User talk:NSH001/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Look. Just take my requests as one of those Mr Beanish comical interludes in your life

Mate, how the eff do you get a new archive named? I made archive 11, and it doesn't appear on the archive page, and has no proper dating. See! That's what happens when you tell a duffer to pull his finger out and hive off the 200k archive into a fresh page. All I got was a rash of mental hives, as I hove off into unknown waters! Haaaaalllppp!:(Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You're not as daft as you think you are - you correctly set up the new archive, and with the correct template at the top.

I've added a new line to the archive box template at the top of your talk page, which should do the trick. I suspect there's a template somewhere which will do this sort of thing automagically, but as I've not had to archive my talk page, I haven't yet bothered to look around for one (KISS). --NSH001 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I keep simples, but only in my geriatric medical box. Thanks, Yrs ever stupidly :)Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Your re-edit of Rachel Corrie article

In the Rachel Corrie article, you defend your undoing of the my edit of the word "claim" to "report" by saying that the IDF's position is "disputed, so the verb 'claim' is appropriate." Yes, the IDF's position is disputed, but your reasoning for the undo is completely flawed (and reveals an obvious bias in favor of the Palestians and their sympathizers).

As Wikipedia's own guidelines state (and as is generally known by people familiar with the English language), the word "claim" has a negative connotation, as if the person/group making the statement is (or is likely to be) lying (e.g., "He claims he went to school today." [implicit assumption: "but I don't believe him."]). On the other hand, saying that the IDF "reports"... is a neutral term and (here's the point) is in no way inconsistent with the fact that the events leading to Rachel Corrie's death are in dispute. It's simply communicating the IDF's position, and doing so in a neutral way. So, why did you undo "report" and put back "claim"? There can only be one answer: because you're biased.

A special thank you to Yair rand for also noticing your bias and intervening against it. He chose the verb "state" instead of my "report", but that's fine (both terms are equally neutral).--Patrolboat (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, please read

WP:AGF

- comment on content, not on other editors.

Secondly, I think "claim" is entirely appropriate in this case, since the matter is a claim by the IDF that is hotly contested. (Note also that the IDF is not a reliable source for anything other than the views of the IDF.) However I won't revert Yair's edit, as this is a minor matter not worth edit-warring over, and his verb "stated" is better than your "reported" ("reported" implies they are reporting a matter of fact).

And yes, I am biased, but it is not as you appear to think. I am not biased for or against any party in the Israel/Palestinian conflict, but I am a pacifist, and that means I am biased against the use of military force, or any form of violence, including structural violence, and that includes the military and structural violence being used against the Palestinians. I am also biased against discrimination on ethnic, racial or religious grounds. When I was a schoolboy, I made myself unpopular by opposing the strong anti-Catholic bigotry that I encountered in the West of Scotland, where I grew up. Similarly I oppose any form of racism, of which antisemitism, culminating in the Holocaust, happens to be the worst example. Nowadays the main victims of discrimination, in the UK at least, are immigrants, refugees, asylum-seekers, Arabs and Muslims, a discrimination despicably fostered by some politicians and the tabloid media. I am not ashamed to be biased against any of these forms of discrimination.

If you want to know what I think, you should follow, and read carefully, the links on my user page.

--NSH001 (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have time to "read carefully" your detailed points of view -- I believed (and still believe after reading your response), that I made an accurate judgment about the motivations behind your undoing of my word change. Indeed, by your own admission (and I'm sorry for making it personal), you are biased against Israel ("...the IDF is not a reliable source for anything other than the views of the IDF.") Really? And just how do you know that? Do you live in the region (even if you did, you couldn't know that, but at least it would give your assertion a bit more credibility). Or, when you watch the news, do you just believe versions of events that you want to believe?

Anyway, my main point stands: "claim" is a loaded term -- it makes the IDF's position sound false. You still don't get that. I'll try once more (and only once more): It doesn't matter how hotly contested the IDF's version is, the point of the sentence is to communicate each side's position, not to inject the writer's interpretation about who is lying and who is telling the truth. Let readers read the content of the article on its own merit and draw their own conclusions about that.--Patrolboat (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop lying about me and my "motivations". I refer you again to

WP:RS. And you really should take the time to follow those links, you might learn something. You should also, if you want to become a useful Wikipedia editor, follow and read carefully the links in the welcome message I posted on your talk page. --NSH001 (talk

) 20:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Lying? Now who's resorting to personal attacks? Anyway I'm not "lying"; I sincerely believe that you have a bias against Israel (as hard as it might be for you to admit). And once again, behind all the smoke and mirrors, my point stands: "claim" was used in a biased manner (see

WP:CLAIM

) and was rightly edited out of the sentence.

P.S., Yes, I did notice the welcome message you posted on my page, and I very much appreciate it. Thank you.--Patrolboat (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I know what my motivations are, you don't, and you plainly and outrageously lied about it on my page. I explained my motivations, you ignored it and repeated your lying. You also repeatedly violated

WP:AGF on my page, and I do NOT appreciate it. --NSH001 (talk

) 07:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've gotten you so upset; that wasn't my intention. My only intention was to remove a bit of bias from a page concerning Israel and to prevent that bias from resurfacing. Still, I shouldn't have attacked you from the get-go, and I should have at least given you the benefit of the doubt that you were acting in good faith. I do apologize. To avoid personal attacks and just focus on the writing, I will just say that I stand by my opinion that "claim," in the context in which it was used, biased the article (in accord with Wikipedia's own policy

WP:CLAIM) and was rightly edited out of the sentence. I disagree with you that its use was justified because the IDF's version of events is "hotly contested." (irrelevant -- the IDF has a right to state its version of events without prejudgment). I also believe that your assertion that "...the IDF is not a reliable source for anything other than the views of the IDF" is an unfounded and outrageous overgeneralization.--Patrolboat (talk

) 23:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, you misinterpret what I meant about the IDF, when I referred you to

WP:RS. In Wikipedia articles, we can quote statements from the IDF, attributing them to the IDF, but we cannot state, unattributed, in Wikipedia's neutral voice, that something is true merely because the IDF says it is true. That is what is meant by "the IDF is not a reliable source for anything other than the views of the IDF", and it applies to numerous sources without any implications regarding their honesty. Your or my opinions on the honesty, or lack of it, of the IDF are irrelevant to Wikipedia articles. --NSH001 (talk

) 20:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read the sentence in question more carefully; it in no way implies that what the IDF says about the Rachel Corrie incident is true. All it's doing is communicating the IDF's version of the incident. "Johnny says so-and-so." That doesn't lend any credence to what Johnny is saying; it's simply communicating *what* Johnny is saying. But according to your twisted logic, if a person has not positively proven himself to be a reliable source, we should doubt them by default. Wrong. If someone has not positively proven himself to be a reliable source, we should treat their statement with neutrality, and then, in an unbiased way, look at the evidence for or against their statement. Incidentally, I suppose you know for a fact that the ISM witnesses are reliable sources, because you apparently had no objection to the use of the word "said" in the sentence that communicated their version of events.--Patrolboat (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This is getting bizarre. You are simply assuming some stuff about me that I never said, and then responding to me as if I had said it (violating

WP:RS again. Goodbye. --NSH001 (talk

) 19:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm thoroughly convinced now that you're either too biased, or, quite frankly, too dumb to engage in an honest, fruitful debate. Now ramble on some more as you will about WP:THIS and WP:THAT. I have no more time to waste.--Patrolboat (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sukkot

As we happen to be in

Jonathan Sacks

:

Religon does not need, and should never seek, power. The greatest single difference between the G-d of Abraham and the gods of all other ancient civilisations — Mesopotamia, Egypt, of the Pharaohs, Assyria, Babylon and all the rest is that elsewhere the gods were the underwriters, the legitimators of power. The G-d of Abraham was the god of the powerless, the orphan, the widow, the stranger, the weak, the poor, the enslaved. The greatest of all religious figures, the prophets, had the courage to speak truth to power — power isn't holy, truth can't be imposed by force. Only when religions acknowledge their powerlessness do they begin to transform the human situation through acts of generosity and love. Only when they stop competing for power and start thinking of themselves as "creative minorities" do they cease to be rivals and instead become friends. Our living symbol of powerlessness as Jews is the festival that begins tonight, Sukkot, Tabernacles, when we leave the comfort and security of our homes and for seven days eat in huts with only leaves for a roof, recalling the 40-year journey of our ancestors in the desert — that annual experience of vulnerability never lets us forget what religion is about: caring for the powerless, not the pusuit of power.

temp link to audio, (Sacks's talk begins at exactly 1h50:00 into the programme I'll post a permanent link when the talk and transcript are available on the BBC site; apologies for any errors that might have crept into my transcription above)

(update) podcast now available at: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/thought/thought_20100922-1010a.mp3 --NSH001 (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

--NSH001 (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Talking of Sukkot, there's an excellent piece by the brilliant David Dean Shulman, with an accompanying video, here: "Not Since Rome Ruled Have They Destroyed Sukkah in Jerusalem".

--NSH001 (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Michael Tippett

Many thanks for the clean-ups and help with the disambiguation. I agree the article is mostly biography, and will add more about T.'s music as time allows. I thought it best to publish my work on his life as soon as it was finished as the previous article was very sketchy. Andrew Lowe Watson (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent major expansion. I'm interested in him as, apart from his being an interesting character in his own right, I am also distantly related to him on my mother's side. Unfortunately, I have almost zero musical talent or appreciation. If the work you have done is mostly your own, you need to be aware of Wikipedia rules on

Original research and copyright (strange but true - it can be a problem even if you own the copyright). --NSH001 (talk

) 10:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your continued help. Nice to know you are related to such a great man. No, it is not my research - mostly refined from the two big books by Kemp and Bowen. I have read and re-read both until I feel I know all the facts backwards! What is difficult is putting it into a few thousand words. Much of the Kemp is heavy-duty music analysis, but there is quite a lot I still want to write in the music section. I will also add a Recordings section. I think at present the Biography is too long and will reduce it, but I think it needs to be separated from the rest so have reinstated the heading. Please bear with me. I have been a passionate Tippett admirer since I heard the music to the film Akenfield in 1975 and went to the first performances of The Ice Break, the Triple Concerto, the Mask of Time and New Year. So I really want to get this right. Andrew Lowe Watson (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are definitely moving the article in the right direction, and I could even see it becoming, eventually, a Featured Article. Remember you should discuss matters such as article/section length and the "biography" heading on the article talk page (not here), so that others can join in. I understand exactly what you mean, though, about the difficulty of condensing a vast amount of material. However, on a more personal note, have you ever come across Roy Howat? We grew up together in the same small Scottish town (a couple of years apart in age, so we didn't meet all that much). However his mother was good friends with my mother, especially in the last few years when she was dying of cancer, and later after my father remarried, also with my stepmother. Now I may be a talentless musical ignoramus, but my father could play the piano reasonably well (mostly

Bach, and lots of jazz), and after he retired he bought a near concert-quality grand piano. He would allow Roy to play on it whenever Roy was back home visiting his parents. My father's opinion on Roy was that, technically, he was as near perfect as makes no difference, but that he lacked the passion and "feeling" that marks out a truly great performer. --NSH001 (talk

) 21:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I am really chuffed that you think it could be anywhere near FA level. I tried to use the article on Mahler as a model, but I am aware that to reach that level takes a lot of work, polishing and re-editing until you arrive at the best you can do. For me, finding the right level of technical language is important. Some composer articles aim to low, in my opinion ( a recent example is the rewrite of William Walton, which is excellent but does not for really give any musical information beyond what you would find on a programme note or a CD liner), and a few are too musically advanced. What do you think about Musical examples? I am thinking of creating some images files using Sibelius software. I rembember Roy Howat from my student days at Cambridge. He seemed impressive then and always seemed to be spoken of with tones of awe! I seem to remember him playing some fantastic Ravel. He probably won't remember me, though. I was unbelievably shy at that age and did not make friends easily with other musicians. What a waste! Andrew Lowe Watson (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

loonie/looie

hi nsh, i honestly misread looie496's name when i was writting my post here (should of copy-pasted). sincerely, no offence was intended. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, as long as it was a genuine mistake and you've corrected it and apologised, which you have done (though "should of" is an offence against English grammar ). --NSH001 (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

ya, again another oversight. i know it's "should've", wrote it in a rush this morning. and yes, it was a genuine mistake, i have better ways of making my point than trying to childishly characterize other editors as crazy; thanks for pointing it out though. WookieInHeat (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I found no sources to back up your claim that "Sutton is unquestionably the most outstanding coach in triathlon today " and so have nominated the article for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Sutton Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

Good to see you around too. Thanks for the link to that article. Wasn't aware of her case but its interesting how security officials often charge people with the very crimes they are guilty of as a way of avoiding prosecution for their own actions. Enjoying my new life very much though I do miss having time to write more here. Oh well. Maybe in the future. Take care. Tiamut^talk 12:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

User page photo

Is that the Cuillin Ridge on the horizon?     ←   ZScarpia   12:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the main feature on the horizon is the Isle of Arran, behind that you've got the Kintyre peninsula, with the famous Mull of Kintyre on the left (not visible in this pic, but you can see it from where I grew up, and I think, also from there). The photo is taken from the moors just behind Largs (the Haylie Brae viewpoint according to its commons description), looking south-west to Great Cumbrae and Little Cumbrae in the foreground. Little Cumbrae is the small island just to the left of its big brother. Bute is the island starting just to the right of the sunlit water. Little Cumbrae is just a short distance accross the water from Portencross, a favourite childhood haunt for us wee boys. Although the author of the pic is also called Neil, we are not connected in any way I know of, except possibly for a familiarity with the places mentioned. --NSH001 (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah! I staked everything and lost! Wishful thinking I suppose: the Cuillins are one of my favourite bits of the West Coast so I was probably trying to force the view to conform to what I wanted to see. One of the lumps looked very Cuillinish, but I was a bit puzzled about why the the rest of the skyline didn't look a bit more serrated. I've spent a fair amount of time mucking about in the Firth of Clyde area and have seen the hills on Arran from all sides, albeit from sea level, so I will have seen a view pretty similar to the one shown.     ←   ZScarpia   13:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The "Cuillinish" bit is Goat Fell and its immediate neighbours. Goat Fell is quite an easy climb, less than 2 hrs from Brodick pier if you're reasonably fit; the last 250 metres (vertical) is up a steep ridge which gives a good feeling of exposure, while being perfectly safe (not, though, if the weather is windy or icy, when it could be quite dangerous). If the weather is fine the view is spectacular, especially so for a mountain that doesn't qualify as a Munro. When you say "mucking about", do you mean in sailing boats? --NSH001 (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I sail. I climb too, though I've never had the time to go up Goat Fell when we've been anchored within reach. Besides bigger boats, I sail dinghies and catamarans and I windsurf, all of which I've participated in at events run by the National Watersports Centre on Cumbrae.     ←   ZScarpia   18:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for James Stirling (judge)

DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM

Congratulations on the work you did to much improve the article. PS, It's interesting that the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (cited in the article) gets a small detail wrong ("a son and two daughters"). -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wouldn't have been able to do it without your initial work, and I'm sure I wouldn't have found some of those sources you're using. --NSH001 (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Looking at the page hit stats, I see our article got 1.2k hits—but the other links in the "hook" all got more: Wrangler 1.4k, Devil 2.5k, bryologist 2.1k. --NSH001 (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was gratifying to find the bryology stuff. I mostly just did a cluster of qualified searches (eg, "James Stirling Finchcocks") because the name is just too common, and nowadays with more and more printed matter being scanned in and Googleable (albeit often in garbled OCR text), some interesting hits do turn up if you dig down deep enough in the search result listings. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, but I find nowadays the problem is often too much material; it can take a huge amount of time to read it all, select just what is relevant and useful, and rearrange it all into some kind of coherent whole. Glad to see, by the way, that you have access to ODNB—I'd assumed that you hadn't, since it's such an obvious starting point for the bio of anyone notable who is (A) British and (B) dead (and anybody can make the odd little mistake, even the ODNB). --NSH001 (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't had access to it, I hit a login wall. But after the article was featured I clicked on the citation link again on a hunch and now, for some reason, it is publicly accessible. On page http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/36/101036305/ it even says "Oxford DNB subscription required" but clicking on "View James Stirling complete biography" lets you in anyway. I wonder if it could possibly be in order to capitalize on the temporary Wikipedia publicity? By the way, I did try the public domain 19th century DNB and 1901 supplement, but he doesn't seem to be there. I admit I spent rather more time than I originally planned datamining and chasing down leads in Google... sometimes you get carried away with the thrill of the hunt. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to e-mail you the text of the occasional ODNB article now and again (just drop a note on my talk page - but you would have either to enable email in your preferences, or you could email me privately so I have an address to send it to). But as my time here is limited, if you want dozens of them, it would be better to ask at

WP:REX. --NSH001 (talk

) 20:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep it in mind, and I appreciate the offer. :) But for the moment I magically seem to be able to access other ODNB articles as well; for the longer term, well, I tend to move around from topic to topic randomly rather than systematically contributing to any one area. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the inexplicable and magical access to the ODNB only lasted a few days. I just now edited

 Done, no problem. I notice that ODNB have changed their security, so that after the normal logon screen, I'm now presented with a short list of institutions through which I might have access, and have to select one. That might explain why you had (unintended) access for a while, and why it's now gone. --NSH001 (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, advice and generally helpful behaivour in relation to the McLibel case move, and of course for cleaning up after I messed up the close. Its greatly appreciated :-) Bob House 884 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it's always a pleasure to help a new (and obviously useful) editor. And no need to worry that you "messed up" the close, you got it more or less right, just needed a little tweaking. It's moot anyway, since if a move discussion produces no opposition after a week or so, a formal WP:RM process isn't really necessary. --NSH001 (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Just saw the photo on your user page - I don't know if you have come across it already but you may be interested in Sleeping Warrior. I have yet to find a decent Commons image but the Flickr photo is clear enough. Ben MacDui 09:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Er, yes, the last two edits on that page are mine! Not sure I'd want to replace the pic on my user page with one of the Sleeping Warrior, though. The best photo I've seen so far is one appearing on the cover of a book by the West Kilbride Amenity Society, a panoramic view of the Firth of Clyde from Tarbert Hill - the book itself has a lot of problems (for example, it has quite a bit on John Boyd Orr, but doesn't mention that he won the Nobel Peace Prize) but its photography is very good. Maybe I should write to them and reqest a copy of the image, with a copyright release. But thanks for the suggestion. --NSH001 (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being so dense - it has taken me the best part of 2 hrs to clear my watchlist this am and I was too quick to assume. Ben MacDui 11:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, nothing to apologise for. Thanks again. --NSH001 (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, NSH001. I came here to admit that my first impression about you was incorrect. It was this comment that changed my mind. Although I will never accept any legitimacy in comparison the action of Israel to those of the fascists, but I have to admit that apparently not every such comparison means that a person, who made it is an antisemite. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It takes courage to admit when you have made a mistake, and I very much respect and admire it. But just a word of caution: it would be wrong to draw the conclusion that I am not an anti-Semite from that single edit (I could just have been making it up, to create a false impression), just as it was wrong to jump to the opposite conclusion from the Carlos Latuff discussion. Instead, look at my whole contribution record, my talk page and its archives, and follow the links from my user page. You won't find anything anti-Semitic there, just someone who is generally sympathetic to Jews, but highly critical of Israel. (Hardly surprising that a pacifist such as myself can find plenty to criticise about Israel, one of the most highly militarised states on the planet.) So if you can learn the lesson not to jump to conclusions so quickly, that will help you avoid some of the trouble you've been getting into on Wikipedia.

On the subject of your problems on Wikipedia, I think part of the reason is that you only know half the story, and I'd like to take the liberty of reminding you that I recommended two books for you to read here. That will also take courage for you to do, since I'm sure you will find them painful to read, at least in part (in fact, I think you will find the book by the Palestinian woman less painful to read than the one by the Jewish woman, but that's just my guess). As I said before, I won't be at all offended if you choose not to read them. Meanwhile, here's another book you won't have any trouble at all with – the author is a herself a Holocaust survivor, a member of the

ISBN 978 0 7524 5706 2. Regards --NSH001 (talk

) 21:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Targeted killing. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. We don't tag articles such as targeted killing and abortion on the basis of one editor's POV that they are "premeditated murder". Epeefleche (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an outrageous falsehood. I added no such "commentary" or "personal analysis" to the article; I merely added the article to Category:Euphemisms. The description on the category page says: "A euphemism is a mild, indirect, or vague term substituting for a harsh, blunt, or offensive term.". It is, in fact, difficult to think of many terms to which this category is more applicable ("ethnic cleansing", possibly). My edit summary ^{[note 1]} was an accurate explanation of how the term "targeted killing" is a mild term substituting for an offensive one, and not, as you falsely state, adding "commentary" or "personal analysis" to Wikipedia. Again, your analogy to abortion is also wrong, since no-one is suggesting that the term "abortion" is a euphemism for anything; neither do I think that abortion is "premeditated murder". Please stop ascribing to me opinions that I do not hold.

Epeefleche, you have been around here long enough to know that you don't template the regulars. Please don't do it again. It is very offensive behaviour. It is, of course, even more offensive behaviour when you do so, as I have explained above, on the basis of a falsehood or falsehoods.

--NSH001 (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Some people think one should not template the newbies, others says the same about the regulars. What you point to, as you know, is not a wp policy. It is the advice or opinion of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. You have 8,000 edits, and I am sure you can understand that the template, accompanied by the explanation, serves to describe the issue I have with your edit. Your edit was pure POV -- we know that because of your edit summary, in which you explained your personal POV rationale for your edit. We don't call abortion premeditated murder because an editor has that POV; same here, and same with all POV edits that stem from a similar POV. That analogy is precisely on point -- some editors have a POV along those lines, as you do here, but we do not allow them to make the edit that you did here based on that POV. Furthermore, as you know because you have read the guideline that the template points to, the guideline extends to categories. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time with your falsehoods. I welcome constructive comments on my talk page, but please stay off my talk page if your only purpose is to make false statements about me, or to attempt to harrass me. It is very disruptive to have to deal with this sort of aggressive conduct, when I could be getting on with constructive editing. The argument you have made in the last paragraph is completely bogus. You haven't addressed, at all, the reasons why the category is, or is not, applicable, merely re-iterated that you don't like my POV, and then wrongly, and incorrectly claimed that my POV is a reason for rejecting the category. If you wish to discuss the applicability of the category, please do so on the article talk page, and please refrain from disruptive, time-wasting, bogus, false, malicious or intimidatory attacks on other editors.

--NSH001 (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm unclear what "falsehoods" you are asserting. I'm not intending to make any false statements. You added a cat. The addition was explained by your edit summary. That edit summary reflected a clear POV reason for your addition of the cat. Adding cats on the basis of POV is conduct clearly covered by the neutral point of view policy. I brought all of this to your attention. All of this is factual, and anyone reviewing the history can read your edit summary, see your edit, and read the policy to confirm its factual basis. I'm confused as to why you label pointing out such truths, easily verified, as "outrageous falsehood", "offensive behaviour", a "falsehood or falsehoods", "false statements", "attempts to harass", "disruptive", "aggressive conduct", and "completely bogus". It's not an issue as to whether I "like" or "dislike" your POV -- it is simply an issue that your edit is clearly POV, as described in the guideline (I'm sure you don't want me to take up space quoting it for you, as I've already linked to it twice), and POV cat additions of that sort are clearly not appropriate per the guideline. I would suggest, that when one points out to you that you are falling on the wrong side of a guideline, and points out why, a response of "that's an aggressive, offensive, disruptive, bogus, malicious, intimidatory, outrageous false statement or statements and attack" does not hold much water when the facts indicate quite the opposite.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already told you to stay off my talk page. I don't like your POV, but I don't go around harassing you because of it. I request you to do me the same courtesy: stay off my talk page. You dislike my POV, fair enough, you're entitled to that opinion. You may not like my edit summary, fair enough. But the article clearly belongs within the category:Euphemisms as defined on the category page, as I have already explained to you above. The question of whether or not it belongs within that definition has nothing to do with my or your POV, and I will raise it in due course on the article talk page. You are welcome to discuss it there, provided you avoid commenting on other editors.

To make sure you get the message, here it is again: stay off my talk page. Good night.

--NSH001 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

postscript

• Epeefleche has previous form for this sort of disruptive time-wasting. Any readers of this page who would like some amusement should click on this link, where they can read accurate and perceptive assessments of Ep's behaviour. --NSH001 (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Also, click on this link for Epeefleche's proven record of deceit and dishonesty, in the form of multiple sockpuppetry. --NSH001 (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks as though Epeefleche cleared himself of the sockpuppetry allegations. NSH, hope you won't be offended, but I think that you should delete this postscript.     ←   ZScarpia   14:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, ZScarpia, of course I am not offended, you are always welcome to comment here, and if I have made a mistake (regardless of who draws it to my attention), I am always happy to correct it. The block log you linked to isn't very clear, but on investigating further, it appears that Ep did indeed engage in sockpuppetry operate multiple accounts, but in a way that was only a minor infraction of the rules. See the discussion here (I hadn't checked that archive, as Ep labels it "(6/07-8/09)" on his main talk page). Accordingly, I have struck out the sockpuppetry line above. --NSH001 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

While you don't want me to edit here, I'm not required to sit by while you state untruths in your personal attacks on me -- attacks that have nothing to do with my above warning to you regarding your editing. It was found that the multiple accounts I used were appropriate, in line with our guidelines for appropriate use of multiple accounts, but I suggested that I would keep to one account so as to not raise even the spectre of socking -- feel free to contact the sysop in question. In the meantime, please your untruthful personal attacks that, as I said, have nothing to do with my warnings to you. If you have a problem with that, we can always bring it to a noticeboard to have the community opine on your behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't got time to plough through the contribution records of multiple accounts, but I have amended the above to more accurately reflect what I read in your archive. I am sorry if I might have given the wrong impression, as that was not my intention, thinking it sufficient to have struck the main allegation. While you are here, might I suggest that you label your archive(s) correctly, as that might help avoid future problems? Thanks. --NSH001 (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvement. In response to your comment to me, though, there was no infraction of the rules -- not even a minor one. Feel free to contact the unblocking sysop, who assured me of as much off-wiki. As to my archives, I think they're in pretty good shape. Though if there is a material issue as to my archives that relates in any way to my warning to you (i.e., not relating to your un-related attack discussed above), feel free to point it out here. If it is not material, or if it is unrelated to your editing that led to this thread, no need to respond. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You should learn to read more carefully. I said above that you labelled your archive "(6/07-8/09)" (when in fact it covers much more recent material as well) so I didn't bother looking there (first time round). As to whether or not there is an infraction, I invite readers of this page to look at both the SPI report and your archive, linked above. --NSH001 (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your response does not relate to my pointing out to you above, at the top of this string, your problematic editing. All it does is reiterate your wholly unrelated personal attack. I would suggest that when someone points out a problem with you violating a wp guideline, it might perhaps be considered more within wp:civil for you to do something other than manufacture a personal attack that is untruthful, and which is completely unrelated to the concern about your editing. Editors could, fyi, see this as a violation of wp guidelines, and seek appropriate action with regard to your editing privileges. If you have any questions as to whether what I have stated above is true -- please contact the indicated sysop. Otherwise, please stop spreading misinformation, or I will ask for intervention at the appropriate noticeboard. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's be quite clear about this: there is nothing at all problematic about my editing, and you probably know, deep down, that that is the case. If you think that it is "problematic", then raise it on an appropriate board for others to comment. I don't think you will get very far if you do. I am happy to correct a genuine error of mine if someone points it out, but I have already told you stay off my talk page if all you want to do is post time-wasting nonsense. --NSH001 (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

For that sterling fix of my dishevelled page, beyond the call of all duty. It will of course assist the usual purity patrol of kibitzers in digging up 'dirt' for the inevitable attempts to run up further material to make one's charge sheet look like shit, but that is incidental to its poiposes, which is to enable a dull geezer like myself keep check on what the hell he said, when and where! Best Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well you should really thank the guys who wrote the indexing bot, and the {{archives}} template and its sub-templates. It's taken me more than 4 years to accumulate enough verbiage to spill onto more than one archive, so having done the research to index my own archives properly, it's very little work to do the same for you. And don't forget, shit makes excellent fertiliser, especially for a man of your hortative, err, horticultural talents. --NSH001 (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Responded on Magioladitis's talk page, and on the TfD page, where I have suggested the nom be withdrawn. --NSH001 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Socks Socks Socks everywhere. I'd better be disruptive. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Err, what on earth has that got to do with me? --NSH001 (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe I do need to get a life instead of trying to make a sarcastic remark that might appear as if I am trying to eliminate opposition. Anyway I apologize if I have been out of line here. Harassing you was never my intention. I am just amused that someone cared. Thank you for your comment, socks could be annoying, but they don't have to, and maybe you're right certain discussion threads should be shorter. I can also see your point, though not fully agree with you. So uh hmm, sorry. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• BBC Radio 4 Start the Week 1/11/2010 - Interview with Deborah Cadbury on her latest book: sound business principles, not exactly in line with the Milton Friedman school of economics. --NSH001 (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Taking Stock of the Arab Revolutions, Esam al-Amin, 18 March 2011. Excellent summary of the progress so far. --NSH001 (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• We're not being told the truth on Libya brilliant piece by Johann Hari, The Independent, 8 April 2011.

Imagine a distant leader killed more than 2,000 innocent people, and his military commanders responded to evidence that they were civilians by joking that the victims "were not the local men's glee club". Imagine one of the innocent survivors appeared on television, amid the body parts of his son and brother, and pleaded: "Please. We are human beings. Help us. Don't let them do this." Imagine that polling from the attacked country showed that 90 per cent of the people there said civilians were the main victims and they desperately wanted it to stop. Imagine there was then a huge natural flood, and the leader responded by ramping up the attacks. Imagine the country's most respected democratic and liberal voices were warning that these attacks seriously risked causing the transfer of nuclear material to jihadi groups.

Surely, if we meant what we say about Libya, we would be doing anything to stop such behaviour? Wouldn't we be imposing a no-fly zone, or even invading?

Yet, in this instance, we would have to be imposing a no-fly zone on our own governments. Since 2004, the US – with European support – has been sending unmanned robot-planes into Pakistan to illegally bomb its territory in precisely this way. Barack Obama has massively intensified this policy.

His administration claims they are killing al-Qa'ida. But there are several flaws in this argument. The intelligence guiding their bombs about who is actually a jihadi is so poor that, for six months, Nato held top-level negotiations with a man who claimed to be the head of the Taliban – only for him to later admit he was a random Pakistani grocer who knew nothing about the organisation. He just wanted some baksheesh. The US's own former senior military advisers admit that even when the intel is accurate, for every one jihadi they kill, as many as 50 innocent people die. And almost everyone in Pakistan believes these attacks are actually increasing the number of jihadis, by making young men so angry at the killing of their families they queue to sign up.

The country's leading nuclear scientist, Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy, warns me it is even more dangerous still. He says there is a significant danger that these attacks are spreading so much rage and hatred through the country that it materially increases the chances of the people guarding the country’s nuclear weapons smuggling fissile material out to jihadi groups.

So one of the country's best writers, Fatima Bhutto, tells me: "In Pakistan, when we hear Obama's rhetoric on Libya, we can only laugh. If he was worried about the pointless massacre of innocent civilians, there would be an easy first step for him: stop doing it yourself, in my country."

--NSH001 (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• BBC Radio 4, Four Thought, 05:45 a.m. (BST) Sunday 15/5/2011 Talk, recorded live, at the
  RSA. Heard this this morning on the radio, well worth listening to again—on the deadliest war since Hitler. Best not listened to while you're eating your breakfast. --NSH001 (talk
  ) 07:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• "the investigations are invariably a sham"

  this from a military man, Colonel Tom Fitzalan Howard, defence attaché at the British Embassy in Tel Aviv in 2003

  'You know an Israeli soldier is not like a British soldier,' said TFH.

  What exactly was he getting at, I wondered.

  'The concept of minimum force is central to a British soldier who is trained, absolutely, to be accountable for his actions,' he went on. 'The British rules of engagement are very strict on this, and they are always applied. It's quite different with the IDF. For a start their soldiers are very young — conscripts, mainly, though there are professional soldiers. The soldiers are inevitably backed up by their commander and the chain of command. Jocelyn, I have to ttell you' — here he spoke slowly as if for emphasis — 'that the investigations are invariably a sham. This will be difficult for you and Anthony to deal with. A soldier is rarely held to account, and whatever he's done he would never face a murder or manslaughter charge — he'd only be on a lesser charge, perhaps failing to carry out the necessary drills. I really don't want you to expect too much.'

  Hurndall, Jocelyn (2007). Defy the Stars: The Life and Tragic Death of Tom Hurndall. London: Bloomsbury. p. 25.

  ISBN 978 0 7475 8944 0

  .

I've put Andrey Bryukhankov up for Articles for Deletion. There is debate on what makes a triathlete notable. This is the first time I've put up a triathlete for deletion so I'm no aware of all the nuances that makes a triathlete notable. Sounds like you are the expert to ask. Could you take a look a give your expert opinion? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrey Bryukhankov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgwhite (talk • contribs) 23:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time on triathlon bios, but concentrating mainly on the very top triathletes. I really don't consider myself an "expert" on the criteria that make a triathlete notable (or not), though I have PRODed or AfD-ed a few obvious cases. I'm aware that the section on triathletes in

WP:NSPORT needs some work - it's been on my "to-do" list for some time. I'll give the matter some thought, but it may be a day or two before I respond. --NSH001 (talk

) 12:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, NSH001. You have new messages at In fact's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In fact ( contact ) 06:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that you look like you're in an edit war with an anonymous user at Sophie Scholl. Maybe it would be better to open it up for discussion on the talk page. Just a thought. Cognate247 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Normally I would, but this IP editor is engaging in obvious vandalism elsewhere, so I don't hold out much hope. In theory, it's possible it could be genuine, but I think this is really vandalism, since, if the IP editor were serious, he or she would have already provided sensible reasons in edit summaries or the talk page. --NSH001 (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously they suck. Everything is being defaulted to the world championship series main page for live streaming triathlonlive.tv. No idea what they have done, any ideas? Globalwheels (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, been out most of the day, just got back – I'll take a look in a little while once I've sorted a few things out. --NSH001 (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in

Thanks for that, you are obviously more familar with these friendly characters than I am. It's the first time I've been attacked in this way, makes me feel I'm doing something right at last! Your help is appreciated. --NSH001 (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, NSH001. You have new messages at Bkonrad's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

older ≠ wiser 14:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

so, pleeze guv, could you clean up after me. I need a smoke to ease my emphysema, which is blocking sufficient oxygenization on that sector of my brain which is supposed to absorb and master technical things about these fucken templates. Fanks Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I really am as thick as a (Wiki AI complaints?) board. Why do I get doubling up in the ref sections of Bronner et al? :(Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Boy, am I a pain in the ring for anyone who merely hints they might help out. Now, spacing. I just like to see the spacing of sections neat, so one thing doesn't run into another. Like the templates, I am geting cranky about the aesthetic presentation of a page. These days, I'm told, people get distracted after a few sentences. I vaguely recall trhere's a way to do this without double spacing, which is excessive. Any tips?Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, pal. It's not my page, anything you think ought to be done, do it. You're right though, no hurry. My basic concern, to get a poor page on a good subject out of the slough of despond, and up to something close to GA, is fixed. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting the DYK project Victuallers (talk