuity of Assyrians, only to the continuity of Assyria as a toponym. The most legitimate arguments for continuity would be a continuity in language or culture, as Coptic is a direct descendant of Ancient Egyptian. Claims that modern Assyrians speak Ancient Assyrian are bullshit, and claims of "akkadian inflection" (distinct from loanwords, even Hebrew has Akkadian words) are poorly supported.--Monochrome_Monitor 11:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Monochrome Monitor. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette & outdenting[edit]

The editor asking you not to outdent was correct, and your reply was pretty snarky. "When a long discussion has many indents, the discussion may be awkward to read, particularly on smaller screens. Eventually, for everyone's convenience, a replying editor will "start over" by responding without any colons at all. The {{outdent}} template can be used for this purpose." That's the purpose of outdenting. I usually outdent when there are about 8 indents. The way you do it is simply confusing. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The outdent wasn't purposeful, it was merely a lack of indent. As for ettiquite, I repeat that you're being too nice on this guy, making him think his opinion is worth primetime on wikipedia. How would you like it if a Eurocentric racist edited articles claiming every ancient people was "Aryan"?--Monochrome_Monitor 19:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 21 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC) [[File:Lights ablaze.JPG|80px]m

Warm greetings from Amerija! (yes only we are america and you are not America)--Monochrome_Monitor 20:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


I saw this edit of yours, and was a bit unhappy with it. Firstly, because I think you overly rely on the Mazar source. And also because you removed mention of the olive industry and the Thomas L. Thompson source. Perhaps you'd care to further edit the article and improve this a little? Debresser (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the thompson quote is stating it as fact, when it is a view of a non-mainstream historian. The notion that Judah is from the 8th century (which I previously believed) is primarily based on Finkelsteinian Low Chronology, which has in reason years been refuted. Check out this article. [26] Our article was stuck in the mid-90s.The thompson quote and finkelstein's quote are generally over a decade old, predating major archaeological discoveries.--Monochrome_Monitor 06:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for your reply. Debresser (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
No probalo! :) --Monochrome_Monitor 11:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Israelites (2)[edit]

Hi Monochrome Monitor. Thank you for your improvements to the "Overview" section of the article. I have a question, though, about the section you added about "Non-African American Hebrew Israelites". What makes the three websites you cite in that section reliable sources? Also, in the last paragraph you wrote that "notable" groups that adhere to the doctrine include... and then you mention one group with a Wikipedia article (i.e., a notable group) and two groups without Wikipedia articles (i.e., non-notable groups). Are there no other notable groups? Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 00:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

They are not reliable sources in general, but they are reliable sources on what they believe. GOCC is actually a big player in the movement, though it doesn't have an article you can look at the website and see its not just a crazy with a blog. It's even got its own magazine! Not having an article doesn't it's not notable, it just means one should be created. I know these things from primarily from briefly "studying" Black Israelite youtube and forums. Unfortunately the widely-spread 12 tribes chart has not been to my knowledge covered by a reliable secondary source in full. But it's certainly worth saying that some groups put Latinos and Indians in their coalition.[27] It would be interesting to say more about their beliefs and critically analyze them (tell me if I'm wrong but I feel you and others have a double standard between black fake Hebrews and white fake Hebrews). One thing we could talk about, its mentioned in the link that they have a special "language", aka Hebrew with more a's. Here's a convenient table describing how true Israelites pronounce their words.[28] A taste: Israel is "Yasharala".--Monochrome_Monitor 06:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that I don't know of any reliable secondary sources that discuss those "genealogies" of the Twelve Tribes, and right now, the entire two-paragraph section in a good article is sources to four fringe sources. As you wrote, they may be reliable sources about what those organizations believe, but they are not sources for statements like "While the vast majority of Hebrew Israelites are African American, most Hebrew Israelite groups recognize several other racial groups as fellow Israelites, with each group belonging to different "tribes" (of the Twelve Tribes of Israel), this teaching is often depicted in charts." Do the editors on that article have a double standard? I don't think so—we require high-quality reliable sources for all the material in the article. Unfortunately, if we can't find any about these Israelite genealogies, I'm going to have to remove the section as original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's all primary sources. I'll try and find some more secondary sources..--Monochrome_Monitor 07:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way,M[edit]

Thinking more broadly about kin liability/sippenhaft, I came to the conclusion that, logically, the Christian patristic argument from Matthew 27:25 that planted the seedbed of classic anti-Semitism , i.e. that since the Sanhedrin killed Jesus, and the crowd applauded all Jews by descent (the family of Jews) were ontologically culpable of deicide, is a generalized early form of sippenhaftung. I haven't had time to do much checking, but the connection even there is not apparently made. Worth thinking over. Of course this whole mess is based on conceoptual confusion, the inability to distinguish hypernym and hyponym (things like sippenhaft and the Chinese variants being subsets of collective punishment, restricted to immediate or clan kin. Regards Nishidani (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Well it all depends whether we want to focus on the historic germanic term or on the concept found in many cultures that kin of a member is liable for the members actions. There's probably an evolutionary psychological/environmental discussion of it somewhere. Ex Bedouin law is very much shaped by being in the desert. As for the patristic argument, yeah that's strong evidence that anti-semitism from at least christian times was never wholly or even mostly religious. After all the Jewish religion is named after the Jewish people, not vise versa. Another example is that Spanish priests had to prove their last 3 generations weren't marranos before being ordained, difficult to distinguish from the Aryan certificate necessary in the SS. At any rate there is definitely an ethnic basis for Common Era antisemitism. Islam to a somewhat lesser extent has this feature also, the quran saying jews killed all the prophets and containing verses many modern muslims interpret to mean all jews are descendents of apes and pigs (mystically in human form). Of course the righteous among the jews who recognize Christianity/Islam as the True Religion of God can be forgiven because it validates the claims of both religions to be the True People of God. Jesus couldn't convert most jews in his lifetime with the notable exceptions of the jerusalem church/ebionites/nazarenes, who were condemned as heretic judiazers and anathematized by the 3rd century, unfortunately for those looking for the historical jesus and not The Christ God-Man of Paul. Muhammad did a much worse job winning over the Children of Israel, there's a sura (or sunna/hadith?) about him trying to get at least 12 jews to convert (not an arbitrary number) and he couldn't. And that was in the Mecca period where he basically parroted jewish theology. The epitome of supercessionism was the mythical journey to heaven where the Jewish prophets and the Jewish false prophet (lol, with all do respect to jesus the world did not end in a generation) bowed down to him, and on Mount Zion to boot according to hadith. In the Medinan period he distinguished his religion from Judaism, notably by changing the qibla to the traditional arab pagan site of worship and inventing a story about Abraham and Isaac (both muslims of course) building the thing. He converted some jews, mostly by force. But I digress. The blood curse is not the same thing as sippenhaft even in its nazi form. It's not kin liabilty, it's the liability of an entire people to the nth generation, a sort of original sin reserved for Jews alone that can only be cleaned by the Blood of the Lamb. I can't think of a comparable phenomenon, calling an entire people cursed. It's volkhaft. And don't talk about Amalek because Amalek doesn't exist and don't talk about Settler Rabbis who say he does in the form of Palestinians because they are small minority. What else... oh yeah. What bothers me the most about the blood curse is not that it caused our people great suffering for thousands of years. I'm an American Jew so I know next to nothing about this suffering except when I read comments sections on the internet. (though that may change with our new leader) What bothers me most of all is that it is PURE BULLSHIT. They make pontius pilate a passive bystander who doesn't crucify people without good reason and lets jews crucify people will-nilly when history records that he was an asshole who crucified a shitton of people and tolerated no dissent. "Jews killed Jesus" is an invention to make Christianity more palatable to the Romans. It's not even volkhaft , it's falschevolkhaft. Anydangway. I'm starting to think sippenhaft shouldn't be a separate page. We should merge with collective punishment or rename to "kin liability".--Monochrome_Monitor 23:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Tel Dan Stele[edit]

Thanks for giving your input on the Tel Dan Stele talk page. Would you mind contributing to the discussion on sources? There is currently a clear consensus, in my estimation, for the new sources however it would be great to get more voices. Thank you Drsmoo (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks on my edit reverting disruptive editing and restoring the sources backed by consensus. It's nice to know that it's appreciated! Drsmoo (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please contact me by email[edit]

I cant find your address06:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Tritomex (talk). Weird. Okay.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Lift your act[edit]

I've seen you make bad edits, but your work just now at Amin al-Husseini is close to the worst. Hardly any of your changes are supported by the given sources and some of them are only true in your imagination. You are not allowed to add extra stuff in front of citations without checking whether the citations include it. You just wasted half an hour of my time fixing up the mess you made. You should lift your act or go away. Zerotalk 04:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You should get that stick out of your ass. My changes were modest and you're hugely overreacting.--Monochrome_Monitor 08:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Anyone who thinks that al-Husseini established the Handschar Division doesn't have the least clue about al-Husseini's relationship with the Germans and shouldn't be editting the article. Also read WP:INTEGRITY which explains why you cannot add extraneous material between text and its citation. Zerotalk 23:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
You're harping on a single inaccuracy based on the fact that he more than anyone was responsible for the constitution and conduct of Muslim Bosnians in the 13th. As it was was the article didn't mention their relationship explicitly, leaving it up to the readers to wonder why he was considered liable for their war crimes. Anyone who can't spell "editing" correctly doesn't have the least clue about English orthography and shouldn't be editting articles in the English language. Now be nice or go away.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
El-Husseini's requests to the Germans for the operation of the division were ignored, and he had no say whatever in where they were stationed or what operations they took part in. You can read the book of Lepre about the Handschar for the details. Zerotalk 01:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
You're missing the point. I never claimed he actually ran the division. I would have appreciated your valid correction much more if you had reverted and said "I reverted because that claim was wrong", and not "your edit sucks, go away". People on the internet have feelings, you know.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Name of Syria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Justinus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


All of them are socks of banned EddieDrood who is constantly violating NPOV. (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't know that without ip-check privileges. I don't have such privileges and if I did I couldn't use them without proper authorization. Start a request for sock puppet investigation at WP:SPI.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Yarsanism [edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—Yarsanism —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

--MiguelMadeira (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Generalplan Ost as Genocide[edit]

Although the overall plan for the GPO was as a mass deportation scheme, the goal of it was still ethnic cleansing on a large scale, through any means neccessary. The final solution enacted by the Nazi's to cleanse jewry from europe also originally proposed deportation as the primary method of moving them, however we know how this turned out. The intentions of it, the hunger plan, and other similar plots, was undoubtedly the following: The removal and potential extermination of those classified "inferior races": Ethnic slavs for the most part. There is 0 doubt it was genocide. Numbers and reasons you could contest but not that aspect.

The actual effect of the GPO was primarily undergone through mass famine orchestrated as part of the war effort, however, millions were still executed or killed off by the military as accordance to the plan. If this orchestrated famine doesn't count as genocide, neither should the holodomor and numerous other events listed on the "List of Genocides" page, since that was almost in its entirety famine deaths, and even to this day remains more controversial than the GPO to its causes and the intents. The wikipedia page on the holodomor's causes describes it almost in its entirely by bad rationing plans and unreasonable production goals, listing nothing to do with *ethnic cleansing*, but instead leads the soviets intents towards democide or classicide (is that a word?) to remove the kulak class and potential dissidents from existance instead, which does not belong on the genocide page. If then the holodomor counts as genocide, despite barely fitting the definition set out by the UN, why should the GPO not, which clearly matches that same definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It's quite simple annony. Generalplan Ost was not implemented. With the Holodomor it is the question of intent which makes its status as genocide controversial. But Generalplan Ost was not implemented, and it's silly to call all slav civilian deaths a result of it though undeniably motivated in part by racial policy. The Germans adjusted when they invaded and many groups, such as Lithuanians and Ukrainians, were able to become "honorary Aryans" and serve in the Wermacht.--Monochrome_Monitor 11:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:People of Arab nationality[edit]


Category:People of Arab nationality has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

SOAP and OR on particular low-profile articles[edit]

Hello Monochrome Monitor,

Can you review this page? You seem familiar with this topic. The article is essay-like and mostly OR, rather than being informative. Primary sources are the another issue. I tried to fix some SYNTH, falsifications and OR, but the individual is very determined and probably will do the same problematic edits in the future. (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, the user, for unknown motivation, tries to represent the mostly semi-arid, flat region as if geography of the Alps. It simply misleads the readers. Again, smells like SOAP. (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Most of my familiarity with Assyria comes from studying the Assyrian nationalist movement of Syriac speakers, but I'm pretty well acquainted with Akkad and (to a lesser extent) Babylon. You're right about the soapboxing, I'll see what I can do.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Monochrome Monitor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings[edit]

The Great White North.jpg you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join us for the Months of African Cinema in October![edit]

Africa (orthographic projection).svg


You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.

This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.

Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!

If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc., please reach out to me personally on my talkpage! Cheers!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema![edit]

Africa (orthographic projection).svg


The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:

  • Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
  • Country Winners
  • Diversity winner
  • High quality contributors
  • Gender-gap fillers
  • Page improvers
  • Wikidata Translators
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Monochrome Monitor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Module:2017-18 Iran protests detailed map[edit]

Are you still using this module after you requested deletion of the corresponding template? If not, would you consider tagging it for G7?. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October![edit]

AfroCine - bare logo.png


After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

  • Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
  • Diversity winner
  • Gender-gap fillers
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)