Wikipedia

User talk:RolandR/Archive 7

< User talk:RolandR
Latest comment: 13 years ago by All Hail The Muffin in topic The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Shamir

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry, Roland, I'm not sure I'm allowed to comment there. Jayjg (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on closure of Israel and Aparthied mediation

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Current consensus seems to be to move the article to Israel and Apartheid with an appropriate disambiguation line to prevent any misinterpretations. Please weigh in over the next few days. --Ludwigs2 17:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, RolandR. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 20:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism cleanup

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm back to about October 2009. Basically, every time our vandal gets in his few attempted changes (and they're easily apparent now with the pending changes flag), I'll wipe about 5 or 6 old accounts. So every time he posts, it's a net loss for him.

Also, what would you think about blanking the category of his sockpuppets per WP:DENY? It's not like we need any help identifying him. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is still necessary to identify him. There are clearly editors who are not yet aware of this vandal; see for instance this report from last week. RolandR (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You are mentioned

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, just wanted to make you aware that you were mentioned by the first poster in the comments section in this news article:[1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It's clearly more of the same harassment I have encountered on- and off-Wikipedia for several years now; it doesn't bother me. These juveniles are wasting their time, but at least this keeps them out of mischief. RolandR (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
What harassment have you encountered off-Wikipedia? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The same person who stalks me on Wikipedia has created an offensive blog about me, and has sent countless comments in my name to loads of internet forums and blogs, trying to smear me as an antisemitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab terrorist with homoerotic and anal fantasies. It says more about him than about me. Most websites (even thoise unsympathetic to my political views) delete them on sight. If you email me, I can tell you more; I don't want to give more details here. RolandR (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

return of Drork?

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Roland, I wasnt around when most of the IPs Drork was using were brought to SPI, but what do you think the chances are that this IP is another sock of Drork? nableezy - 06:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. The IP is in the same range as several of Drork's blocked socks; but these seem to be assigned to Bezeq, so many editors in Israel could be usiung them. Drork never edited the Golan article, and the style of argument does not sound like him. It is reminiscent, though, and I will see if I can recall who it reminds me of. RolandR (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Drork edited that article, see here where the same argument over "settlement" is made. Or here where a "retired" Drork edits as an IP and makes the argument that "occupied" cannot possibly be an accurate or neutral description (collapsed section on that page), a continuation of this (also collapsed). nableezy - 12:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I missed that. You may be right; but the tone and obsessions do not seem the same as Drork's. Certainly no smoking gun there, as far as I can see. RolandR (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Im not sure either. The arguments over "occupied" and "settlement" have a Drork taste to them, but a lot of people are opposed to using those words. Combined with other factors such as a clear familiarity with wiki syntax though this is clearly not a "new" editor. nableezy - 13:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure of that. But proving it is another matter. RolandR (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Drork returned some days ago on wikimedia [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

template

Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Roland there is no need to keep that template their at all. Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no need to keep the template? The SPI is still ongoing, it has been established that at least three accounts are socks of Appletree, and several editors have expressed their suspicion that one or other of these is a sock of Einsteindonut. So why did you remove the template, before the investigation is completed? RolandR (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The sock issues with David have been resolved, the user continues with this single account in a good faith way and as such there is no benefit in labeling him like that, the user is also identified and has safety issues as noted on his user page and exposure of what may be related IP addresses have perhaps personal safety issues. Off2riorob (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Since Einsteindonut has been banned by the communmity, this is certainly not resolved. If Appletree is, as many believe,, another sock, then he cannot be allowed to edit by an admin; this will require a further community discussion. RolandR (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


(edit conflict)I concur with Off2riorob. The purpose of the templates is to help in tracking down sockpuppets, not as a badge of shame. In this case, David has admitted to prior sockpuppets and under the eponymous user account is working on rehabilitating himself back into the community, which also means that whatever ban applied to Einsteindonut is being "lifted" for JUST the DavidAppletree account. As long as he is not violating wikipedia pricnciples, we should be encouraging him, not the opposite. I understand that your political viewpoints are rather opposed to his, which is fine, but he should expect the same courtesy that you do, for now. He goes back to sockpuppettry, all bets are off; and the same applies to you, me, or anyone. Please remember, wikipedia is not an arena where he or you can continue your political struggles; it is an encyclopedia, and people who cannot abide by those terms may have their privileges removed. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

But Einsteindonut is a banned user. As such, it is not open to an admin to allow him to edit again under another name. Only a further community discussion can revert this ban. RolandR (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want to take that route, there is no hard evidence that DA is ED, so the ban does not apply. -- Avi (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I have raised this for discussion at ANI RolandR (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Great, check the history and see who raised the discussion there to beging with   -- Avi (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that was me; but it seems that there have been several edit conflicts there, with editors simultaneously posting similar comments to different sections of the case. This one looks set to run for ages! RolandR (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Here, let me help you :) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=381894717. -- Avi (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I was posting (in a new section, which you later incorporated into your own) at the same time as you. Anyway, my brother is bigger than yours, so there! RolandR (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, UNCLE, you win, stop him from beating me up!!!   -- Avi (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

David Appletree

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I have just blocked User:DavidAppletree. His presence on Wikipedia is unlikely to contribute to harmonious editing towards NPOV, indeed it was likely to stoke conflict and drama. This is a place for collaboration and not for political agendas. In the spirit of that, I am asking you to respond by removing your remarks concerning him from your userpage, and large, rather provocative image too. A userpage can usefully declare your biases, but it not best used as not a soapbox.--Scott Mac 21:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no remarks about David Appletree on my user page. RolandR (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
And the image does not relate in the least to Appletree, or any other Zionists. It is about antisemites who pretend to espouse the Palestinian cause -- a group I despise just as much as Appletree does himself. RolandR (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
My apologies. I saw appletree's site and followed the link to your userpage and assumed he was responding to you, or vice versa. However, I'd still ask you to consider whether using your userpage to respond to off-wiki attacks, and to host provocative political images helps this project's aims of neutrality and collaboration. --Scott Mac 22:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I am with Scott on this. It would be nice if you could tone down your userpage significantly. Wikipedia is not a battleground.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Steven Plaut

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi RolandR! Thanks for adding a source for the claim about Plaut's involvement with websites. I've raised a concern about it at [[3]] and would welcome your comments. Cheers -- Timberframe (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Rats

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks mate, sorry I beat you to the draw. I'll flip a tinnie and have one to your health now.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Describing living people with derogatory labels in edit summaries

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I have asked for input on your recent actions here. The consensus of opinion from uninvolved editors there is that what you are doing is inappropriate, and that I should ask you politely to stop, which is what I am doing here. HupHollandHup (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What action are you talking about? Please specify. RolandR (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
As the section header says, the actions are the labeling of living people with derogatory descriptors in edit summaries, such as the one where you called a living person an "extremist agitator". I am asking you politely to stop doing that. HupHollandHup (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
HupHollandHup has decided that the truth about Steven Plaut is "derogatory", so we must refrain from expressing it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
it's actually not me who decided that. I asked for community input on your actions, and the consensus was that they were inappropriate. You, as an administrator, should know better. HupHollandHup (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
As I have already told you, I am not, and have no desire to be, an administrator. Please do not make derogatory comments about me on my talk page. And, by the way, I see no consensus, and barely any discussion, on the noticeboard. RolandR (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
My comment above was directed at Malik, as should be obvious from the indentation. Sorry if it wasn't clear. There are two uninvolved editors who commented on WP:BLPN, both of them saying your behavior is inappropriate and suggesting I ask you politely to stop. This is the third time I'm doing so. HupHollandHup (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes indeed, sometimes the truth is derogatory. In the same edit summary, I described Plaut as a "known libeller"; I note that our friend does not even attempt to challenge that true statement. RolandR (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverts of the Plaut reference at The Invention of the Jewish People

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello RolandR. You've taken out the Plaut reference a number of times. If you think that this removal is covered by the BLP exception to WP:Edit war, you should invite comments on that theory at some appropriate place, like WP:BLP/N. Otherwise, please establish a consensus on the article talk that the Plaut reference does not belong. Editors on both sides of the dispute who continue to revert are on thin ice at this point. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Invention of the Jewish People

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Roland. At this point, HupHollandHup is just trolling. WP:DFTT. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you are right, and will heed your wise words. Don't you think that, for a new editor, he has remarkably quickly learned WPlanguage and methods?
And please indulge a sport-challenged Brit and explain the significance of your football remark. RolandR (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've wondered whose sock HHH is.
I'm also a sports idiot, but WP:BOOMERANG used to be named WP:PLAXICO after American football player Plaxico Burress, who accidentally shot himself in the leg. The old name was deleted, well, because of BLP. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Came across this clicking link on the relevant thread Yeah, this is the same person as the WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED (which also got deleted due to the ever-toxic BLP policy). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Accepted revision

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hello, I saw that you vetted my changes to Galloway's article. I am just wondering why my revision was pending? It had not on previous occasions. Is it connected to the fact that the previous revision was not accepted? Take it easy, ValenShephard (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the pending revisions system works, but you are probably right. Why not apply for reviewer status so that you can approve edits yourself? RolandR (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your swift reply. How would I go about doing that, and can you sum up the criteria?—Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs) 17:45, 10 September 2010
(talk page stalker) Being a reviewer wouldn't necessarily help here - I've had my edits "pend" until a friendly reviewer chances by, and I've reviewed edits by admins as well. However, I've removed PC protection from the Galloway article so this problem is moot, there at least. (The pending changes trial is over, so PC protection should be being gradually deprecated, anyway, at least until we decide PC should be adopted permanently). TFOWR 16:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: On the German wiki, if you edit and save a pending page, it is not automatically marked as "sighted" (gesichtet), but you can then mark it as sighted yourself (provided you have the equivalent of the reviewer right). I can't see any reason why this should not be allowed on en:wp, and WP:RVW seems to say that you can review your own edits (similar to the German wiki), but I haven't any experience of it. I guess the reason it is not automatically marked as reviewed is to allow you to review properly more than one pending change to the same article. --NSH001 (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. That seems to solve the issue for now. ValenShephard (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
While I'm here, since you two both obviously have George's article on your radars, and since I've just removed the one barrier holding back the barbarian hoards, let me know if it needs protected in the future. TFOWR 17:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Will do. By the way, the painting on your user page is one of my new favourites. : D ValenShephard (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

 
Hello, RolandR. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
Message added 16:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your AIV report

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

From this edit it looks as though the helper bot edited at the same time as you and your report got cleared away with another one. That happens occasionally, not often enough to be a serious problem. Thanks for your second report, which I have acted on. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: American Socialist Party

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello RolandR. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of American Socialist Party, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an unambiguous copyright infringement, or there is other content to save. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


Jerry Hicks (trade unionist)

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I replied to your edit summary on the talk page. Please do not edit the contents of the PROD template again. If you believe the notability argument is not valid, please remove it. Widefox (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You reverted my edit on Respect Party. If you did not understand my lengthy comment, please ask next time. I will tag citation needed, as this reference is not a notable 3rd party as per reliable sources. Unreferenced or poorly referenced claims can be removed, I'm sure you know that. I even tagged the article, so in my opinion you have removed the tag without improving the article. Please can you explain, as I do not understand. Widefox (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Instead of reverting my edits on 2 pages, please will you engage in dialogue, and discuss as requested above? I will not engage in a revert war, and so this requires you to discuss. I repeat, weak sources for BLPs are not adequate (this covers mentions of living people in other articles too), in fact the guideline says to remove content with weak attribution. The guardian reference that I added the author to, and you reverted - please check your own reference, and follow through to the author - the url you have linked to is an insignificant (unattributed) side page to the real article. As such, the guardian article is the real reference, with author attributed to Jerry, exactly as I added. When you removed the author attribution I added, it hides the fact that this reference is not a valid 3rd party reference. Separately, you disclose on your page that you are a trade unionist and a political activist. I'm sure you are well aware of the COI guidelines, so please can you consider that if you have affiliations with the subject of these articles to take appropriate action based on the guideline. Widefox (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The fact that I am a trade unionist and political activist does not preclude me from making constructive edits to pages in which I might be construed to have an interest. At least I voluntarily disclose my position, leading to a possibly stricter scrutiny of my edits. Could the same be said of you or other editors contributing to the pages under discussion?
If a statement cites a source then, however unsatisfactory you consider that source to be, you should not tage it "citation needed". There are other ways and tags to draw attention to possibly inadequate sources. See Template:Citation needed for details of the "dubious" and "verify credibility" tags, and others. Even if material is completely unsourced (which this was not), you should not remove it unless it is "doubtful and harmful".
Similarly, the BLP guideline does not state that "content with weak attribution" should be removed; it specifically refers to "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material", which this was not. The guideline further permits the use of material written by the subject about themselves.
The Guardian page I refer to was not edited by Hicks himself, and the suggestion that it was is pure synthesis by you. I quick glance at the paper will show that it has such a short profile of every contributor to its pages. See for instance (picked totally at random) [5], [6], [7]. These profiles are reliable third party sources for the information therein.
Your edits are therefore not valid, and appear to display a marked hostility to the subject. Do you possibly have any conflict of interest here? RolandR (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Your upbrading me for making a spelling change

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello. I see no violation of any rule or guideline to my change to the article on Norman Finkelstein. It was a simple spelling correction. What, precisely, is the problem?

Thanks in advance, BWP1234 (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. (And I understand the frustration, though from the opposite perspective.)

BWP1234 (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Appreciation

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Roland. Thanks for the nice note. I appreciate that.--Geewhiz (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

retraction

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I have struck a couple of my comments here , they were undue and excessive and I apologize to you. Your editing at the article while I have been editing there has been exemplary. Recently I am very busy and under pressure in real life and it seems to be reflected in my recent short fuse in discussions, I have become aware of that and am watching it doesn't continue. Off2riorob (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This may be of interest to you. NickCT (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

They're all gone

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Every single Runtshit edit, from all 1200-plus sockpuppets. With the current filters, any new edits will be about one at a time, and almost instantly blanked. So basically, no one will ever see these little jewels of humor.

Just wondering - this guy is a professor at a major university? And he's spent the last four years posting toilet insults on Wikipedia? Really!?! NawlinWiki (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand that cultural reference. Is it US-specific?
I believe that Runtshit is actually a team, rather than the one individual who started this. They are also responsible for spamming weblogs and discussion lists with thousands of false messages in my name, and for similar (if less obsessive) attacks on other anti-Zionist Jews. When you don't have a case, all that's left is personal attacks on your opponents. RolandR (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
It's a Saturday Night Live reference - Google "Really with Seth and Amy" and watch one of the many YouTube videos that will come up. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow. It would be nice never to see that shit again. Best. Pinkville (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If only you had written "that little shit" we could have all laughed at that very clever play on words. nableezy - 18:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Information

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I permit myself to bring your attention about the edits of user:Marokwitz (16 november) who is removing the name 1948 Palestine war from all the articles of wikipedia. What can be done ? Noisetier (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

At some time there are up to 6 modifications per minute. He used a bot to perform this. Is this permitted on wikipedia ? Noisetier (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am not removing the name. This war consisted of two stages, the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine which lasted until May 14 1948, and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War after May 15, 1948. I'm just using the name of more specific campaign where applicable, instead of the broader name, in accordance to the sources. This is a simple matter of providing specific and accurate information. And if you have any problems with my edits, why not contact me? Marokwitz (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The revert of 500 internal links to the article 1948 Palestine war that you made last night is a pov-pushing. The way you justify you and the way you proceeded are not appropriate. I would add that in Hamas and the Taliban analogy, you collaborated a lot to the development of an Orignal Research. By essence, this is an exemple of pov-pushing.
You focus too much on the "letter of the right" to cover you. Wikipedia is also based on the 4th pillar (be civil) and such rules as WP:AGF that you just referred to. The is the "letter of the rule" and the "spirit of the rule".
In importing on wikipedia the israeli-palestinian conflict, you harm the image of Israel and the one of your community. I would advice you to read and think about Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent. That would help you to improve the quality of your collaboration at the project in using simultaneously all our 5 pillars but more above all, that would increase your empathy for all sides of the I-P conflict.
Is there no article that you could *study* and *develop* on focusing both on reliable sources the content of which you don't like and on reliable sources you have sympathy for ?
Think about this. Noisetier (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
(see Marokwitz talk page for the follow up)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you mention it

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

they are actually both wrong. I was just trying to be polite. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You have been mentioned here. Just letting you know. Take care, nableezy - 01:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WB sign

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I recall some year back you commented on a photo of a West Bank road sign, which explicitly mentioned the Law of Return. Do you have the link to it. There is a discussion at WP:RDH. --Soman (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll look for it. I,m sure I linked it in discussion somewhere. RolandR (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Found my archived post. The article was in Haaretz on 17 February 2006[8]; I think it appeared in Hebrew only, but will check. My full translation of the sign is in the archive. RolandR (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
An English version of the article appeared in Haaretz on the same day. There is no piucture, but the article does state "the signs explicitly define "Israelis" not only as citizens or residents of the state, but also as tourists or anyone entitled to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return". RolandR (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --Soman (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikibias

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry I didn't tell you about the comments—I thought it was clear they weren't yours, but I guess I should have written something so nobody would misinterpret them. I'll keep you informed about any future comments from "RolandR". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 08:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note to thank you for your explanatory comment at the AfD, putting my above note to you in context. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Hi Roland. Hope this helps:

סלוצקי, יהודה, 1915-1978. קיצור תולדות ההגנה / כתב יהודה סלוצקי ; בעריכת - שאול אביגור, יהודה סלוצקי, גרשון ריבלין. [תל אביב] : משרד הביטחון - ההוצאה לאור, (תשל"ט 1978).

(Yehuda Slutsky, 1915-1978, Abridged History of the Hagana, by Yehuda Slutsky; edited by Shaul Avigur, Yehuda Slutsky, Gershon Rivlin, Tel-Aviv: Ministry of Security Publishers, 1978).

nableezy - 17:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that resolved it. So is the answer to include the Hebrew (or Arabic) in {{lang|---}}? And would that resolve bracket and number conflicts as well? (I hope nobody is so ridiculously petty as to count this a breach of your iniquitous topic-ban!) RolandR (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really, the language used in the template doesnt matter (as far as I can tell) and I dont know why it includes it. The template places whatever the text is in a span that has dir="rtl". I dont know if that is needed or if the important part is the control character that is added to the end of the span. The &lrm; html control character is added. This is to allow left-to-right text to immediately follow right-to-left text. This doesnt seem to be needed all the time, but I have run into it a few times. (after ec). Another hint, when you want to display a template use the {{tlx}} template. That will show, for example, {{tlx|lang|he|text}} as {{lang|he|text}}. nableezy - 17:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
(excuse me butting in) Nab, the language does matter, since it's used by spell checkers, screen readers, etc. It also sets a selector that you can use in your /vector.css or /monobook.css file to control how text in that language displays. I find arabic text completely unreadable unless it is wrapped in one of these templates, partly because the default font is so small, partly because my knowledge of the language is only rudimentary, and partly because my eyesight isn't that great. (Same remarks apply to Hebrew, but to a lesser extent re font size, and my knowledge of the language is almost non-existent.) --NSH001 (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
By the way, the text in question still has a brackets problem. Probably unresolvable.
My worst such problem was working in Jerusalem in 1987-8, when we were issuing press releases in Hebrew, Arabic and English, using old computers and primitive software. Someone would make a small amendment, and then the entire document would format r-l or l-r, so that the beginning of one line would go to the end of the next. It was impossible to resolve! RolandR (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Coding issues are always solvable ;). But I cant differentiate between Hebrew letters, so I have no idea how this is supposed to look and cant do much other than comparing between the source and the text on the talk page. Whats the problem? I see the text displaying as it should, though I may be missing something. The one thing that I do see is that the code itself is not showing correctly, but the output is. This is a result of having left to right numbers as the last thing before the end of the last set of parentheses. But the displayed text looks fine.

1987??? There were computers back then? You mean you didnt have to manually set the type in the printing press? nableezy - 17:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem -- which I suppose is more aesthetic than substantive -- is that (on my screen; yours may be wider or narrower), the end of the Hebrew sentence is displayed at the left rather than the right of the line, as if it were l-r formatted.
We did indeed have computers then; but no hard disks. We used large (5½ inch I think) floppys with the programmes and to store files; for security purposes, we kept at least two copies away from the office. I still have them somewhere. RolandR (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
5.25" floppies! Luxury ... I can remember punched-paper drives and having to colour in cards to take to the local computer bureau! Mind you, computers were being built using tansistor technology by then.     ←   ZScarpia   18:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Request

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! I'm looking for an educated opinion on the factual accuracy of these proposals to the wording in Israel and Palestine's entries at List of states with limited recognition. One user is claiming that the Palestinian territories are "occupied by Israel", where as I was of the belief that this was either not the case, or open to dispute. As a member of WikiProject Palestine, would you possibly be able to give an educated opinion? Regards, Nightw 12:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


The Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and East Jerusalem were occupied by Israel in 1967, and remain under Israeli occupation. This is not merely my view; it is the opinion of the United Nations, the "Middle East Quartet", the European Union, The US government, most other governments, the BBC, and reputable human rights organisations. I haven't yet looked at the disagreement on the article you refer to, so I don't know what the implications of this are; but I certainly agree with the other user that these territories remain under Israeli occupation. RolandR (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
But what about the Gaza Strip? Is it both accurate and neutral to say that it, also, is occupied by Israel? Nightw 13:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is. And it would be uinaccurate and non-neutral to present it any other way. RolandR (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I just wanted to check as a number of editors had called the statement into question. I appreciate your responses. Regards, Nightw 13:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Israel Shamir

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Roland R, Off2riorob refers to an OTRS complaint on my talk page. Philip Cross (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I know; see this AN/I discussion. The OTRS, apparently from Shamir himself, was actually a libellous attack on me, accusing me of being a Mossad agent attempting to organise the murder of Shamir. I continue to believe that addition of this reliably-sourced material is acceptable and within policy. RolandR (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

London Wikimedia Fundraiser

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Foreign relations of PLO, PNA, SoP discussion

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please join this discussion to elaborate on your arguments. Alinor (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi

Please accept my apologies, I had not heard of vandal Runtshit before I'm afraid, otherwise I wouldn't have made that comment at AIV. I was thinking it was very unlike you just to report someone without warning them!--5 albert square (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Roland Rance

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I did not understand your deletion tag on this well sourced article about a notable personality, in accordance with WP:BLP. You are more than welcome to make constructive changes to this page, but please try to avoid unexplained deletions. Thanks, and happy new year! Hmbr (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Roland, send an e-mail message to WP:OTRS and ask that they delete and salt the article. See Susannah Heschel for an example of a person who asked that her Wikipedia biography be deleted. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Good advice from Shabazz, there. Personally, I also think Hmbr deserves to be sanctioned for this. Just look at last months history. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Already doing so. I thought that it had been salted after the last attempt to create a smear article. RolandR (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

removing duplications

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you, my modem malfunctioned for a bit.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem; I assumed it wasn't deliberate! RolandR (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, there was allegations of doping in the team and one player is noted in our doping article our article cites a Miguel Coll, drug was ephedrine. I realize we could use stronger reports but . .What about ...

Simonovic's writings may be a reliable source for details about him; but not for defamatory statements about other people. And I do not think that the "International Council for Friendship and Solidarity with Soviet People" would be considered a reliable source either. RolandR (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there are only 25 links from wikipedia to that site. The first citation the google translation in the introduction it is the interviewr talking - Forty years ago was one of the best players of the world But, when faced with the attitude of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) that the team drugged athletes remain in the contest, left the Games in Munich (1972) and changed his mind about the leaders of the sporting events. - this is the reporter commenting and not the subject - as you can see, a perto rica basketball player was convicted of doping in that completion. I will have a look later for some more cites but my desired addition above seems to be a pretty simple indisputable cited comment. What do you dispute or find defamatory? Off2riorob (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
In the absence of any verifiable citation, I would consider such an assertion defamatory and unacceptable at any time. If the only citation we have is in Serbian, then a translation should be included in the footnote. The IP claims that two Puerto Ricans were using drugs; you (and our related article) only mention one. The passage is also overlong and poorly written, but that could be fixed if the verifiability issue was sorted out. RolandR (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
And I don't accept the "International Council for Friendship and Solidarity with Soviet People" as a reliable source for Olympic corruption and ignoring drug use, when there is apparently no other mention of this anywhere. RolandR (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
A Puerto rica basketball player was caught doping in the games, at least it is in our article, I will look at where that information comes from .. here is the doping conviction in a reliable cite ...http://www.olympic.qa - Quatar, sport for life - The following list includes athletes who have tested positive during the summer Olympic Games. The list only includes athletes who have been punished by the IOC. - 1972 - Miguel Coll - Pur - Basketball - ephedrine -
...clearly the details are totally correct, there was an appeal from the yugo team to be awarded the match and it was rejected , swept under the carpet I imagine in 1972 so that is likely why cited reports are hard to come by...and he left the team and never played again - it seems he has been writing about sport and corruption ever since. I will look around for some more reports. Off2riorob (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nurit Kedar

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 10:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RolandR/Archive_7&oldid=1143272302"