This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
you could find some time over the next week to see what the default or most widely used term in Hebrew is for the Zion square assault. Technically we do need some sort of Hebrew indications in the lead on this. All the translated press use (attempted) lynch, but perhaps it's more complex than that. No hurry, if you can see your way to looking into this. Thanks, pal. BestNishidani (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 September 2012
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Re your WP:AIV report: I have blocked that account for now. This report is serious enough that I recommend you also post an "FYI" about this incident at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'm not sure if there are other steps that should be taken in the event of death threats made using our email system; a post there gets many more admins' eyes on the issue.
In the future, I'd take any threats of this nature straight to that noticeboard.
You should also consider your own safety; if you feel threatened, contact your local law enforcement. --A. B.(talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, RolandR. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Roland, please send that information to the Foundation's emergency email address (it's in the threats of harm link above). Thanks, --A. B.(talk • contribs) 07:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 September 2012
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).
If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi RolandR. Please take a look at User talk:24.177.121.137, an IP you warned for edit warring. The IP has left comments for you since they cannot post on your talk page. Thanks, LegoKontribsTalkM 21:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 September 2012
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The claim about Peter Novick comes from document B of the collection published by JPS. Quoting from the source: "B. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, LETTER TO NIELS HOOPER, ACQUISITIONS EDITOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS, 19 NOVEMBER 2004. The following letter is one of several that Alan Dershowitz sent to editors at the New Press, which was originally contracted to publish Beyond Chutzpah, and to 87 editors and lawyers at the University of California Press on the subject of Beyond Chutzpah."
It is a letter Dershowitz sent to the University of California Press and others in an attempt to stop the publication of Finkelstein's book. Dlv999 (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but the way you edited the footnote sduggested that Dershowitz had written an article for the JPS. In fact, the JPS published the correspondence, it was their editorial decision. There is an issue with the way the statement is presented in the article, and I would like to see Novick's original comment (though I have seen it attributed to him elsewhere). But he has also objected to Dershowitz's use of this in his feud against Finkelstein. So the whole paragraph needs to be rewritten, with proper attributions. But I think your edit to the footnote was misleading. RolandR (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I'm re-adding the tag until the issue is resolved. Just out of interest, JPS' editorial decision to publish, so they are cited as the publisher, but Dershowitz is still the auther of that document, he will need to part of the citation somewhere if we are going to keep the citation. Dlv999 (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
In that case, I would not list him as the author, but cite it as "AD, in JPS...". And also, our text needs to say "According to AD, Novick said..." RolandR (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Kitten
Carolmooredc has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}
Festivus
Hello. The IP editor on Festivus has taken the discussion to the talk page and it will go upline within the next half hour. He's asked from comments from editors, so please join in if you'd like. Thanks, and good to meet you. Randy Kryn 18:36 30-12-'11
Hi Roland, I edited Edward Lampert to remove the copyright issues. Please check and see if this is good. I guess I lean too much on copying sentences when I do large edits. Let me know what you think. Thanks.Patapsco913 (talk)
The Signpost: 05 November 2012
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.
JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...
the subject line "JSTOR"
your English Wikipedia username
your preferred email address for a JSTOR account
The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for your edit of Shimon Tzabar. I was clearly moving too fast when I made that edit and didn't read enough of the Jewish Resistance Movement article. Thanks again for fixing my mistake. SchreiberBike (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 November 2012
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Really? Other individuals than you? I took two off your user page and two off this page. He was just blocked BTW. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Barnstar of Diligence
Two of my edits were either corrected, or acknowledged by Rolandr in a 24 hour period. As someone very new to wikipedia, I want to thank you for your diligence. Diogenes The Cynic II (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 December 2012
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi - we can't actually delete an account or username, so I can't remove it. The username was removed from all edits. But I didn't actually block him, he was blocked some time ago but today sent me about 13 abusive emails, so I removed his ability to email. I must have blocked another sock recently, perhaps 24.126.103.70 (talk·contribs). Sorry I can't help you, but it's technically not possible so far as I know. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Asking for user names to be hidden
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If you think a username needs to be hidden, please don't mention it explicitly on any public part of Wikipedia, including individual admins' talk pages. In stead, please email the request to some admin and leave them a {{ygm}} on their talk page. (I sent you a more complete version of this message by email) עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 15:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks; received and noted for future reference. RolandR (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Category
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Because the category itself was deleted, several times, five years ago. And also because I knew Arna, and although she was an internationalist and an anti-imperialist, she was expelled from the Communist Party sixty years ago and did not refer to herself as a communist. RolandR (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
That was a stupid question from me. But I have to undo half of your latest edit, unless you can show consensus for it. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Which edit? And which half? RolandR (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. That was a slip of the finger, thanks for fixing it. RolandR (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure. Nice meeting you. And nice to know that her article has been edited by a person who actually knew her. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 December 2012
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I see in the AN/I report against Tellyuer1 (talk·contribs) that you've characterized some of his recent edits as reverts. Have you got diffs that will make that pretty obvious?
I ask because, even though I'm involved, I made it pretty clear to him that I would block him if he did any more reverting to article related to Moshe Friedman. I'd say Neturei Karta counts as related.
Not that I want to block him, but I don't want his talk page to turn into a litany of empty threats. Advice and input welcome. Thank you —C.Fred (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Never mind. He's been blocked by another admin. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
RfC follow-up discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I hope you don't mind me moving your comment from the main RFC page to its talk page. User conduct RfCs should keep to their prescribed format, with only "statement" sections and "endorsement" lists; any further discussion following from them should be held on the talk page in normal threaded form. Fut.Perf.☼ 16:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
There are many other comments (including a lengthy one by Darkstar) which remain on the page. Maybe you should move them all? As it is, the talk page has not been used, and my response appears to be ghettoised! RolandR (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've moved some more stuff over; hopefully that should make your poor lonely comments feel less ghettoized. ;-) Fut.Perf.☼ 17:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 07 January 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, RolandR. You have new messages at WendyS1971's talk page. Message added 06:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
How does it work again with the whole 1RR rule?--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 02:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Where is my second reversion? RolandR (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
1& 2. I don't particularly enjoy running to AE but please be aware that I can't promise I'll ignore it next time.--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 16:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh come on. The first edit cannot possibly be considered a reversion. It was an original edit, introducing material which had not previously been in the article. You reverted me, and I reverted back. Thus we each made just one, permitted, revert. Take that to AE and you will be laughed off the page. RolandR (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 March 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Karl Marx".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 March 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey RolandR; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
ANI
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello RolandR. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Delegitimization of Israel, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: there is enough here to make clear that it is not an A7 candidate. If you think it should be deleted, take it to AfD. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
actually, there would be many other reasons for declining it. First, A7 is limited to people, animals ,webpages, groups, organizations and individual planned events. . This is none of these. Presumably you mean to say that this is not important, but that would be a question for AfD . I can't really see how anyone could rationally say that, in view of the sources, so I suppose you may have placed the tag because in some way you disagree with the contents.
If you really think the article is essentially advocacy or is hopeless biased, nominate it as such. I'm not sure what in particular you might object to,but that would be for discussion at the AfD if you really want to start one. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
It's already been prodded by another editor, and so far the balance is clearly in favour of deletion. RolandR (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 March 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Nonsense; that second edit was clearly not a revert. Go ahead and make a formal complaint if you want to look foolish. RolandR (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
yessense; it reverted the exact same material that was reverted by you earlier. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. Soosim (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it reverted nothing. RolandR (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
CPGBML abbreviations
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I added abbreviation tags to the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist) article, this is because the abbreviation CPGB-ML gets used a lot in the article and since it's only defined once in the introduction it could be confusing to readers who aren't familiar with the CPGB-ML and don't often use that abbreviation. You reversed my edits. I still think the abbreviation is confusing and I've noticed other articles on political parties tend to just use the term 'the party' so that might be more appropriate. As an example I've partially done this on the Communist Party of Britain article. Extua (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Goldblum
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
What do you think about the PROD on that article? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Never mind -- someone else has already removed it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 May 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've declined the A7 here, somewhat non-trivial appearances on two TV series is a claim of importance. I did tag it for BLPPROD, however, as an entirely unsourced BLP. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 01:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for keeping an eye on my Talk Page. I know it is only because the Target is a known sockpuppet, but I appreciate it none the less. I have no idea why this guy targets me, but as a *serious* Wikipedian, I'm not please when people vandalize my page. =//= Johnny Squeaky 02:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 May 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Roland,
Regarding your recent edit to the page, I believe the cited source supported the original text. The relevant text from the source[5] states: "The fact that not all of the Jewish-Israeli public rejects BDS certainly strenghthens the struggle. There are at least two significant sources of support for Global BDS from within Israel. One is the 'Supporting the Palestinian BDS Call from Within', an initiative launched by Jewish-Israeli activisists in early 2009." (My emphasis)
It seems to me that not only was my original text supported by the cited source, but also the author seems to be making a specific point about Jewish-Israeli support for the boycott, which would suggest to me that we should accurately reflect what he is saying on this point. Dlv999 (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
But if you read further, you will see that the statement is signed by both Jewish and Palestinian citizens, as it states in its opening sentence. And the list of names includes many who are clearly Palestinian, not Jewish. The book has in fact misunderstood the statement it is citing. The author is wrong, and we should what the original statement says, not a mistaken (and directly contradictory) citation. RolandR (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I read the statement -- I took it to be an expression of solidarity with the Palestinians "We, Palestinians, Jews citizens of Israel..." Seeing as there is ambiguity I will not argue with your edit. However, I don't think it is clear that "the book has in fact misunderstood the statement it is citing". We should remember that the author has more information than we do. For instance he has interviewed one of the main activists, of which he reports: "It must be said that these two initiatives see themselves as part of the broader BDS Palestinian Call and more broadly as one of the main activists in 'BDS from Within' told me, 'This is about a Palestinian struggle and we do as much as we can to support it'."
In any case I think the main point the author is making is that there is some Jewish-Israeli support for BDS within Israel, and perhaps this point can be reflected in our article without stating that 'BDS from Within' is an entirely Jewish-Israeli group. Dlv999 (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that in this case, since I happen to be married to one of the signatories, I can claim as much access as the author to information. The statement does not discriminate between Jewish and non-Jewish citizens of Israel; it is open to all residents and citizens of Israel to sign. Looking through the list of signatories, it is clear that many are indeed Palestinians. Yes, it is important to recognise that many Israeli Jews do support the BDS call; but it is also important not to misrepresent their statement, and their active identification with Palestinian citizens of Israel. RolandR (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Is your removal sourced, Sir? This Wikipedia knows other ways of demanding sources, if you don't believe me. It's enough to click the Honecker kiss to find several of them. Xx236 (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 June 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
To whom it may concern:
hi, I have not been aware of the possibility to discuss changes of articles on Wikipedia.
I'm still unable to find the "talk" page of the article I wish to expand upon, namely the "San Remo Conference".
I do not wish to delete any of the already existing parts of the article, but to add the findings of Howard Grief and Dr. Jacques Gauthier.
Please note that:
First, I clearly mark my addition as an opinion represented by these two men, which is a critique of mainstream views on this issue.
However, as an avid Wikipedia user myself, I know that it is common practice in Wikipedia articles to include sections where awareness for different points of view is raised.
Secondly, in the "Anniversary Celebrations" section of the article, it is already mentioned that Dr. Jacques Gauthier stresses the fundamental importance of this Conference for the foundation of Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia. I merely wish to expand on this, as should be in the interest of any intelligent and open-minded person.
Third, my contribution to the article does not solely focus on the issue of Eretz Israel/Palestine, it offers further information about the decision making of that era and its repercussions for the conflict in general. These issues are still widely underrepresented in Wikipedia.
I am aware of the fact that my contribution to the article is not yet perfectly cited and interlinked with other Wikipedia articles,
but my personal experience in editing Wiki-articles (history section of Maccabi Tel Aviv Basketball Club) has taught me that Wikipedia consists of the work of thousands of people who complement each others work.
In this spirit, I ask you to allow me to add a base for this article, so that others might add to it, instead of just deleting it and thus disclosing this information from others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maccabipage (talk • contribs) 13:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you really mean that, despite editing here for more than two years, you still do not know what an article talk page is? You find it by clicking the tab marked "Discussion" at the top of any page; and you are supposed to use it to discuss changes and improvements to the article
The problem with your edit was that it was both extremely long (it more than doubled the size of the article), and it was entirely unsourced. It appeared to advance a novel reading of history, without allowing other editors the chance to see the sources (if any) from which you derived this material. As such, it was treated as original research, which is not permitted here. You were blocked from editing because you repeatedly restored this material, despite objections and removal by several other editors, and you made no attempt to discuss the issue.
I suggest that, if you intend to continue editing, particularly in a controversial area such as the Palestine-Israel dispute, you take the time to study Wikipedia's "five pillars", and the links from that page to the site's guidelines. RolandR (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
For your information, I edited a page 2 or 3 years ago. Maybe I made use of this function then, but I certainly do not remember it anymore.
The length of my addition is due to the fact that the original article is very short and lacks most of the vital information this Conference provides us with.
I am not playing games, and I expect the same from you.
I will make an effort to find more citations, but as I already mentioned, this is a team effort, and you know as well as I do, that many people add citations and searrch for new ones, as soon as a base is there.
Concluding, I now expect my addition not to be deleted, as I abide with all rules of Wikipedia and most importantly, act in its spirit.
I ask you to refrain from abusing your censorship power by deleting different academic viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maccabipage (talk • contribs) 14:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 June 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
wikimedia.org) with...
