Wikipedia

User talk:RolandR/Archive 6

< User talk:RolandR
Latest comment: 13 years ago by EdwardsBot in topic The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Matzpen

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Take a break from the article or I will block you for edit-warring. I encourage you to continue to discuss your concerns on the article's Talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Roland. Thank you for your message. I want to avoid the appearance of treating both parties differently, so please hold off for a day or two before you make any further edits to the article. In the meantime, you can post your sources to the article's Talk page and ask another editor to add them to the article, or just mention on the Talk page that you have sources and will be adding them soon. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Levy

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not going near the page of course, but having spotted the latest flare-up the other day, I couldn't help but notice that the translation at footnote 18 talks about "purging vermin". Is that a serious translation of what that (source unidentified) extract says? It may well not be of course, but I'm not sure - regardless of the merits of the dispute - that that specific footnote should be there at all if it is. --Nickhh (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

ps: I'm not trying to sway the debate by writing this note here either, in case anyone wants to make an issue of it at AE or anything pointless, it's just that it made by jaw drop a little when I saw it, and, if accurate, I'm not sure it's the kind of thing we want footnoted on any WP page

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Please note that per the edit warring policy it is not permitted to use WP:TW or other similar tools in a content dispute (especially with no useful edit summary) as you did with this edit. Repeated violation of this policy may lead of confiscation to those editing tools or a block. In your defence it is reassuring to see some attempt made to resolve disputes and the relevant noticeboard. Thank you, GDonato (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The repeated insertion of defamatory material to a biography of a living person, cited to a non-existent source but ultimately deriving from a hostile blog, is indeed vandalism, not a content dispute.RolandR (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You are attempting to claim the BLP exception but I feel a complex and as-yet-undecided matter of sourcing can not be claimed to be obvious vandalism or a BLP violation. From WP:EW:

Excepetions

...

  • Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
You did eventually got to the BLP noticeboard as recommended, which is good, but you made the revert first and it would not be possible for anyone to realise why you deemed it to be vandalism as there was no edit summary just automated tool usage. Good luck with resolving the dispute, GDonato (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I did not "eventually" go to the BLP noticeboard; I have been discussing this there for the past four days, long before I reverted a disputed edit as vandalism. This is indeed, as discussed there, "poorly sourced controversial material", which undoubtedly infringes the BLP policy. RolandR (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You are quite correct about the dates for the BLPN, I had misread them. In any case, your revert was significantly more than just that of the semi-sourced content and included content which does not appear to be controversial. I am sure that this will all become irrelevant as you are hopefully more aware of the need to use good edit summaries now, thank you for your patience, GDonato (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your last revert on the invention of the Jewish people

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please don't blame me for having POV while one should be not only blind for not seeing yours. What's more that the criticism on Sand was drwan by many good ones and it's realy not hard to find those (even in the article itself). The open section is full of praises which you oddly enough didn't find bias. As I wrote on the talk page-if you want' ask for new source or improve the language (while keeping it authentic copy of the meaning) -don't delete and don't imply that I had 5 edits while it was in a row. The 3rr trick would not work here sir.--Gilisa (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Chomsky criticism sourcing

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, it's me from the Chomsky page. I've found a number of sources (it's pretty easy with google "chomsky skinner misread") supporting the claim that he misread Skinner. Would it be original research to use the volume of such claims to support a statement that it is hardly a unique criticism?

Also, just FYI, my edit was not anti-Chomsky. I was worried that the sentence about misrepresenting Skinner gave the impression that Chomskyan linguistics hinged on something that turns out to be false. Allformweek (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC).

Report on Edit warring

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[1]--Gilisa (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Result of the 3RR case

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:RolandR reported by User:Gilisa (Result: Protected). Though the result was protection, the case does not reflect well on either party. Even a small amount of negotiation could have avoided this, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[2]--Gilisa (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mandela quote

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, Roland, just letting you know I started a discussion on WP:RSN about the sources of the Mandela quote. I imagine you'll want to join the discussion. Thanks! Factsontheground (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Yes, I did. An admin reviewing the unblock request can sustain the block for a reason other than that given by the blocking admin, regardless of whether or not that reason was correct. And that reason included edit warring, both in the on-page template and the log. I found that supported by these edits:[3] and [4]. This edit I also find a bit gamey ... I can understand what the other editor meant, and FotG pretending she can't is needless complication (although at that point both of them should have just backed off. Long before that point, actually). Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Old friend in new clothes?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Roland - could you take a look at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Baked barney and tell me if you think this is Runtshit? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for sticking up for me during my latest block. If there is anything I can do for you in the future just let me know. Factsontheground (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I though it was necessary because

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I think it is significant knowledge that the German revolution was lead by a small minority of the country & wiki shouldn't hide that.Which weren't Jewish then? paul ,leo & clara must have been, I don't see any reasons to doubt communist websites(no communist source for clara though, but I remember it). I was sure karl was but i can't remember what I read about Him now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No autoaim (talk • contribs) 20:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


Isn't it called spartacist uprising aswell, the main founder & leader of the party was, & almost a majority, atleast, of the other members were.No autoaim (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You are a racist troll, and further comments from you are unwelcome. RolandR (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your user page

Latest comment: 14 years ago29 comments9 people in discussion

Hello. The recent conflict between you and another user gave me occasion to look at your user page. I would like to ask you to remove these two images from it:

This is because these can reasonably be understood as "anti-people" images, i.e., as representing a rejection of the respective group of people, Nazis and Israelis. That is probably not very controversial in the first case, but very, very divisive in the second case. I believe that this is incompatible with our guideline WP:UP#POLEMIC, which prohibits "very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing", notably "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons". This is especially important when that content, as in this case, is within the scope of WP:ARBPIA (see notably Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Principles: "Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.") I would appreciate your action on this. Regards,  Sandstein  20:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I make no apologies for being against nazis, and for stating this on my user page. If this offends anyone, that is their problem. I am glad that you recognise that this is indeed an anti-nazi image, rather than an antisemitic attack, and I am bemused that you can use another editor's misunderstanding of this image as a reason to request its removal.
The anti-Zionist image is in the context of a userbox indicating a political position. It is absolutely and categorically not directed against Israelis, not all of whom are Zionists while most Zionists are not Israeli. Many of my family are Israelis, and I worked for many years in Jerusalem with Israeli anti-Zionists and anti-occupation activists. I am indeed opposed to the practices of the state of Israel, but this does not mean that I "reject" Israelis. And, since nobody has objected to this or claimed to be offended by it, I again don't understand why you request its removal. RolandR (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
At least one user that I know of has claimed to be offended by your user page, even if they said so in an inappropriate manner; that's what brought me here. In any event, even though my personal sympathies for Nazis are zero, "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons" are nonetheless prohibited, no matter how popular or unpopular, good or evil these groups may be. And the Israeli flag does not only represent Zionism, but also and arguably mainly the country of Israel and by extension its people; therefore, crossing it out represents an attack on these people. You can make your statement against Zionism, itself on the verge of being unacceptably divisive, without including this image.  Sandstein  20:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The fact that you need people to claim offense to a giant Israeli flag with a red line through it, and don't understand yourself that the purpose is to offend people, says a lot. Breein1007 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
A "giant" Israeli flag? The image is 48 pixels wide, for God's sake! (Pardon me for butting in.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a giant Israeli flag. You are mistaken. The original image is quite large and should be deleted. But thanks for contributing with that pertinent comment that really had a highly important impact on the conversation. It really would change the meaning of my comment altogether if the flag wasn't giant, right? Awesome as usual, Malik. Breein1007 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of the size of the image on Commons, the image on Roland's userpage—which is the subject of the discussion here—is only 48 pixels wide. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, your argument has nothing to do with anything, and I can't even begin to comprehend your motives for wasting both of our time with this. Roland is the one who uploaded the image to both his userpage and to commons, and as Sandstein said above, the image is offensive. Therefore, it should be deleted altogether. Both the 48 pixel one and the GIANT one. Now I will move on. Breein1007 (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the argument does have to do with something. Namely, your incorrect claim that the image under discussion was "giant". The reason this is relevant is to inform people that you are being misleading so that they will not take your false claims seriously. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
RolandR, I'm realy don't do on purpose in order to annoy, but the strike out Israeli flag is truely ineptly. I would never put the flag of Saudi Arabia or Iran striked out on my UP. If these examples don't clearify it, then I wouldn't never put similar image of French or Peru or Spain flags. Israel is a state, the flag represent it first and formost. I assume you can express your objection to Zionism in more constructive ways. The truth is that I noticed it much before, but the subject is now discussed for the first time.--Gilisa (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This is rich. A person whose Talk page bears the heading "אין זרעו של עשו נמסר אלא ביד זרעו של יוסף" feels the need to lecture another user about an offensive userpage. LOL. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the problem with this sentence and what offensive in it...Esau offspring Amalek is the mythological enemy of the Jewish people (i.e., anti semitics and racists of all kinds). Amalek don't refer to any specific people, just to anti semitic in general-they hate me, I give a **** on them. I inserted this sentence just after my talk page was vandalized and it should not be considered offensive. BTW, I have no objection to remove it if someone else rather than you consider it as such.--Gilisa (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure, whatever you say. You and I both know it refers not just to Amalek but to all of Edom. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Malik, please, refresh your knowledge before you shoot accusations. You are an admin, I would expect from you to more than that. Please my friend, google this sentence +Amalek (עמלק) and/or plus Haman (המן). While Esua is the father of all of Edom, this sentence specifically refer to Amalek only! Please don't get things out of context. So, if I hurt any Amaleky, I deeply apologize--Gilisa (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Image deleted

It is regrettable that you have declined to remove the images. As an arbitration enforcement measure, therefore, for the reasons given above, I have deleted the flag image from Commons, where it was also out of the project scope. Do not attempt to reintroduce it there or on this project, or you will be made subject to sanctions.  Sandstein  05:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

ARBPIA does not cover commons, I would expect an admin to know that. If you feel that image was outside of the scope of commons you should have started a deletion discussion, but to cite an en.wp arbitration decision to delete an image on another project, one where the en.wp arbcom has no authority to issue binding decisions, and threaten a user for actions on another project is not within your authority as an admin. Please reverse these actions. Commons has a process for determining what is and what is not within the project scope, your interpretation of ARBPIA is not a part of that. nableezy - 06:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone point me to the process for appealing against this arbitrary decision? Do I do so at ARBPIA, or on Commons, or somewhere else? Thanks. RolandR (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Here nableezy - 14:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that you first have to appeal to him. At least it was like that for Mbz1 after she was TB. But what reason you have to appeal when the flag image returned in smaller version at your new user box?--Gilisa (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I note that you have replaced the previous image on your user page by a substantially similar one, Commons:File:No Israel.svg. I am not deleting that file on Commons because unlike the previous image it is in use by other wikis. However, your use of this image on your user page violates my instruction above. I am therefore formally prohibiting you, acting under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, from using this image or substantially similar ones (i.e., crossed-out flags of countries involved in the Israeli-Arab conflict) in your user space. I am removing it from your user page and userbox. If you reintroduce it, you may be made subject to additional sanctions. This sanction can be appealed as described in the remedy linked to above; you are recommended to use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} for the purpose of any noticeboard appeal.  Sandstein  10:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Who are you Sandstein? The thought police? Ridiculous. Tiamuttalk 10:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, for a page containing multiple examples of images showing crossed-out national symbols that you might like to take action over, see this user page. A type of userbox that you may consider divisive and worth considering for action under the scope of WP:ARBPIA: ZScarpia   11:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I also have on my user page an atheism user box, with the word God crossed out in red in exactly the same way. The image is used on dozens of other user pages. Surely there are many more Wikipedians whoi believe in a god than who support the state of Israel; but there have been no objections to this image. Indeed, there were none to the anti-Zionist image (commonly used by Jews who oppose Zionism and the state of Israel) until Sandstein took it on himself to respond to Mbz's personal attack by sanctioning me rather than her. I have appealed the prohibition at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by RolandR, while Nableezy has appealed against the original image deletion on Commons, as indicated above. RolandR (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure that I'm helping your case much, so I'll shut up now.     ←   ZScarpia   21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

From the Edinburgh Evening News, 8 April 2010: Sheriff Scott added that if persons on a public march designed to protest against and publicise alleged crimes committed by a state and its army were afraid to name that state for fear of being charged with racially aggravated behaviour it would render their rights under the Convention worthless. Their placards, he said, would have to read "Genocide in an unspecified part of the Middle East", "Boycott an unspecified state in the Middle East". [5] RolandR (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Lots of food for thought. With lots of moral dilemmas to chew over. Have you seen this?     ←   ZScarpia   00:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course; it was my friends. Unfortunately, I was unable to be with them. See Tony Greenstein's blog postings at [6], [7], [8] and [9] -- and pretend you didb't see the imnage in the first one! RolandR (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Craig Murray has commented on the Scottish case. I know somebody who's a reasonably senior law officer. I'll ask what's behind the Procurator Fiscal Office's behaviour the next time we meet.     ←   ZScarpia   20:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the subject of the userbox, I think it would be worth bearing in mind this.     ←   ZScarpia   22:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Explaining edits on the Karl Marx page

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi RolandR: What exactly would you like me to explain in relation to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl_Marx&diff=354070818&oldid=354006624 ? -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The original text stated that his ideas "are credited as the foundation of modern communism". You changed this to "played a significant role in the development of modern communism", saying that this was "in the light of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl_Marx&diff=next&oldid=297489540". Looking back at the edit you cite, I see that this was the removal of obvious vandalism. The previous edit, which was by you, also made the change you introduced, with no explanation.
If you think that this edit makes a significant difference to the neutrality of the article, please explain how.RolandR (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I can see some "removal of obvious vandalism" in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl_Marx&diff=next&oldid=297489540 Unfortunately, reverting the vandalism committed by 204.174.88.228 on 2009-06-20 also reverted my edit of later that same day. Since I do not regard my edit as vandalism, I have attempted to re-apply (yet improve) my edit. -- The text as I found it on 2009-06-20 read "[...] Marx [...] was a German philosopher [...] and revolutionary credited as the founder of communism" -- which by this month had evolved into "[...] and revolutionary, whose ideas are credited as the foundation of modern communism". The anonymous crediting of a founding or of a foundation to Marx struck me as lacking neutrality, so I have suggested alternatives. Let me explain that in more detail: A glance at the History of Communism article confirms that Marx had both predecessors and successors -- talking of a "founding" would ask for dispute. Similar issues arise with the use of the vague phrasing "modern communism". Disciples of (say) Proudhon might well regard their man as at "the foundation of modern communism", and students of Plekhanov, Trotsky, Mao and (especially) Lenin could make cases for founders of "modern communism" more "modern" than the communism of Marx. Accordingly, I sought as part of my general editing to find some wording that: 1. avoided the WP:WEASEL vagueness of "credited as"; 2. avoided the slightly WP:PEACOCK claim of a "founding" or a "foundation"; yet: 3. ensured Marx his undoubted place as a major influence on communist thought. Hence my (currently) favored proposed wording, which aims to express a neutral point of view while summarizing Marx's especial notability: "whose ideas played a significant role in the development of communism". OK? -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Chomsky and Zionism/anti-Zionism

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

So, first of all, let me say that you have probably my favorite userpage ever. That being said, I must insist that to this day, Dr. Chomsky claims to be a left-Zionist. Therefore, I do not think it appropriate- really I don't think it fair to the good Doc- to place him in the Jewish anti-Zionists category. I think out of fairness to the now archaic notion of Zionism, that of a socialist home for Jews and all other inhabitants of Palestine, that he be allowed to be in the Zionist category. Indeed, he would be among the few articles within that category that was there correctly.

I understand you identify as anti-Zionist, and I respect that, but Chomsky, while as critical about the abuses perpetrated by Israel as you or anyone else with any honest grasp of the situation, he still ought to be recognized as the Zionist he wishes to be.Gold1618 (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments about my user page. You may be interested to read my recent arbitration enforcement appeal about this.
In 1988, during the first Intifada, I accompanied Chomsky on a visit to the West Bank. We were denied entry to Dheisheh refugee camp by a reserve soldier who we recognised as a member of Peace Now; but that's another story. In the course of conversation, Chomsky remarked that he called himself a Zionist because he still held the same position that he had held over forty years earlier, as a member of Hashomer Hatzair, which was then in favour of a binational state in Palestine. Although Hashomer had changed its position, Chomsky had not, and still called for a binational state in Palestine. That position had by 1988 become one almost exclusively held by anti-Zionists, but Chomsky insisted on his right to hold a historical Zionist position, although no Zionist organisation now helkd that position. In some ways, his position could be compared to that of my late friend, the anti-racist activist Steve Cohen, who explicitly called himself an "anti-Zionist Zionist"[10].Given the changing use of the word, and the connotations the term now attracts, I think that it is inappropriate to categorise him as a Zionist. I would not insist on categorising him as an anti-Zionist.RolandR (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I think it's ridiculous that you've been given this crap. Oy vey!

I think I see your point; it might be odd to categorize him as a Zionist in 2010. But yeah, I also think we ought to take away his categorization as anti-zionist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold1618 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Illan pappe

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just to let you know that Stellarkid has reverted you on this page. annoynmous 21:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

That was, of course, perfectly helpful. I'm not one who subscribes to the (rather peculiar, IMHO, though it exists) view that it is a travesty if someone corrects my obvious mistake. Though I was criticized some time ago -- not by the poor speller, but by another editor -- for fixing a couple of spelling mistakes by a poor speller in a discussion I was party to (my spell-check didn't only turn up my errors).--Epeefleche (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wanted: Wanted

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Do you happen to have the Hebrew edition of the Lehi memoir "Wanted" by Yaacov Eliav? (I'm not sure of the Hebrew title.) There's an ambiguity in the English edition that should be clearer in the original. Thanks. Zerotalk 03:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If I correctly identify it as בין אור וצל: סיפור it is only on Google in snippet view. Can you search as well, please, my Hebrew isn't up to it. Thanks. Zerotalk 07:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
On second thoughts, it is this book, the cover of the English edition looks nearly the same as shown at the Hebrew wiki page on Eliav. Or maybe they are different editions of the same book. I'm trying to determine how precisely he describes the document containing Lehi's offer to the Nazis; especially if says who wrote it. Zerotalk 07:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
You're right, it is the second. "Mevukash" means "Wanted". But the content is not viewable online. I also looked it up at WorldCat, and the nearest library to London that has it is at Jerusalem University!. RolandR (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

MfD

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Your user subpage can be speedy deleted under {{db-userreq}} (since its under your userspace), and I have tagged it as such. If you want the MfD you created to be deleted, feel free to add {{db-author}} to it. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand, since this was created as a sub-page to my talk page, it is not eligible for speedy deletion. RolandR (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
You're right about {{db-userreq}} not being quite applicable; however, because no discussion occurred under the page, and because it was created without your consent, WP:IAR applies. If this happens in the future, feel free to tag the page under {{db-banned}}, since I am sure that certainly applies. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Please note that this vandal has created the same unwanted subpage at Harlan Wilkerson's and Taelus's talk pages. I assu,me that they doi not want them either. RolandR (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me. I've tagged both of them for deletion under {{db-housekeeping}}. Cunard (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

East Germany et al

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This nonsense seems to have been going on for a few days now, and it looks like the user in question has a dynamic IP address. I'd be up for requesting semi-protection on the affected articles. (Ironically, I've just argued against protection - I'm not a huge fan). Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 17:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You should not revert other people's edits...

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

...before checking the SUMMARY!!!!
Please, read this essay when you get a moment.
Anyway, I removed the template from that page, and the wlink to Marx in the template, which was exactly what you had to do. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. Please explain, don't hint. RolandR (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

RolandRock

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After the user had an edit reverted by ClueBot, I just want to make sure it isn't more "Runt". mechamind90 06:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Scratch that, it was a false positive, but I'm still concerned about "Runt". mechamind90 06:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

MLH used an incorrect message

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed that Momma's Little Helper used an edit war message. That appeared to be incorrect, although such edits can lead to the assumption of ownership via rollback. mechamind90 17:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

MLH replied

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Momma's Little Helper has left a reply to your three revert examples on my user talk page. I just want to make sure that unless users are actually talking to me, it will remain outside, so I suggest either posting the reply on your talk page or MLH's talk page. mechamind90 03:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

AIV

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,
hmm, MediaWiki was apparently confused, it claimed that it was still blocked, but you're right, that wasn't actually the case. I thought that only happens when the watchlists are also lagging, but apparently not. IP is blocked now.
Cheers, Amalthea 12:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to list these at WP:OP if they're not hard-blocked for a long time. They're almost always open web proxies. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Got Yiddish?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, Roland R.— I see that you're a translator that knows Hebrew. Do you do translations of Yiddish? I'm leerily circling a book project on American radicalism in the early 1920s and will be needing Yiddish-language translation help at some juncture. Drop me a line and say hello if you've got Yiddish in your arsenal. Best regards. Carrite (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I wondered if you had read this article? And comment #32? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I wrote to them several days ago, asking them to remove it, but they have not replied. Such comments, purportedly in my name, are posted regularly to websites and blogs. Most are deleted quickly, but unfortunately many remain. And did you see comment #4? RolandR (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah; I gathered it was a fake one. And I saw #4; 60 000, and counting. But I don´t think it is "a group," do you? That "group" all operate at the same time of the day.... Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
And never on Friday night/Saturday. There has been no activity today either; perhaps because it was Shavuot? RolandR (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, 60,000 is a lie. More like 7500 quite enough, but far less than "they" lay claim to. If it is a Single Person, they must have plenty of time with not much to do. Sad, really. RolandR (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, there are 1094 IPs/names here: [11].. and 74 here: [12]. That would mean 50-60 edits each, on average, if he was correct. Which is not probable at all. But yeah: certainly sad, and rather pathetic. And it of course works as a boomerang...Talking about shooting oneself in the foot, and all that. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

new account

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This account was created and in a few minites made four edits all to revert you. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, by zzuuzz. Amalthea 23:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for MEDCAB Mediation

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The request for mediation concerning Israel and the apartheid analogy, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). If you have any questions, please contact me.

Ronk01 (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Notification: General sanctions and 1RR restriction on Richard Goldstone

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message because of your involvement at the Richard Goldstone article. Please don't consider it an assumption of bad faith

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include 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.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

  • In relation to the above, you are informed that the Richard Goldstone article is under a blanket 1RR restriction and violations of this restriction will result in escalating blocks and/or topic/page bans. Thank you for your cooperation.HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

They were talking on one another's talk pages.- Sinneed 17:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I missed that. But it was still close to 3RR, and in my view vandalistic behaviour. RolandR (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
wp:disruptive editing and wp:edit warring surely, wp:vandalism requires bad faith.- Sinneed 17:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Breein1007

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

He has asked that you also refrain from posting on his talk page, please avoid doing so.--Crossmr (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thought you might be interested

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See here. Cheers. IronDuke 00:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Respect 2010 election results

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Hi,

I just noticed that, a while ago, you deleted part of the data I had added about Respect's election results for the second time in a row. I have again reverted your deletion. I have now laid out my argument why I consider the info relevant on the subject's talk page, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Respect_Party#2010_Election_results . If you still disagree, I'd suggest discussing the issue there, and not deleting the info for a third time, to avoid some kind of further edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No-itsme (talk • contribs) 15:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did forget to sign my comment! No-itsme (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, so sorry for neglecting this and only getting back so much later! Thank you for your patience.
I've replied now to your reply on the Respect talk page. It's the best arguments I've got on this issue, so I hope it will convince you to leave the percentage in. ;) I suppose there isn't all that much left to say about what was, admittedly, a rather minor point, so I don't know what the next step should be .. I saw that one other poster replied and (s)he agreed with you, so - well, I'll leave it up to you! But of course I hope my new reply will be persuasive. :-) No-itsme (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I hope you are doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I have just read your profile and you seem a very open minded and wise person interested in justice, peace, languages, cultures and minorities so maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm part of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this has not been approved up to this moment because it does not belong to one state. We think there shouldn't be barriers between human people and knowledge but at the same time we also want to preserve our culture and language as the others which are a part of biodiversity. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You Are Mentioned on ANI

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see here for the thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just in case you haven't seen it, I think you need to be aware of this. --NSH001 (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have responded appropriately. RolandR (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Noam Chomsky

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

OK--but I hope you understand where I'm coming from: saying Chavez is influenced by Chomsky is, in the US, easily seen as guilt. But while it may be well-attested, it's not attested at all in the article--can you provide a reference? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

None of the others listed are verified in the article either. But look at [13], and there are many more. RolandR (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. But that that others are not verified either is not a valid reason for leaving an unverified and possibly controversial one; it's still a BLP. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, friend

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm reopening an old can of worms. Your input is welcomed... Talk:IBM_and_the_Holocaust Carrite (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. I have added my view, which has not changed since we first discussed this. RolandR (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Six Families

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Well done. I'd started an AfD at about the same time, and was surprised to see mine come up as a 2nd nomination and had to scurry around fixing it (it didn't look to me as though yours was on the daily log, did you do it manually?). Anyway, that was faster than a prod. I'd already removed some images. I must see about them being deleted as they were being used with what was clearly an inadequate fair use rationale. That was faster than a Prod! Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I used Twnkle; something must have gone wrong. You may have noted that I had already PRODed the article, but the tag was removed. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Propose Topic Ban. RolandR (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've been watching. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation: Israel and the Apartheid analogy

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just an FYI, we are running a straw poll on title choices on the mediation page - see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Straw_poll_on_titles. If you pitch in a vote or three, we can move this along.   --Ludwigs2 06:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RolandR/Archive_6&oldid=1079778611"