User talk:RolandR/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Notability and the wiki

Hi, good for getting an account. I have taken the liberty to point out on Talk:Roland Rance that you are a registered user (this is very common, see Talk:Angela Beesley for an example). JFW | T@lk 22:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editing and Reasons

Merged from User talk:81.178.85.213

It might not have been your intent, but you recently removed content from List of British Jews. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Beno1000 22:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


I did indeed state the reason in the Talk Page. I removed Nick Cohen's name, as he has stated explicitly that he is not Jewish. I assume that he was included because someone took it for granted that anyone named Cohen is Jewish. And it does not appear to me that you have reverted the removal, or made any comment on the talk page. RolandR 18:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Please NPOV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Haretz_article

you latest text is not NPOV. Zeq 20:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly NPOV. I quoted the gist and the conclusion of an article in Ha'Aretz. And the quote you imply I deliberately left out repeats "Arab children will not benefit, but Haredi children will". If you have a problem with this, take it up with Ha'Aretz, not with me.RolandR 21:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Selective quotes is not NPOV. Placing an encdote on lead section is not NPOV. Edit warring to over come the objections of other editors is a violation of policy. wordfs you used that are not in haharetz are not NPOV. shall I go on. You are trying to push your political agenda to the top of an encyclopedia article. Violation of WP:Not Zeq 09:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Please reread the Ha'Arretz article and my extract from it, and tell me a) which words I used that are not in the article; b) how the sense of the article differs from what I quoted.RolandR 09:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
As you spend time in wikipedia you will find that those who bleat loudest about "NPOV issues" are prewcisely those who seek to promote their onw POV hardest. Check out Zeq's contributions before you assume good faith. 86.27.72.39 22:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for

The move/revert war issue for Israeli Apartheid has been referred to arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid /SlaveCrixus 17:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Apartheid (disambiguation)]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. /SlaveCrixus 17:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on July 12, 2006 (UTC) to Arab_citizens_of_Israel

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 3 hours. William M. Connolley 07:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Re your mail: see WP:AN3 for your reverts William M. Connolley 08:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I say, you want to talk, talk here. But I checked the links on the 3RR page... it looks valid to me. Maybe read the rules? William M. Connolley 08:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Please check again. I edited the article, to introduce new information and correct stylistic errors. It was reverted three times by edirtors who I believe to be acting in concert. I reverted twice only. I then edited to remove an unrelated comment. The final edit was to add just part of my original edit; the true, and documented, statement that "East Jerusalem was illegally annexed by Israel in 1980". I note that this has now been edited by a further editor, to remove the word "illegal", which is used explicitly in the UN document which I cited. I have read the rules, and I don't believe that I violated 3RR.RolandR 09:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. I suppose I'll have to spoon-feed you. The rules clearly state that *unrelated* reverts count. So removing the unrelated comment counts. As does restoring only part of your edit William M. Connolley 15:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your condescending tone, and I really don't understand. The unrelated edit was not a revert. You seem to suggest that three separate, unrelated, edits to an article would lead to blocking. But the policy clearly states "if an editor makes three separate successive edits, each of which reverts a different section, but with no intervening edits by other editors, this is counted as one revert". Thus my removal of one comment, which I had previously not edited, and my addition of another within half an hour should not be counted as two reverts. These were separate, unrelated, edits.RolandR 22:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
This is boring, you have forgotten but with no intervening edits by other editors William M. Connolley 07:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help please

Hi Roland. I reformulated the election issue incoporating the information from the article you provided. Isarig has reverted my edits citing a bunch of non-sequiter stuff I can't really follow. Would you mind looking at the previous version and editing it appropriately (if it needs such editing)? Additionally, I would appreciate your insight on the discussion on the talk page. Thanks. Tiamut 11:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear RolandR. Thanks so much for your message and help in locating sources. I scanned the document you sent in Hebrew (though I have to admit, my Hebrew skills are rather poor, since I studied at the university level in North America in English). So I defeinitely would appreciate a translation of the relevant sections. By the way, I love your user page (content and design wise!) Tiamut 13:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi RolandR. I noticed the discussion above and thought I might share my experiences with you. Check out the discussion on 3RR at this page: [2]. Thanks again for your posts. Tiamut 14:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikEd

The wikEdlogo

Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus: • syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • more fixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages • convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjust the font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Often it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Cacycle. I had some difficulty installing it over the previous editor, and eventually had to remove that first and then install wikiEd. It seems to be OK now, I look forward to trying it out. It certainly looks a lot friendlier and easier to use than the old editor. --RolandR 12:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plaut email

Hi, for the record I don't think Plaut's email about the address list is particularly encyclopedic, and the source (copy of mailing list posting) doesn't seem to satisfy the guidelines at WP:RS. I have no doubt it is true, but rules are rules. It would be different if the episode was published in a recognised magazine. --Zerotalk 00:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning on Steven Plaut

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Steven Plaut. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ST47Talk 20:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion continued at User:ST47#Requesting_Your_Help_to_stop_vandal--RolandR 13:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Bukay

Roland, I strongly urge you to read WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden, and consider in particular the implications of the latter for your editing on David Bukay. Also, plagiarism is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read it, and I don't see the relevance to my edits of David Bukay. I note the statement that "the BLP policy that he cites in defense of his position specifically states that if an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it", and would suggest that this reflects on those who are removing the materia;l that I have added. And I really don't understand the allegation of plagiarism. I am quoting and acknowledging sources; if you think this is plagiarism, then nearly every Wikipedia editor is guilty in nearly every article.--RolandR 23:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't find a Wikipedia policy statement on plagiarism. However, I think we all know what it is. To quote Plagiarism, "Plagiarism is the practice of 'dishonestly' claiming or implying original authorship of material which one has not actually created, such as when a person incorporates material from someone else's work into their own work without attributing it". I have been meticulous in my citation of sources, and the accusation of plagiarism is simply a red herring, raised in order to remove unpalatable quotations from the article.--RolandR 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You copied large sections of text without in any way indicating you were quoting a source. More fundamentally, you created an biography which is essentially nothing more than an attack article on Bukay. As it is, the article is 70% negative - you have cherry picked what you consider to be his most radical and outrageous views, and solely quoted them in the "Views" section, while not providing him any forum for promoting his own version of his views. Your previous version was even worse, and, frankly, would have constituted a blocking offense had I not cleaned it up a little for you. The Rachel Marsden case hinged on The typical negatively biased version of Rachel Marsden contains elaborate negative information, but very little positive or neutral information. Take a very careful look at the Rachel Marsden article now. Look at the history as well. Is that the fate you are hoping for for the David Bukay article? If I were you, I'd accept an article that is only 70% negative, and not insist it needs to be 80% negative. Jayjg (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I indicated that I was quoting. The passage started "According to the Arab Association for Human Rights", and the quotes were in quotation marks. What else was I supposed to do -- write it in a funny accent? I honestly can't see why you thought my previous version was worse, and as you will see I have retained all of your changes, except the removal of the alleged statements in class. In fact, I don't think I have removed any pro-Bukay comments from the article -- though I have several times deleted vandalism by malicious editors who have added derogatory comments about me to the main text.
By the way, I didn't create the article. I noticed that it existed, yet did not even mention the controversy around his views. It was surely legitimate and necessary to add this material. --RolandR 09:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

Try warning users before putting them up on the WP:AN3 page. It is not always prudent to believe that they are sockpuppets. In case you want to ascertain if they are; go to WP:RFCU and present the evidence. The sockpuppets would be blocked. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I accept your advice, and would act this way in normal citcumstances. I did in fact post a vandalism warning, though not for 3RR, on the relevant userpage. The reason I assumed sockpuppetry was because the behaviour exacrtly mirrored that of several confirmed and blocked sockpuppets; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Fumigate RolandR 13:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ilan Pappé

You have declined the request to semi-protect Ilan Pappé, on the grounds that "There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time." I think you should look at the logs for the now-protected Steven Plaut, David Bukay, and Kurt Nimmo, and if possible at the deleted logs for Roland Rance, and reconsider. The latest edits were clearly made by the same person/people, using the same language and accusations. We can be certain that this page will continue to be vandalised in the same libellous way until it is protected, when the culprit/s will move on to attack another anti-Zionist Jew. Why wait for the inevitable recurrence of vandalism before acting? If the article is semi-protected, established bona fide editors will still be able to edit it, but the string of disposable accounts set up in order to carry out such attacks will be stymied. RolandR 02:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think semi-protection is necessary. The problematic user(s) has/have been blocked. -- tariqabjotu 03:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
And the same libellous and disruptive edit has now been made by User:Harmont. This will keep happening until the article is protected.--RolandR 15:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked the user as a suspected sockpuppet and semi-protected the article. -- tariqabjotu 15:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friend and Comrade

Hello, I am realtively new to wikipedia, but it's nice to meet someone who isn't a mad Pro-Zionist at Wikipedia. I have already left a message at Abu-ali's talk page and I suggested to him that those of us who want to counter the Pro-Israel bias at wikipedia need to stick together. I have been involved in a highly contentious battle with Isarig on the second intifada for the past few days. I disputed a number that said that the number of non-combatants killed on the Israelie side was 77% where as the number of Palestinians non-combatants killed was only 36%. Like you I was banned for a while by William Connelly, who from your correspondence above seems very rude and nasty.

At the moment I seem to be winning on the Intifada article, but I wondered if you had anything you could contribute to this article to help me rebute Isarig and the others. annoynmous 18:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Serial vandalism

I'll look into this, some. We have a variety of tools at our disposal -- picking a particular set would depend on the situation. I'll check out the accounts listed in those prior checkuser requests, and see if I can build up an MO and figure where to go from there. If there's anything you think I should know, feel free; mainly, right now, I need to figure out their habits and patterns. Luna Santin 00:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty -- for the time being, I've put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Fumigate again. I've put in a word with some of the people on RC patrol about this (myself included), and done some other things I shouldn't go into too much detail about, so hopefully we'll catch onto this more quickly, if they return. Will see if there's anything more for me to do, at this point. In the meantime, feel free to let me know if I'm missing any such abuse, or if there's anything else I should know. You shouldn't have to put up with abuse of this sort, under any circumstances. Luna Santin 01:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User RanceRol

Looks like you-know-who is back as user RanceRol. Shall be blocked. --Zerotalk 10:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zero. Can you also block User:Greenran. Obviously set up as an attack on genuine User:Rangreen, and making the same edits as Rancerol.--RolandR 10:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. --Zerotalk 11:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
There was yet another one taken care of this morning [3]. Regards, Huldra 10:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I really don´t envy you this situation, and I´m lucky in that I have never encountered the same. I don´t have any good suggestions, but I think you can note that it did not take many minutes before this last version was blocked. And the more people get to be aware about him/her, the better. I would suggest that you collect all the information you have on a subpage, ( I see that Jayjg has done that on a couple, see here: [4]). Then somebody "new" to the situation will quickly get the picture. Best of luck to you, regards, Huldra 14:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC) PS: it only took 2 minutes from I reported it on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to all edits were reverted and s/he was banned; that´s not bad!

[edit] Isarig

Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think? Abu ali 20:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gilad Atzmon

What makes you think that User:Ednas is GA himself? Isarig 16:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your analysis. Isarig 00:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Rantshole

I was just leaving a block message at this page, when something odd happened; when I checked the history I discovered that I'd overridden you edit in an edit conflict (possibly because I Previewed and then Saved?). However, your edit consisted of blanking the Talk page in order to replace it with a vandalism warning. Why? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your feelings, but I think that blanking a Talk page is a bad idea in general, and especially when it also removes an earlier warning. If you need any help dealing with him, though, I'll do my best. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Rosen

Roland, you have removed the category regarding the British UK SWP (obviously since the party does not organise in Northern Island the category is wrong), but not my own addition linking Rosen to the SWP. In relation to the Socialist Worker letter on Atzmon and at other times Rosen has been referred to as an SWP member. Please clarify his precise relationship to the SWP, if you know what it is. Philip Cross 12:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification and the link. Cheers! Philip Cross 14:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your solidarity! Abu ali 08:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, RolandR! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undeletion

Dear Comrade, I am trying to get an article Adam_Keller_court_martial on the court Martial of Adam Kellner undeleted. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Adam_Keller_court_martial. I think the article is worth keeping and helps show that Israelis are not all gun-toting settlers, and that a certain level of revulsion exists in Israeli society to the repressive actions of the state. If you find anything constructive to add to the deletion review discussion, please feel free to have your say. Fraternally yours Abu ali 21:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Keller article

I hope Adam Keller is not too dismayed to find a biography of himself on Wikipedia. And I hope that our zionist friends don't don't use the article as a vehicle for character assasination. Abu ali 14:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the compliment

Your taking the effort to write my biography is a nice compliment. I have been the spokeperson of Gush Shalom since its foundation in late 1992 and before that I was the spokesperson of the Shelli Peace Party 1980-1983 and later of the Progressive List for Peace which was created by the more left wing splinter resulting from the split of Shelli in 1983. You can also mention that as an eighteen-year old conscript I wanted very much to be a combat soldier and that my decision to become "disobedient" while on reserve military duty started from the Lebanon War of 1982, when it was manifestly clear that the war was not fought for Israel's survivial but for implemeting "a new order in the Middle East". I have been three times imprisoned in military prisons: one month in 1984 for refusing to go to Lebanon, three months for the famous graffiti incident in 1988, and one month in 1990 for refusing military service altogether in rotest at the pardon given to four soldiers who had beaten a Gaza Palestinian to death in front of his children (they got nine months for this act, but got a pardon after two and a half). While I was imprisoned in 1990 I refused to wear a military uniform, wasundressed by force and a uniform pout on me, and started a hunger strike. After two weeks an army phychatrist diagnosed me as "metally unfit for military service". I also was imprisoned many timesby the civilian police,unsually for no more than a few hours but once for eight days, for either writing graffiti ("defacing real property" is the legal term) or for participating in unautorised demonstrations. I was alsoonearrested by the French police for wrting anti-Le Pen grafitti in the Paris metro.

I have studied history at Tel-Aviv University (1977-1982) and got a B.A., but found myself unable to combine continued academic studies with intensive daily political activity and chose for the latter. While at the university I worked closely with the present Hadash Knesset Member Mohammad Barakeh, then a fellow student, in the framework of CAMPUS (which is the Hebrew acronym of "Student Social and Political Involvement Group). There is some relevant info in the Barakeh Wikipedia page. Aside from the political details I work as a translator and freelance journalist (in addition to being the editor of the Other Israel). I am married to Beate Zilversmidt, a veteran peace activist in her own right, who was in the 1980's active in the Amsterdam-based Jewish-Palestinian Dialogue Group, until we met during a conference in 1986, and in 1987 she came to live with me in Israel and share my work. I have one son, Uri Ya'akobi, born in 1984 of a laison with Rama Ya'akobi who is an activist of the Jeresualem Women in Black (and still a good friend of me and my wife). Uri served a half year prison term in 2002-2003 for refusing to join the army (unlike me, he is a complete pacifist who would not join any army anywhere).

I saw you are a vegetarian. So am I since the age of sixteen, and a complete vegan since 1997. I also regularly feed street cats of whom there are many in the street near my home (in Holon, a large "unfashonable" (lower-middle class) suburb of Tel-Aviv, and I support animalrightsd groups in Israel though having no time to be actively involved in them. Make what you can of all this, thanks again for taking the trouble. Adam Keller 14:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

[5] Abu ali 11:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

see attempt to ban me at See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#personal_attack_and_abuse_of_personal_userpage. Maybe you can intervene and ask this individual to calm down? Abu ali 11:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR -- 24 hour block

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

—— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 01:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I mis-counted the edits.

ASlthough Eagle 101 has removed the block he mistakenly placed on me, I am still autoblocked and unable to edit. I urgently nreed to replace several abusive links placed all over Wikipedia. Please help! RolandR 10:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Follow this. yandman 10:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 81.179.79.225 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: yandman 10:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel Shamir

RolandR, I have wikified the opening of this article to indicate his year of birth. As far as I can tell this does not appear to be in doubt. Obviously, if you know otherwise... Philip Cross 18:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

====Regarding reversions[6] made on {{subst:currentmonth}} {{subst:currentday}} {{subst:currentyear}} (UTC) to Steven Plaut====

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning, but aviod making any reverts within 24 hours of this warning in order to avoid any confusion. ST47Talk 23:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counterpunch Article

RolandR I don't understand, why are you helping some mad Zionist fool bias the article on Counterpunch. The article already contains links to accusations of anti-semtism from that moron Steven Plaut, why does this extended diatribe of a paragraph need to be there which is obvious POV pushing. There is absolutely no evidence to support anything in that extended paragraph and the only purpose it serves is this fool going on an extended rant. RolandR, I was under the assumption that you and I were on the same page and I would think you would to help me block this fool, not restore his delusional edits. Annoynmous 20:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Because Counterpunch is playing a very dubious role here, and in effect undermining the anti-Zionist position. It is publishing articles by characters like Shamir and Atzmon, which deliberately blur the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism and attack Jews in the stupid belief that this somehow helps the Palestinian cause; it has published false and malicious attacks on anti-Zionist activists (including me and my friend Tony Greenstein), but refuses to publish our response; and it is lending credence to the argument of reactionaries like Plaut that opposition to Israel is necessarily and automatically antisemitic. If we do not respond to this, if we cover it up and pretend that everything is alright, then we are ourselves aiding this deception and strengthening Israeli propaganda. The paragraph is true, no matter who wrote it -- and, as you will see from the article on him -- I am certainly not a fan of Plaut.RolandR 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

First off your assumption that the article is true no matter who wrote it strikes me as an extremely arrogant thing to say. The fact is that there is not one link or corroborating source in the unkown users paragraph. From the way it's written it's obvious that this is just his own biased viewpoint that he wants to get across and not some carefully researched point. I have read the article on counterpunch that mentions your friend Tony Greenstein and as far as I can tell the criticism in the article was simply Mr. Greenstein's suggestion that Atzmon not be invited to a convention sponsored by the SWP. I think this is a valid criticism and this whole support for the annoynmous user smacks of the personal rather your thinking he has a legitimate point. I agree that Atzmon is a controversial figure and that one can legitimately criticise statements he's made, but those should be made on his article, not counterpunch's. Counterpunch as you also no publishes articles by Uri Avnery someone who is far from an anti-semite. You need to look at the wording this phantom user used in his article describing Atzmon and Shamir, "explicitly anti-jewish rascists", who knows I may come to agree with that assumption after some more thorough research on both men, but it would still be my opinion and not absolute fact. I think most people agree that both men have rather ambigous arguments that could be interpreted both ways. As for the nonsense about Ernest Zundel, do you really beleive that Cockburn and St. Clair are neo-nazi holocaust deniers as the user claims. Alexander Cockburn may be anti-zionist, but he's also written articles bashing christopher hitchens for holocaust denial comments he's made in the past. Why can't the passages of counterpunch being accused of anti-semitism suffice instead of this hastily written piece of opionated garbage. RolandR I have great respect for you and have silently cheered you on in your attempts to show up that douchebag Plaut and I sincerely hope that when your ban lifts for that article you go right back to fighting the bastards. However, I beg you don't let whatever legitimate grievance you may have with Atzmon contaminate this article by unwittingly being sucked in by zionist garbage. annoynmous 01:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

RolandR I hope that I haven't come across as overly harsh, because I have the greatest respect for you and hope that we could be allies in the future. I would hate for this incident to lead to a prolonged antagonism between us. I'm sure that you are sincere in your beliefs and I am in no way accusing you of "betraying the greater cause" or some nonsense like that. I hope thats not how my comments came off. It just that I read Counterpunch regularly and it is one of the few refuges we have here in America from the insuferable corporate media. It is one of the the few publications here willing to take up the cause of the palestinians, and I fear that because of this paragraph there going to come off as a bunch of neo-nazi rascists. I just think what ever criticism's of Atzmon and Shamir need be made should be made on there pages, not on Counterpunch's. Even if I did think some mention of them on this article would be appropiate, I would rather you right it than the zionist moron who wrote this paragraph. annoynmous 02:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i accept your point, and have added a sentence and refs to the article detailing the criticism from anti-Zionist activists. Counterpunch are of course not a bunch of neo-nazi racists. But I am very sceptical of some they work with, and I think that their refusal to publish -- or indeed even acknowledge -- responses by left activists attacked in their pages is reprehensible. RolandR 13:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well know I'm a Nazi apologist according to the unkown user. I warned you about this RolandR, this guy isn't doing this because he's concerned about the blurring between anti-zionism and anti-semitism, he's a mad zionist who hates counterpunch because they criticize Israel. To him, everyone is a neo-nazi holocaust denier. I still think the critique of Atzmon should be on his page and not on counterpunch's, but I have respect for your opinion and won't press the matter any further. My edits to your writing were simply trying to give it a more neutral sense in that it is only your opinion that Atzmon blurs the lines between anti-zionism and anti-semitism. I happen to think your wrong on Atzmon, he may be rather harsh in his wording sometimes, but I don't think he has any great overiding hatred against jews. Israel shamir is a another matter, and I do agree that Counterpunch may have shown poor judgement in running his articles. However, we can discuss that at another time and for now I won't make any further edits on your writing. I must however stress that the unkown user is seriously starting to piss me off and I will continue to revert his edits if he keeps trying to add in his biased paragraph. I really don't like banning anyone from an article, but if he persists I would suggest you try and ban him from the article. annoynmous 06:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

RolandR I don't if you been reading the discussion page lately, but suffice to say it's gotten pretty ugly between me and the unkown user. I frankly don't like the guy, but I'm gonna try and put aside by anger and try to embrace a mutual compromise that both he and I would like. Will Beback has lifted the ban and I have suggested that you do another rewrite that this time include Israel Shamir as well as Atzmon. The unkown user also wants some mention of Alan Cabal article on Ernest Zundel, but I think that should be left out as it is only in the print edition of counterpunch and can only be referenced through blogs that mention it. However, I guess you should probably talk more with the unkown user directly about coming to a compromise in that area. Despite our dislike for each other we both seem to trust you and feel you would be a good mediator for both our viewpoints. We are both holding off editing in wait of your new contributions.

annoynmous 21:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have been following the battle there. Although I haven't intervened directly, I have posted warnings on the editor's talk page not to make personal attacks, and not to threaten legal action. I've replied more fully on the article talk page about my reluctance further to amend the article. RolandR 22:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
RolandR would you please come and talk to this guy again. Frankly I don't care what you say to him as long I don't have to deal with him anymore. I frankly don't blame you for not wanting to change the paragraph you've written and agree it is sufficient for now. I'm not asking you to do that, just do something so he'll go away.
I literally can't stand this guy anymore. I don't know why, but every time I make up my mind not to talk to him I keep coming back even although it makes me upset. As you can see on the talk page I posted another post after I said I wasn't going to post anymore. This guy just irks me so much that I can't help but respond. I'm not asking you to commit to anything with him, just talk to him for a little while so I don't have to. Then maybe he'll go away and my blood pressure can go back down.annoynmous 22:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism in Israel

Hi Comrade, Have a look at [7] and Talk:Racism by country. Our Zionist friends are trying to purge any reference to Israeli racism from Wikipedia. And so far they are succeeding. regards, Abu ali 20:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.... Abu ali 10:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong edit apology

Dear RolandR - I am sorry about the mistake, however I cannot remove my text as the article has gone from the wiki. Kotovasii 19:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Sockpuppet User:Dorightnik

I have reverted these [8]. Let me know if I can be any help. See you soon. --Duncan 21:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New sockpuppet

I just blocked User:Rolandshat indefinitely, for obvious reasons. Also, I've added that blogspot site he keeps vandalizing with to Shadowbot's blacklist, so I should be able to keep tabs on him in the future. Shadow1 (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there no way to write a bot that automatically reverts any mention of Roland beind added? --Duncan 10:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Zionism

Maybe you help here [[9]]? ابو علي 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks a bunch

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For identifying a poem (A Life) that I was looking for. Bless sins 22:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's very considerate of you.Bless sins 22:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] indiginous or minorities?

I see there is another edit war on Arab citizens of Israel. Are the Beduin and Druze indiginous? Or are the only indiginous those who live in Brooklyn? Who knows. The amusing thing is for all the waring on the beginning of the sentence, noone is challenging the statement at the end of the sentence (that relations between the community and the state are warm). Try telling that to the Al-Ataika family [10]. Also [11] is worth reading. ابو علي 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This issue was discussed months ago, and several editors explained why the word was POV, and why the source did not support the claim being made. User:Tiamut has decided to renew the edit war over this, which I thought had been settled back in December. If you wish to participate in the debate, please do so on the Talk page of the article, but making blind reverts as you have been doing is not acceptable. Isarig 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That is not an accurate account. Only one editor -- you -- even attempted to explain why this factual and sourced statement was POV. Sevreral editors agreed that it was a valid term, and at least six different editors have reverted your continued removal of the term. User:Tiamut has clearly been taking a break from Wikipedia, and came back to discover that an issue which she believed had been settled by consensu, had subsequently been reverted by you. If there is an edit war here, then you are clearly one of the nmain combatants.
No, you need to read much more carefully. I refer you to archive 2, section 46, where in addition to myself, Zeq and Jaygj agreed that it was POV, and to archive 2, section 32, where an anon editor first raised this issue. So, 4 different editors found it POV. Isarig 06:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not the case. In section 32, an unsigned comment asserts, without any reasons, that this is a POV term. (Is there any way to see the page history of an archived page?) Section 46 doesn't deal with this at all, I think you mean 45. Again, you, Zeq and Jayjg assert, without any evidence, that this is a POV statement. You can shout as much as you like, but unless you can provide some backing for your argument that this neutral and factual term should be ethnically-cleansed from the article, it should remain there. RolandR 09:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
In any case, it is ridiculous to imply that the Palestinian Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine. This is characteristic of the fake scholarship of Joan Peters and Alan Dershowitz, and carries unfortunate echoes of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1947-8 and subsequently. The term is accurate, neutral, appropriate and used in the source cited, and it should stay in the article. RolandR 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That's all very nice, but here on WP, we are not out to pick sides and decide which arguments are valid and which are not - we are here to accurately describe both POVs. If you insist on including the POV claim that Arabs are indigenous, we have no choice but to include the opposing POV, that they are recent immigrants- no matter how much you personally dislike Peters or Dershowitz. Isarig 06:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Roland. Your sum-up is much more accurate than that given by Isarig. When objections were raised to the term, I defended it use, more than once (I believe successfully, since no one attempted to remove it immediately after those discussions). As you have quite accurately pointed out, I have been on a hiatus (and was not involved in the "edit war") and was rather disappointed to come back and see that the word was removed again despite the source defending its use and the quite obvious history of Palestinians in the region. I would finish by saying that I am disappointed that Isarig sought to misrepresent my actions, and on your talk page no less. Thanks for alerting me. Tiamut 19:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
PS: Could you check out Al-Aqsa Intifada, the debate over the tactics section? Thanks. Tiamut 21:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Another one, Law of Return. Am I way off base? Tiamut 21:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That reminds me

Before I took my hiatus, you translated volumed of material from Hebrew into English to help improve the Arab citizens of Israel article. I have not forgotten your hard work, even though I could not include all the material because of persistent edit-warring from parties with rigid POV. I intend to get bak to it one day, but until then, I wanted to award you:

The Barnstar of Diligence
for your contributions, including extensive translations of source material, and a voice of reason with attention to detail, all beautifully displayed on talk pages and in your edits Tiamut 12:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tea RolandR. It totally made my day, really. It's so nice to open your talk page and be greeted by people with kindness and intellect. Take care. Tiamut 18:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block on political grounds?

see [[12]] ابو علي 23:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


  • Hey Roland, have you checked out the above link lately? Tiamut 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indigenous Palestinians

Hey Roland. I though you might want to contribute your thoughts at [13] considering your lengthy dicussion of the issue at Arab citizens of Israel. Tiamut 03:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly ambiguity about the meaning of the term "indigenous". I have already been taken to task on Talk:Arab citizens of Israel for "not knowing the meaning of indigenous". I do indeed know the meaning, and refer to Chambers Dictionary, which defines it as "native born; originating or produced naturally in a country, not imported, opp to' 'exotic. In this sense, Palestinians are inarguably indigenous to Palestine, and I was reacting to the repeated removal of the term from the article. It would appear, from comments in the Edit summaries and the Talk page, that the main reason for removing the term -- which actually appears in the source cited -- was not any argument about Palestinian indigenous status, but rather a belief that mentioning this somehow challenged the claim of Israelis/Jews (it is not clear which) to indigenous status in Palestine. But the inclusion of the term in the article has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits, or otherwise, of this claim, which can be debated if the need arises.
It appears that a second debate has now been opened, on the status of Palestinians as an "indigenous people". This, it seems to me, is a separate scientific debate; not having any training (nor much interest) in anthropology, I do not really qualified to contribute. But I would suggest that this is, at present, a distraction from the original issue, which was maintaining the integrity of the quote in the original Arab citizens of Israel article. This relies on the normal, dictionary sense of the word "indigenous", and not on any specific anthropological use. Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine, whether or not they qualify as an "indigenous people". The repeated references to Joan Peters make it clear that some editors here dispute this fact, and promote the false history that has them immigrating as a result of Zionism. I believe that the quote I brought from Ahad Ha'Am should help to nail this falsehood, and I will find a way to introduce it into the article itself. RolandR 12:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Very good point. I will support your efforts there of course, but will continue painstakingly making the case over at the Indigenous Peoples page, because of the burgeoning involvement of Palestinians in Indigenous peoples forums, a phenomena that is bound to have implications for future status negotiations on key issues like refugees (if we ever reach that stage). It's been educational for me anyway to explore the difference betweent he meanings of indigenous and learn more about the fora available. I hope to provide a similar service to those interested in understanding the issue of Palestinian indigeneity, from all of its angles. That said, on a personal note, I believe all people should live wherever they feel most comfortable and that boundaries are ridiculous lines in the sand that shouldn't have been drawn in the first place. But that's fodder for another discussion in other times, hopefully those to come in the near future. Tiamut 14:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course I agree with you on boundaries. Some years ago, I was an editor of Border and Territorial Disputes, which confirmed for me the arbitrary and irrational basis of all borders. Meanwhile, have you seen the proposed Democratic Constitution from Adalah? We need to include this in Arab citizens of Israel. RolandR 14:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks very cool. By the way, the discussion at the RfC is getting very interesting now. You might want to look it over. Also, these links might help in clarifying some problems in the Arab citizens of Israel article. I came upon them researching for the RfC. [14] and [15]. Plus, there's this great article on Palestinian Bedouin identity and issues [16], though it would be prefereable to find the Journal it was cited in, to put to rest any WP:ATT challenges. (Did you hear about this policy change thing by the way? WP:RS is upgraded to policy from guideline and merged with WP:V to become WP:ATT. As long as it is applied evenly, which it is not unfortunately, but here's hoping for better days:)Tiamut 16:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ezer Weizman quotation (:he: source)

I appreciate your providing the link to the full quotation in context. As it turns out, the whole thing including its parenthetical explanation needed correcting, which I've done. The result is perhaps "less punchy" than a blatantly "notorious quote" but disturbing nonetheless. We'll see what other Users may have to say (or not) in subsequent edits. Anyway, good pickup! -- Thanks, Deborahjay 23:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Keller

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to Adam Keller, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

despite your eagerness to claim "hostile POV editsd, as per talk"[17], you've made the error of not inspecting both on the edit made and the fact that conversation on the talk page seems to be me & adam keller himself who does not deny any statement par the pro-hezbollah tag which was not reintroduced.

i consider your edit to be a well minded mistake but i suggest that in the future you pay better attention to both the text edits and the talk page before you make accusations. Jaakobou 22:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so patronising. Of course I read the talk page; you are distorting its content here. The truth is that there was an edit war going on, in which you played a prominent role; that Adam Keller objected to many of the political characterisations in your edits; that the article was protected as a result; and that, as soon as the protection was lifted you again made many of the same disputed changes, introducing objectionable material while deleting relevant information. RolandR 23:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Adam Keller, you will be blocked from editing.

apparently, you decided in advance that i am sticking to the same edit as before[18], i suggest you go over the new/current version of the article and dispute the tags you think are not well sourced or unbalanced rather than resort to a blind revert "war" over materials you havn't taken the time reading.

i add that I had the article protected in order to cease the intrusion of an annon. user who cannot read hebrew who was disputing every edit. once the page was blocked and "his version" happened to be the one that stayed, he did not resume talks on the talk page. Jaakobou 07:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Adam Keller, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. asside from other activity, you have removed the criticism section of the article under the claim that the information is not cited in the refrence[19] - due the this being not your first "mistake" on the article you get a 3rd level warning rather than a 1st level warning.

here is the citation as appeared in the article: "The influential dovish commentator Nahum Bar'nea wrote in today's "Yediot Aharonot": "Except for the lunatic fringe leftists".

the raticle has been reverted to it's original status.

p.s. "apartheid wall" is not WP:NPOV. Jaakobou 23:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

i am waiting for quite some time for your response on the talk page. Jaakobou 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no comment to make on your unfounded and ad hominem diatribe. You have decided that Adam Keller is a liar, and therefore automatically disbelieve any statements by him unless they conform to your preconceived positions. I cannot discuss this rationally with someone who takes such an irrational stance. RolandR 19:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
(1) pretty much all the sources for the article were published by keller or friends of his group.
(2) numereous innacuracies were found - i.e. "lunatic","alongside" etc...
we should come to some agreement of how we handle criticism on the keller article, and no, censoring criticism on such an article which is so obviously criticizing israel is not good wiki editing. Jaakobou 21:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another sockpuppet?

In light of your actions at Tanyasucked, you might want to look at User talk:Misses giggles for more vandalism of a similar nature. I've even set out the diffs nicely for you! Best wishes, Bencherlite 13:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the list, my previous comment now looks rather flippant - sorry. I'll keep my eyes open for this type of vandalism in future. Regards, Bencherlite 13:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw this guy's edits. Dancing on Tanya's grave after her untimely death by vandalising her article. Very nice! But it does say something about the personal and moral callibre of our opponents.
Please accept my condolences on the death of Shimon Tzabar. May his work be continued. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Schoenman

Hi, wasn´t there a Ralph Schoenman article earlier that was deleted? Well, there is a new article about him now, anyway. I seem to recall that there was an article about one of his books, too? Wasn´t one of his books fully published on a web-site, or something? If so, I think it should be linked from Schoenman article. Regards, Huldra 10:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC) PS: I´m sorry to see the harassment and wiki-stalking you are subjected too; I have never, ever in my time here seen any other editor been harassed as badly as you have been.

There were serious problems with the previous article, which was accused of copy-violation, and I think Schoenman fought to have it removed. There has already been similar edit-warring over this article, which has now been protected. There was previously an article about his book The Hidden History of Zionism; this appears to have been deleted, though the Talk page is still there. Personally, I think it is a very unreliable book, with misleading and even false references -- every time I have tried to trace one back to its source, I find that the original does not say what Schoenman claims it does. So I would prefer not to provide a link to it, or even to be involved in editing artivclkes about it. RolandR 11:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see. I know very little about him; the only thing I had heard about him before I came to Wikipedia was Doris Lessings comments about his association with Russel. And those comments were...eh, "not positive." Regards, Huldra 11:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Informal mediation

Mediation has been requested for the article Adam Keller. Please indicate on the case page if you will accept my assistance as an informal mediator. Thank you! Vassyana 13:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am closing the case since you do not accept mediation. I would suggest possibly seeking other avenues to resolve the dispute. It might be helpful to solicit a third opinion, for example. Thank you for taking the time to respond and explain your rejection. It is appreciated. Take care. Vassyana 14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Story

Hi RonaldR, While searching for stuff on MS, I found this link [20]. It sounds like you have an amazing story! Happy Passover ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Coffee and Baklava! I was not familiar with the 1970s Maavak group, but I'll have a look around. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sorry, i didn't understand the user talkpage policy...

apparently it's ok to remove warnings from the pages of other users to help them avoid the WP:3RR, sorry, i didn't understand the user talkpage policy... Jaakobou 06:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

btw, i request you remove the nicname "idiotic" from the message you've left on huldra's page. Jaakobou 06:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the tea!

..it was lovely! And yes; my user-page was vadalized for the first time ever, by the vandal. I will take that as a compliment. What I don´t understand is that somebody will spend so much time showing the world their childishness and vulgarity. Unbelievable. Anyway, I freely admit: I am now wikistalking you! ;-) As for the "blog" at "blogspot"; surely there must be some way to shut that down? Have you contacted those who run the blog? Regards, Huldra 15:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course I have contacted the blog hosts. They replied "Blogger.com and Blogspot.com are US sites regulated by US law. Blogger is a provider of content creation tools, not a mediator of that content. We allow our users to create blogs, but we don't make any claims about the content of these pages. Given these facts, and pursuant with section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act, Blogger does not remove allegedly defamatory, libelous, or slanderous material from Blogger.com or BlogSpot.com. If a contact email address is listed on the blog, we recommend you working directly with the author to have the content in question removed or changed." This was not very helpful! There really isn't any point in contacting the anally-obsessed Kahanists who edit the site, even if I had an address. RolandR 15:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Whaw, I had no idea that one was so unprotected! That is rather scary. -Huldra 15:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] personal attacks

please remove: "I saw that you had reverted several of User:Jaakobou's silly and senseless edits to my Talk page" from Huldra's talk page. Jaakobou 21:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your comments on Talk:Shimon Tzabar: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

solve disputes in the proper manner rather than teag team reversions with Abu Ali and name calling (i.e. "childish"). Jaakobou 14:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The edits were indeed silly and childish. I have made no comment about the editor. RolandR 16:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info about the ANI. I personally would not support long block against him. I believe that the most poweful propganda against Zionism is the conduct of its adhereants. Many people will have be alienated by his ideas and his manner. Wikipedia would not be Wikipedia without the likes of jaakobou. And fortunately he can do no harm here except to his own cause. But I agree that he should not post links to libelous material here. And this [21] edit does imply tacit approval of the bots attacking you.
Anyway I do feel honoured that Jaakobu chose to attack me in the same breath as your good self [22] . Who knows, I must be doing something right! ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Guradian Persuit

your comment is requested here: [23]. Jaakobou 14:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deir Yassin

Hi there Roland. I've noticed your support of my edit on the DY page.

Amuroso on the talk page just posted a link which he claims contains an outright denial of the DY massacre from Milstein. While I still think it breaches WP:UNDUE to give equal billing to Milstein's views over the 160+ books that have endorsed the massacre claim, it might be helpful in the talk page debate to get a confirmation of what Milstein has actually said in this article, as well as the date the article was published and maybe even a partial translation of the article's more important points. Since you apparently read Hebrew yourself, would you be interested in helping out in that regard? Thanks, Gatoclass 03:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Gatoclass, I'm blocked at the moment and can't add anything. But the only Milstein link I can find is to a book I do not have, and which is unlikely to be available in London. I don't intend to buy it for this purpose! RolandR 10:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I've found the link on the talk page, and will check it for you later. RolandR 10:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counterpunch

I not sure if your still banned or not, but when you get unbanned could you come to the talk page and give me some back-up. Some zionist hoodlum named anti-fascist is trying to post the thing about Alan Cabal and Ernest Zundel again and sadly Bobfrombockley seems to be supporting him. I think these charges are flimsy at best and are nothing more than a transparent attempt to bias the article against counterpunch. I feel I need some back-up on this so could you help me out please. annoynmous 19:49, 28 April (UTC)

As it happens, I don't really disagree with those edits. I would probably rephrase some of it, but the substance is to my mind valid, and documented.
However, I agree with your anger at User:Antifascist's libellous attack on you. I think that you should consider placing an abusive edit summary warning {{subst:Edit summary personal 3}} on his talk page RolandR 21:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concerns and I know how sincere they are, but I think in this case they are unfounded. This article is already has enough accusations against Counterpunch of anti-semitism and this point it's starting to feel a little overloaded with this type of criticism. Nothing Cabal or Mcgowan have said has directly endorsed Holocaust Denial and I don't think Counterpunch should be berated because they publish articles by them. The question is there anything in counterpunch that directly endorses holocaust denial and the simple answer is no! It seems rather silly to criticise and organization because they feature articles by these people when nothing in these articles can construed as holocaust denial. If you have a criticism of them than go after them, not counterpunch because they dare to allow them to speak freely.
I have said before that I'm fine with adding Israel Shamir to your Jew against Zionism criticism, because beleive it or not I actually believe theres more of a reason to criticise counterpunch over him than over Atzmon. I actually think that atzmon, although crude in his phrasing is simply misunderstood, whereas Shamir seems to me like a right winger who seems to have fooled people into thinking he's a left-winger.
Neverthless thank you for your support in regards to anti-fascist's comments. I guess I was just asking for support in case I get threatened with a ban if I stick up for my views too hardly. However, I fully understand if don't wish to get involved, who needs the aggrevation right?
I hope you get unbanned and keep fighting the good fight. annoynmous 01:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Plaut

Welcome back. I see this article is protected again. Hopefully there will be some way of moving forward toward a consensus version. Let me know if I can be of assistance in discussion at the article's talk page. ··coelacan 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It may also interest you to know that there was an investigation of sockpuppetry regarding this article, but negative results on the two accounts checked. Hit my talk page if you need me. ··coelacan 01:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I had intended to submit the same checkuser/sockpuppet request, as I am certain -- irrespective of Jpgordon's findings -- that these are linked accounts. Further, I believe them to be linked to User:Truthwinsout, who earlier made similar edits. In fact, they are very likely Plaut himself, or his associates; and probably linked to the User:Runtshit vandal who persistently defaces pages with abuse of me and others. Anything you can do to help would be appreciated.RolandR 14:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! Welcome!

Tiamut 16:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish defense League

It's obvious you have no interest in knowing the truth about the JDL. They are not listed as a terror organization, and no where on the Internet are they published as such. I confirmed this with the FBI on Friday and I suggest you do the same. From your edits it appears you are against Zionism so your edits have a natural reason to be against the JDL and I suggest you refrain from editing that page as you may have a conflict of interest. eternalsleeper 21:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your stalker again

[24]. I noticed you vandalism page and thus user has the name Roland in it. --Abnn 23:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your report

Hello — I've removed your report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page is intended for cases of simple and persistant vandals who have received a final warning. 84.109.51.71 only appears to have one abusive edit. Sock puppetry should be reported at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Happy editing! — Feezo (Talk) 11:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a complex case. Most of the IPs don't seem very persistent though, so maybe semi-protection is the way to go? I suppose problems like this are inevitable when dealing with politically-charged topics. Best of luck — Feezo (Talk) 04:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Vandalism report

Re your message: No warnings were issued at the time of the report on AIV. You reported the vandal, I removed the report as noted, and then you issued a warning. The warning issued previous to yours was for edits in March. With anonymous and potentially shared IPs like this one, warnings are not necessarily cumulative like user accounts or non-shared IPs. While the edits you reported were certainly egregious, a warning should still be issued before the report to AIV. Additionally, your warning and report to AIV was done nearly two hours after the last edit occurred and was reverted by another editor. -- Gogo Dodo 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] East Jerusalem

Hi. It seems that your revert in the East Jerusalem article was to a bad version by me which I self-reverted. This version is bad because it repeats the "Israelis of all religions" bit (see previous sentence).--Doron 15:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palestine Userboxes

Thanks for the heads up on the PalReturn UBX. I have requested a deletion review here. As for the one-state UBX, I don't care to get into a prolonged discussion about the matter. Suffice it to say, I agree that the two terms are not necessarily synonymous; however, in general usage I think they are and, in my experience, most people who support a binational solution have in mind a one-state solution in all of Palestine. For instance, the binational solution article begins with "The binational solution, also known as the One-State Solution ... " --DieWeisseRose 19:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

Roland, I don't know how to be more clear about this. Do not insert this WP:BLP-violating material again. Instead, come to the Talk: page, and engage in the discussion on the page. You came very close to being blocked today; I don't want that to happen. Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not violating WP:BLP by posting a DEFENCE of someone being libelled and defamed. You have absolutely no justifcation for blocking, or threatening to block, me. and I consider your behaviour to be an unacceptable attempt to bully me into complying with your anti-Finkelstein agenda. But it won't work; I have not acted against either the letter or the spirit of Wikipedia. I have reported your breach of WP:3RR RolandR 01:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no anti-Finkelstein agenda. I do have an anti-WP:BLP violation agenda. WP:BLP is quite clear that 3RR does not apply to WP:BLP violations. This is not a game, Roland. Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your 3RR report

Hello, Roland. I am the admin who dealt with your 3RR report about Jayjg. I want to stress that BLP is something that Wikipedia takes very, very seriously, and it's best to err on the side of caution. If someone other than an obvious troll removes something, citing BLP, and you disagree, it's a really bad idea to revert. I've been following an ArbCom case where an administrator who had absolutely no history of vandalism or trolling undeleted some articles which had been deleted citing BLP. She didn't do it with the intention of harming Wikipedia; she simply thought that the articles shouldn't have been deleted. She's now facing an admonition with threat of desysopping in the ArbCom rulings.

Regarding the way you submitted your report, the administrator dealing with the case needs to be able to click on "first revert", "second revert", etc., to see that it really is a revert. If you look at the history of any article, you'll see times given for each version. If you click on the time/date, you will then be looking at a particular version. It will say at the top that it was the version edited at a particular time by a particular editor. It's called a "version". However, if, instead of clicking on the time/date, you click on "last", you will get something that shows you the difference between that version and the previous one, with the name of the editors, and the times and dates. That's called a diff. Here is a diff for a revert I made.[25] You can see from the edit summary that it was a revert. (Actually, I was reverting vandalism.) If you just show the version here, there is absolutely nothing to show what my edit involved. For a valid 3RR report, you need to start by giving the version that was reverted to, if it's possible. (Sometimes it isn't, when people are making lots of complex reverts.) Then (and this is important) you need to give a diff for each of the four reverts, with the times and dates clearly stated. You simply gave versions for each of the reverts.

However, I would like to point out that reporting someone who is removing a BLP violation is not likely to result in a block for the person reported. At most, it might result in a block from an admin who hadn't looked into it properly, followed by indignant discussion at an admin noticeboard, followed by unblocking. I hope that all helps. Regards. ElinorD (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful response. I will be more careful in any future 3RR reports.
However, I do not agree that there was any BLP violation at all in this instance. Finkelstein is being attacked by Dershowitz, and Menetzer carefully studied the allegations, concluding that there is no merit in any of them. When the link was originally posted, Jayjg objected, on the grounds that it was published in CounterPunch, which he rejects (wrongly, in kmy view) as an unacceptable source. As you will see in the 3RR discussion, SlimVirgin accepts that Menetzer is an okay source, but also argues that CounterPunch is unreliable. Rather than argue the merits of CounterPunch, I found another version of the article; this time on Finkelstein's own site. Jayjg then dropped his claim that the source was unacceptable, and instead claimed that this was a BLP violation and should be deleted even if found in a reliable location.
I see several problems here. Jayjg is repeatedly making disputed edits, and shifting his ground in defence of them. He is also acting as an admin on the same article, semi-protecting it and making threats (see above) to block editors who repost this important link. And we are, in effect, denying Finkelstein the opportunity to respond to very serious allegations against him -- allegations which have cost him his job, and which have been found by Menetzer to be unfounded, and, in at least one instance, even deliberately fraudulent.
How can we resolve the disagreement over whether there is any BLP violation here? RolandR 00:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP again

I see above that you are having trouble with the policy regarding articles on living persons. Restoring unsourced or improperly sourced content, as you did on José Saramago, by saying that the information is "useful" is a clear violation of a critical policy. Do not restore this information again unless you can provide valid sources to back it up. | TheBLPGuy 13:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentences which I added, and which you have again deleted as "unsourced", are in fact the only sourced statements in the entire article. What is your problem with them? RolandR 14:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken; there are sources for other statements - the paragraph following the one I deleted, for example, is properly sourced, since it provides a link to the document he signed - and there are sources at the bottom, such as his Nobel Prize biography, that verify much of the other content. I went after that one paragraph because it was the one paragraph that wasn't sourced at all. Most of what you re-inserted is acceptable, but the sentence that states that his works have aroused controversy in Portugal must be sourced, per WP:BLP. | TheBLPGuy 16:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a link to the document he signed since I inserted it. I repeat, the only sourced statements are those I inserted. For instance, there is no source for "Saramago was in his mid-fifties before he won international acclaim", for "It was the 1988 publication of his Baltasar and Blimunda that first brought him to the attention of an English-speaking readership", or for "This novel won the Portuguese PEN Club Award" in the first paragraph alone. It seems very strange to me that the only statements you removed on blp grounds were the sourced ones which i had inserted, and not any of the others.
I removed the content I removed because it was "contentious," which is grounds for immediate removal under WP:BLP, a policy for which you don't seem to have much regard. The content to which I objected is now properly sourced. Was that so hard? | TheBLPGuy 14:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't need your patronising tone, thank you very much. What was in the least contentious about the statement? Has anyone ever suggested that Saramago's work is not controversial, or that it is offensive or defamatory to state this? And what about the statement that hsi wife comes from "a very powerful Barcelona family of editors who actively promote his books around the world", to which I added a citation needed tag two and a half months ago, but which no-one has attempted to justify? Why do you not focus on the dubious claims, not the well-attesrted facts? RolandR 15:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Template removed
I am mystified by your message. Please specify where you believe that I violated WP:NPOV by "adding commentary and my personal analysis". I do not believe that I have done so on any article, and it doesn't help that you don't specify where this is supposed to have happened. Thank you. RolandR 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I misintepreted one of your edits on Steven Plaut. Pardon my mistake. Tomj 18:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfounded claims of sockpuppetry

You have reverted various sockpuppet pages to state that the socks are mine. A CheckUser request proved that the socks were not mine. If you continue to accuse me of sockpuppetry in the face of proof to the contrary, then you're violating WP:NPA. Note that I'm one of your few Wikipedia adversaries who has not resorted to personal attacks on you. Truthprofessor 18:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The accounts were all blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of Truthprofessor, and the blocking admin added the Confirmed Sockpuppet tag. If you dispute this, you should ask the same admin to remove the tag; to do so yourself could be construed as vandalism.
I am truly grateful that you have not descended to the gutter language of the hundreds of sockpuppets who have attacked me. RolandR 18:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will ask the admin.
I suspect that the attacks by the socks are happening because you're posting very hostile allegations about participants in political controversies when you're clearly on the opposing side. (For example you want to include Newman's claims about Plaut even though Newman doesn't give any source for those claims.) This makes some excitable people decide that it's a free-for-all.
Truthprofessor 18:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a confession to me. In fact, I am being attacked because Kahanist bigots cannot accept the idea of an anti-Zionist Jew. I am not the only victim; the abuse that has been poured on Ilan Pappé, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Baruch Kimmerling, Tanya Reinhart, Shimon Tzabar and many others who have never edited Wikipedia shows that the abuse is directed ar anyone who dares to step beyond the parameters which you determine. And it goes well beyond Wikipedia. As you well know, the abuse directed at me frequently links to a website set up to attack me; this is clearly linked to similar websites set to attack Tony Greenstein, Richard Silverstein and others, and to abusive messages sent to subscribers to the Alef mailing list by supporters of Plaut, who claimed to have stolen the mailing list. There is an obvious pattern here, and it's worth noting that you see fir to excuse and justify this. RolandR 20:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this abuse just unprovoked nastiness, or have you and your friends contributed by calling people racists, war criminals, Nazis, apartheid supporters and Kahanist bigots? If it really is just unprovoked nastiness, why are you getting your revenge here on Wikipedia? If you try to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for attacks on political enemies, isn't it obvious that their supporters are going to do the same? Maybe I'm being naive, but why not look for ways to de-escalate the situation. Truthprofessor 22:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
As I said, you are excusing and justifying libellous and defamatory lies. Anyone who reads my edits, and the abuse I have faced, can see who is telling the truth and who is lying here. RolandR 01:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see which defamatory lies I'm supposed to have justified - and please remember that you just called your opponents Kahanists and bigots.

If you believe in telling the truth, can you explain why you keep re-posting that Newman claim in Plaut's entry. Newman wrote: "Writing under assumed names, Plaut has a long history of attacking, labeling, and targeting left-wing scholars in Israel. One anonymous article appeared under the name of Socrates in the Middle East Review of 2001." Newman didn't provide any evidence that Plaut uses assumed names or that Plaut is "Socrates." Do you have evidence?

You also linked to the claim about Plaut's spamming activities. Maybe I'm not reading carefully enough, but I didn't see any proof that Plaut rather than a supporter was the culprit. And how do you know that someone didn't fake this "evidence" - just as some of the abusive socks on Wikipedia faked messages from you?

Truthprofessor 11:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And please note that you've missed my point. Far from excusing or justifying gutter language against you or charges of Kahanism and bigotry against your opponents, I'm arguing that both sides should avoid this sort of conduct, as I've tried to do.

Truthprofessor 11:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've watched the treatment handed out to Roland in WP (and elsewhere) and I'm horrified. This level of abuse cannot possibly be a reaction to anything he's done, it can only be from very nasty people that he has somehow upset. I don't know what he's done (it can't possibly be just what you claim, which is relatively innocuous). Roland comes across to me as a gentle and industrious soul who is a credit to this project. And likely most else that he touches. PalestineRemembered 17:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel Shamir

Hi, Roland. It looks like you and I both reverted Tube Deny on Israel Shamir just now--that is, from the history, it looks rather like I reverted you, but that's not what happened. Sorry about that. I don't know why I didn't get an edit conflict. I'm going over to warn the editor about calling content disagreements "vandalism", I'm awfully tired of seeing that. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Twinkle

did you try this solution? It's a copy of the scripts before any of the major updates were made. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I tried that but it made no difference, even after I purged the cache. RolandR 17:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refrain from Adding Libelous Material on Altaf Hussain

"A speech from Hansard" is just someone's opinion. It DOES violate Biographies of living persons So take the libelous material out. M12390 19:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Ray

I guess the problem I have is that I didn't see him re-add that content; it didn't show in the diff. If you can point me at the diff in question, I'll reconsider. —C.Fred (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Found it [26]. but it's also a two-day-old edit. —C.Fred (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course, a close reread shows that the summary was that he was reverting vandalism. If that's not a clear sign of not learning a lesson, I don't know what is. Blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For that quick revert against vandalism on NF's page. Regards Nishidani 18:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I was wondering why you made this revert while not noticing that there was a page-protection template placed on it. :) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 23:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Penwhale, I noticed that the page was protected (indeed, it was from the page protection link that I cam to this page in the first place), but I failed to realise that I had removed the notice. I made the actual edit because an editor, who I do not think is well-disposed towards the subject of the article, had added a lot of unsourced unfavourable material, and had then asked to have the page protected. RolandR 00:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I personally feel that this needs to be discussed since both unsourced and sourced statements are being removed. I changed protection level to full protection. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comment

i have no interest in rekindling old disputes (and habits). please note that "sophistry" and "quibble" might be interpreted as uncivil and try to avoid using them when in content dispute reverts. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you for 48 hours for a three revert rule violation on Jajah. I have exacalated the block due to a number of other blocks for edit warring. When you return, please discuss edits rather than revert war. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have made that last edit, and I got carried away. However, please note the following: 1) It is not true, as 12.105.242.154 states, that I have previously been blocked three times. If you check my block log, you will see I have actually been blocked twice, once for just three hours. This does not really reflect a pattern of "other blocks for edit warring". 2) I received no warning, though the guidelines state "A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion. Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly." Had such a warning/reminder been posted, I would have self-reverted. I therefore request that you reconsider the block, or at least the length. I undertake to be more careful in future. Thanks RolandR 15:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I wrote to Ryan Postlethwaite yesterday, and I have posted above an apology and a plea in mitigation. But he seems to have been offline since he blocked me yesterday afternoon, and has not replied. In his absence, I request that another admin reviews the block, in the light of my comments above."

Decline reason: "You've been here quite a while and have been blocked previously for 3RR. You do not need a warning to know what behaviour to avoid. Most of your response is wikilawyering on the particulars of your block log and no receiving a warning. Altogether, it does not give me faith that you fully appreciate the problem in your edit warring. — Vassyana 18:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I'm disinclined to unblock here, because of your past 3RR blocks, you really should be aware of the rule, yet you chose to break it. You only need a warning if you haven't previously been blocked, so might not be aware of the rule. The length of the block is 48 hours as you have previously been blocked for a 3RR violation so it has escalated accordingly. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Runtshit sockpuppetry

Hi Roland. I am beginning to get rather tired of seeing Runtshit's sockpuppets vandalising articles on Israeli politics every so often. Have you requested a checkuser to be done on the socks to see if they all come from one IP address? If they do, perhaps we can get that blocked. Number 57 16:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks, I agree with you. I've also got better things to do. I have requested a checkuser in the past; it appears that the culprit is using anonymisers to disguise his identity and location. I believe that I know who is responsible -- and this person is also responsible for serial email and internet abuse elsewhere as well as on Wikipedia -- but it has not as yet been possible to obtain the necessary evidence, and in any case the use of anonymisers and proxies could still allow him to make further edits. Any suggestions you could make would be welcome. RolandR 16:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm. If they're using different IP addresses each time, then I've haven't really got any more suggestions as I'm not too hot on that kind of stuff. Sorry, Number 57 21:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a suggestion: Delete your vandalism subpage and don't label the sockpuppets. The reasoning can probably be found in WP:DENY, WP:RBI, and WP:DNFT. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm considering deleting the sub-page; but the sockpuppets should continue to be labelled, to show casual browsers that this is a deliberate campaign rather than merely casual abuse. RolandR 23:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
That is precisely the reason behind my suggestion ;) -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: List of Libraries in the London Borough of Waltham Forest

Sorry I forgot to come back to you! I restored the article, per the WP:PROD policy. I'm not sure personally that this article is suited for WP, it it really directory-ish. I left a note to the user that proposed the deletion at first, he might wish to bring it to AFD. -- lucasbfr talk 18:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for misunderstanding

I did not mean at all to make an accusation or implication that you had removed that, and am sorry that it could be and that you did read it that way; I had guessed that you would prefer the version I reverted to and was merely alerting you to that fact. The silly remark got in the way of a nice clear edit war - this is a technique of some of the more clever vandals and POV-pushers, but I don't think that was the case here.John Z 19:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for restoring my remarks.John Z 19:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] note

i do insist that you strike <s></s> your suggestion that i "deliberately" misled the editors of the 1929 Hebron massacre from that talk page. i note you a second time that "i've explicitly copy-pasted that text from the article and suggested i translate the entire text."[27] JaakobouChalk Talk 08:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation) meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation). Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. IZAK 08:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed my "Accept RolandR on own group?"

Hi Roland, I've removed this from here.

  • Accept - User:RolandR has offered to write an article on the secular JAZ.org group of which he is a member. This is a little irregular, but I cannot see a substantive objection and would like to see him go ahead. PRtalk 13:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    Comment not really within the scope of this AfD. If someone raises objections on the planned JAZ article, I'd follow the normal DR practice (such as filing a user-conduct RfC or posting to CoI noticeboard.) <eleland/talkedits> 15:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] question

if i understand correctly, jewsagainstzionism.com is registered in your name, if i am incorrect, feel free to let me know.

in the off chance that this is correct (and i apologize if it is not), i was wondering why you are not vouching for the source in question on 1929 Hebron massacre... mind my asking, where did you get the testimony of Baruch Kaplan from and perhaps you can help solve the "kaplan" issue by providing a link to a source less contentious than the website.

dor the sake of clarity, i apologize again if the answer to the question is 'no'. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

i stand corrected. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Euston Manifesto

Could you please take a look at the Euston Manifesto article? I've added some critical links but the body of the article itself is in need of balance since there are few, if any, criticism in the text. Good to see you're here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladspoke (talk • contribs) 00:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

List of Libraries in the London Borough of Waltham Forest which you de-prodded a while back, has now been proposed for deletion at AfD, by another editor. You may wish to comment, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of libraries in Newham -- its a combiined nomination of the two. DGG (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bother

Dear Roland, hate to ask you this, as it entails a waste of your time. There's a question I have wanted to resolve for several months, and it should be simple to resolve, but no Hebrew speaker on the particular page seems willing to help me. I refer to 'Hebron'. All of my researches indicate that the actual Jewish population within Hebron proper, and not Kiryat Arba, is around 450-600. The page has long had the figure 700-800 (odd no one knows how many Jewish people live in there, despite it being one of the most studied towns in the PTerritories). The actual figure must consist of residents and yeshiva students (I don't know if the 200 yeshiva students commute a quarter of a mile daily from Kiryat Arba, or live in there). Is it possible, without wasting too much time, to look at the Israel Census Bureau online and see what they give. I hardly think the present link, to David Wilder interviews in the Jerusalem Post, is an adequate source. People are touchy on this, but I think the correct figure shouldn't be hard to obtain? If this is any bother, forget it. Best regards Nishidani 17:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for wasting your time like that. I'd tried myself to access the English site of the Census Bureau, but without success, due for my fogling (or is that fogeying?) inaptitude for googling as usual, I suppose. I'll keep nosing about. Best regards Nishidani 11:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Just a quick thank you for sorting out the Marxist box which I think I originally shamelessly stole from your userpage! Thank. BobFromBrockley 09:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pol Pot "Vandalism"?

Excuse me, but I would like to know why you have labelled the inclusion of Kmae language to the Pol Pot page as "vandalism". It is widely accepted that a person's name in his native language may be included at the beginning of a page. Please explain your bizarre action. -Ionius Mundus 20:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. -Ionius Mundus 21:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

In the interest of fairness, as Andyvphil was unblocked, and because I don't see an apparent 3RR violation, you have been unblocked. If you remain autoblocked, please post a request here, or email me with the details if you do not want your IP revealed on-site.

Request handled by: - auburnpilot talk 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 81.178.234.14 lifted.

Request handled by: -- lucasbfr talk 08:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I have just noticed that the editor who I originally reported, Andyvphil, was also blocked for 72 hours at the same time, as was the second editor who he was constantly reverting, Nishidani. However, Andyvphil's appeal against blocking has been accepted, but mine and Nishidani's have been ignored. It seems a misuse of admin tools to block two editors who object to the disruptive behaviour of a third, who has been pardoned. RolandR 18:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popping in

Just to say hello. I noticed your latest edits to Israeli apartheid and wanted to thank you for locating that quote and information. It's very interesting and I hadn't ever read it before. Will definitiely pass it on to a friend of mine doing research on the role of the JNF in land expropriation. Aah, my favourite moments in Wikipedia; when I learn something. :) Cheers. Tiamut 21:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to get Davis' books. It's hard to find English copies of such work in Nazareth. Thanks for the references though. I will try to get a friend from North America to bring one on their next trip into town. Tiamut 11:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I tried contacting him by email once to discuss housing issues here, but he did not return my note. I guess he's quite busy or else I had the wrong address. Do you know how I might get in touch with him? Tiamut 15:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for pointing that out. I will correct now. In the future however, if you do find such a mistake on my user page, I grant you, RolandR, carte blanche access to make corrections as needed. :) Thanks again. Tiamut 16:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I missed the bracket. Tiamut 17:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I do, though rather sporadically and infrequently. I'll be sure to take a look though. Thanks. Tiamut 19:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Arab citizens of Israel

Excuse me? Why are you accusing me and Chesdovi of vandalism? The information (both parts) is properly sourced. It is you who are putting back the patently false figure of 300+ million Arab citizens of Israel. What is the point of that? Please cease and desist. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If the infobox doesn't match the article's title, and someone (two someones) missed that, is no justification to cry "vandalism", nor does it justify your removal of a properly sourced subsection elsewhere on the page. One assumes the top infobox corresponds to the article's subject. If not, it functions as a trap that can mislead any reader. In the interest of clarity, it needs to be changed, not warred over. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not quite sure why the “Arabs” infobox appears on the Arab citizens of Israel‎ page. This page is specifically on Arabs of Israel and the infobox should reflect this, as it does in Arab Brazilian, Arab American, Arabic-speaking Christians. To do otherwise is in my mind quite misleading. At first glance I thought there were 300 million Arabs in Israel! As the page itself is not about Arabs per-se, I will change the title of the box accordingly. The image will also have to go as 1905 pre-dates the modern State of Israel which was re-established in 1948. Best, Chesdovi (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
What have I done which is not acceptable? Chesdovi (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Palestine-Israel conflict

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

I wish you had addressed my specific point about disambiguation before reverting me on Jacob Israël de Haan. Wikipedia:Hatnote deals specifically with the issue of hatnotes, and WP:NAMB (on the same page) supports my view that this article should have no hatnote whatsoever. There should definitely not be a link back to a disambiguation page. I have left the note but changed it into a "not to be confused with" link to Jacob de Haan, however much I think this is not actually in keeping with policy. JFW | T@lk 23:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest Jacob de Haan is turned into a disambiguation page. JFW | T@lk 23:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RolandR, not sure we've ever corresponded, just wanted to thank you very much for adding to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/I-P editing battleground statistics. Thanks for taking the time. All the best, HG | Talk 05:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Roland, thanks again for the data. I just wrote an attempted clarification of guidelines for the battleground stats. "Cite only Requests/Reports made within WP Noticeboards (and the like) and their explicit, official outcomes/findings. Do not cite claims made on Talk pages or your own interpretation of disputes or user conduct." With this in mind, I'd appreciate your looking again at your input on BLP and libel violations. Please add brief footnotes to show how such claims of violations have moved through official WP channels (highest level/outcome only is needed). Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 12:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. I read your note and have tried to be responsive. Pls give a look at the battleground stats Talk page. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 3 14 January 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor: A new weekly feature 
Special: 2007 in Review Wikimania 2009 bidding ends, jury named 
Controversial non-administrator rollback process added Supposed advance draft of Jobs keynote surfaces on talk page 
WikiWorld comic: "The Nocebo Effect" News and notes: Fundraiser ends, $500,000 donation, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Tutorial: Fundamentals of editing 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another sock of Jaakobou?

This is very interesting. I have clashed with Paul T. Evans on Adam Keller, and have been very suspicious of him. At times, he has presented himself as an extreme pro-Palestinian supporter, with an edit summary "I DON'T SEE THE PROBLEM LATUFF SPEAKS HIS MIND IN DEFENSE OF THE PALESTINAINS AGAINST THE NAZI ZIONISTS AND I SUPPORT HIS RIGHT TO DO IT", and an edit "However, Mr. Brown has managed to hold his head up despite continous threats and daily harassment from the Jewish gangs". Elsewhere, he has supported Jaakobou's edits: "As the dust settled it became clear that no such massacre had happened" -- identical to several previous and later edits by Jaakobou. He was clearly acting as a provocateur; and his edit pattern showed similarities to anonymous IP editor 67.70.107.228. This editor reverted one of my edits at Adam Keller with the summary "rv, VANDALISM BY ISRAELI!!" (note the same use of upper case); Paul T. Evans made an identical revert. However, most of his edits are to Jewish Defense League, and in his most recent he provided the summary "JDL is a political organization, I should know, I am a member. Whoever keeps putting militant is bias". These editors appear to be acting deceptively, in order to discredit pro-Palestine editors; but they are not clever enough to maintain their cover! I have not yet seen convincing evidence that they are Jaakobou's sockpuppets, though it seems undeniable that they are working with him. The claim to JDL membership is worth noting. RolandR (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I will need more analysis from User:RolandR before I'm convinced that 67.70.107.228 is another sock of Jaakobou. The geographic location appears not to match. PRtalk 17:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe them to be the same editor because of the same pattern of editing -- at first, presenting an extreme anti-Israel POV, then revealing themself to be a right-wing Zionist; use of capital letters in edit summaries; and identical edits to the same articles. There is enough evidence through the harassment of me that geograohical location of IPs can be misleading, as editors can use anonymisers and proxies; so I don't put too much store in such evidence. Nor, for that matter, on Check User, which is useless in the face of such evasion. RolandR (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. An uninvolved administrator, after issuing a warning, may impose sanctions including blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] IP block

The problem is that only one edit had been made from that IP today, it had been about three weeks since the IP's last edit, and today's edit was unrelated to any prior edits. As a result, I was not going to block an apparent new user who had received no warnings.

If the same articles were targeted as before, then I can deduce that it's the same person as before, and I'll block. Otherwise, because IPs are so prone to be reassigned, I have to conclude that it's not the same person, so without a full set of warnings, I'm not going to block, except in extreme circumstances. —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, I don't think the school IP tag was there when I looked at the article earlier. Given the edit history, I've schoolblocked them for a fortnight on account of the vandalism. I'm watching the talk page to see if there's a protest, just in case. —C.Fred (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IPCOLL stats

Thanks. Moves in 2nd column. Do you happen to have full/semi distinctions on those additions? If not, don't sweat it. However, we are including only protections within the past 12 months. Thanks, HG | Talk 12:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, do you think they'll be any q's about whether those belong to the disputed area, broadly interpreted? I think not, though I'm not sure about some of the Lebanon items. HG | Talk 13:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Roland, thanks for help w/the links. BTW, I assume that really we should be posting more permanent links, e.g. to the archives (once they're archived) or to diffs. Would you be willing to do that sometimes to help out, too? Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 23:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Twinkle edits

Hi. It might not have been your intention but you reverted these edits to George Galloway and used Twinkle to indicate that they were vandalism. The edits do not appear to have been vandalistic, merely a content addition. While you can dispute the addition and revert the edits, please take care not to refer to good-faith additions of content as vandalism. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Galloway Participation Statisitics

I've updated them. why have you deleted it?21stCenturyBuoy (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Roland,my mistake. Do you have any idea why the page claims there was a Parliamentary Inquiry into Asian Voice? 21stCenturyBuoy (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)



[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cover of Apartheid Israel.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Cover of Apartheid Israel.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cover of Apartheid Israel.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cover of Apartheid Israel.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect placing of CSD template

Please don't place speedy deletions templates on SSP cases involving your alleged sockpuppetry. Thank you. Rudget. 19:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I too would be frustrated, but placing a speedy deletion tag before a reason why hasn't been explained isn't the correct course. I'll tie things up with Matt and see whether this was false or not. Your co-operation is appreciated. Rudget. 19:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It's been deleted. On behalf of Matt Lewis, I apologise. Rudget. 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but you don't have to apologise on my behalf. This looks like an ongoing problem to me. I can delete the above two "supected sockpuppet" headings if you want RolandR - no offence meant. I can see who you are now (I've actually seen plenty of your decent edits). The Twinkle script surprised me when it did all that it did - it made the two headings, plus various other stuff. If that Rance guy (or 'Rantshit' as he is pleasently known) pees me of - he must have been driving you crazy! 400 sockpuppets? Jesus. I guess his "Roland Rances" always stuck in my head.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vilnai query

Dear User:RolandR. Just a query if you know offhand whether or not Vilnai's remark on shoah in Gaza raised a fuss when it was reported from his interview with the Israeli Army Radio by online Israerli newspapers, or only after the English newspapers, Haaretz etc., translated it, or the Reuters translation of 'shoah' as holocaust came out. In other words, did he in speaking of a 'shoah g'dolah yoter' in Gaza create a stir among native Hebrew speakers, or is all the fuss at Israeli-Palestinian conflict simply a consequence of the way that word weas translated by Haaretz, Reuters and Yediot A.into English? No research asked for, just a comment offhand. Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The comment was widely discussed; but, as far as I can see, mainly in terms of the negative impact on foreign opinion, rather than on the enormity of the remark. There has also been discussion of the real meaning of the word, with a general agreement that the term "shoah" means simply a disaster or catastrophe (nakba, possibly), rather than systematic slaughter of a whole people; commentators have pointed to the term "shoah atomit", a nuclear disaster. Out of interest, I did a Hebrew Google search on the word שואה. This turned up 857,000 pages. Obviously I could not study them all, so I looked at the first 100. Of these, two referred to "shoah atomit", two to the holocaust allegedly occurring now in North Korea, one to the Armenian Holocaust, one to the removal of the settlers from Gush Katif, one (from the head of the Islamic Movement in Jaffa) to Israeli government policy in Jaffa, one to an apparent "International Electromagnetic Holocaust", one called for "Shoah le-Aravim" (destruction of the Arabs), and one referred to Vilnai's remarks. The other 90 referred to the systematic slaughter of European Jews by the Nazis. This suggests to me that the special pleading over possible meanings of the term is misplaced; although other meanings are possible, in popular Hebrew usage the word shoah is almost entirely used in the sense in which Vilnai's remarks have been generally interpreted. RolandR (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks indeed, and apologies for any waste of time my request for clarification may have caused. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I have responded to your question regarding a third opinion. My answer can be found here. --User:Krator (t c)—Preceding comment was added at 12:28, 24 September 2007

[edit] Neve Gordon

Hi Roland, thanks for the note. I agree with you; I didn't know who the accounts were (though it did all look like one person), but I figured I'd assume the best. The material you readded looks fine, although, what do you think of the quote from Dershowitz? I'm not sure who it reflects on more, but it strikes me as a bit much. Maybe it could be reduced to noting Dershowitz's criticism and perhaps retaining the first part of the quote. I might try something to that effect if you don't mind. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Roland, are you going to report this? I'm not an admin, so all I can do is keep an eye on the article, or ask for one to take a look. Mackan79 (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned it on AN/I,[28] so maybe someone will take a look. Mackan79 (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess you have a long term fan? It looks pretty similar. Maybe one for WP:RFCU if it keeps on. Mackan79 (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Countries visited

Hi Roland. I really must question your list of countries visited. Palestine is clearly not a country, it is part of Greater Israel. Could you please correct this in your profile? --EelJuice 22:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Palestine is a country, I have many friends who live there, I have visited there at their invitation, and I have no intention of censoring my user page to meet your political agenda. RolandR 23:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Roland, Please edit your page to include that you are a self-hating Jew. It is important that you be truthful. You are misleading your readers by hiding your self-hating personality. Please include how you brainwash your grandchildren to hate Jews as well. You should include why you must position yourself to identify with a radical cause. Unhappy as a child?, bullied for being Jewsih (only slightly?). Sad that your teeth are rotten because of National Health Scheme? Please be Honest!!! Thank You19:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)67.189.228.34 (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the heads up

I forgot what the puppet master account name was but had wanted to alert other people in the know the connection. Sorry if I inadvertently fueled misunderstanding. You would that by now the whole Wikipedia community would know about User:Runtshit, if not exactly by that name. Anyway, now I know how to proceed if I see him again. Thanks for that. I hope you are doing well. Tiamuttalk 12:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 11 13 March 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
Accusations of financial impropriety receive more coverage Best of WikiWorld: "Five-second rule" 
News and notes: New bureaucrat, Wikimania bids narrowed, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Vintage image restoration WikiProject Report: Professional wrestling 
Tutorial: Summary of policies Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 12 17 March 2008 About the Signpost
Best of WikiWorld: "The Rutles" News and notes: Single-user login, election commission, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Changes at peer review 
WikiProject Report: Tropical cyclones Tutorial: Editing Monobook, installing scripts 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 13 24 March 2008 About the Signpost
Single User Login enabled for administrators Best of WikiWorld: "Clabbers" 
News and notes: $3,000,000 grant, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Banner shells tame talk page clutter WikiProject Report: Video games 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Werdnabot

Hold on. The links will become blue next time Werdnabot runs. — Werdna talk 10:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 14 31 March 2008 About the Signpost
Wikimania 2009 to be held in Buenos Aires Sister Projects Interview: Wikisource 
WikiWorld: "Hammerspace" News and notes: 10M articles, $500k donation, milestones 
Dispatches: Featured content overview WikiProject Report: Australia 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Borisyy (4th)

I've knocked this one (and the previous one) off pretty quickly, as I'm trying to get rid of the huge backlog at WP:SSP. If you find any more socks in the drawer, don't bother creating a new case, just drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. GBT/C 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would if you signed and I knew who you were!RolandR (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
One tilde short of a signature, sorry! GBT/C 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, you didn't have to hunt too far....! I've declined your WP:RFPP request, however - all the socks accounting for the vast majority of the vandalism have been blocked, and in any event there isn't enough activity to justify protection at this time. Sorry! GBT/C 19:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. GBT/C 13:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Runtshit

So you're the one that asshole is after! Congrats on pissing off someone who clearly deserves it so thoroughly as to create this obsession.

I keep seeing them vandalize marxism-related articles - how long has this been going on? Is there nothing that can be done besides blocking individual sockpuppets as they appear? Kalkin (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.

Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 15 7 April 2008 About the Signpost
April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges" 
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 16 14 April 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles Image placeholders debated 
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk" News and notes: Board meeting, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Featured article milestone 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmed

I'm not a CU, nor do I play one on the radio, and yes, anonymizers make it somewhat impossible. My criteria is that if the puppet's name references you, or its edits include the "Tony Tony" or the blog, that is pretty much a confirmation. The others, I could not find a particular edit that confirms it was a that user. As for how to stop it, other than massive anon IP rangeblocks, I'm not sure either :( -- Avi (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've applied some small blocks that may help. I may disagree with your political views, but that is not an excuse for allowing wikipedia policy violations to persist. -- Avi (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
By all means, anything which can be confirmed should be tagged as confirmed, just for housekeeping purposes. I do not have time now to go through the entire list, as I am making my last minute preparations for Yom Tov. Thank you for your kind appraisal, and have a חג כשר ושמח -- Avi (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting one's talk page

Just a note here - Users are allowed to remove what they want from their own talk pages. Putting warning messages back is not vandalism, although it is certainly not polite. Please be advised that both parties here appear to be in violation of the WP:3RR and both parties will be blocked if this behavior continues. Toddst1 (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The exceptions to 3RR make the Infield Fly Rule in baseball look simple. Sorry about that. Toddst1 (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for oversight

You may want to request the edit where your identity was revealed be removed at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Let me know if you need help. Toddst1 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

It appears that you and Amoruso got pretty tangled up tonight. I'm giving both of you the same friendly advice, one editor to another, not as an admin. Perhaps you should take a couple of days off Wikipedia for a short {{Wikibreak}} and come back fresh. It seems both of you are competent editors and would probably benefit from a voluntary break. Feel free to disregard this as it's just my personal suggestion. Good luck and happy editing in the future. Toddst1 (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME!

I don't know who you are and I am just getting started learning my way around wikipedia. But I take offense that you are accusing me. I am not familiar with blogging and have absolutely no skills in this area. All I have done so far is try to figure out how to do edits. So, I thought I was starting to get the hang of it by just fixing some little grammatical and spelling errors in topics that were of interest to me. Please remove your sockpuppet accusation against me. But also, please do not expect me to engage in back and forth discussions with you. That't not my kind of thing. I only check my emails every few days. So I won't have time to be checking back on this topic very soon. I am sorry I haven't put any personal information about me on my page yet. I was afraid to, because of privacy issues. However, I see I will now have to do something like that. So, here is a sneak peak -

My most exciting experience ever was when I took a trip with my father, husband and son (Jer) to see a total solar eclipse, in Mexico, about 17 years ago. We watched it from a sightseeing boat and just before totality our ship was surrounded by dolphins that were jumping out of the water quite furiously.

If you have never witnessed a TOTAL solar eclipse, I highly recommend it. Now please remove your accusations and allow me to continue to learn how to make edits on this website at my own slow pace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersmum (talk • contribs) 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 17 21 April 2008 About the Signpost
BLP deletion rules discussed amidst controversial AFD Threat made against high school on Wikipedia, student arrested 
Global login, blocking features developed WikiWorld: "Disruptive technology" 
News and notes: Wikimania security, German print Wikipedia, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes WikiProject Report: The Simpsons 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 18 2 May 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia 
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA WikiWorld: "World domination" 
News and notes: Board elections, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Did You Know ... Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 19 9 May 2008 About the Signpost
Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants" 
News and notes: Board elections, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)