User talk:RolandR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello RolandR, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  JFW | T@lk 22:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Notability and the wiki

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


[edit] Editing and Reasons

Merged from User talk:81.178.85.213

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


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

[edit] Please NPOV

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

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

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

[edit] Request for

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

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

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

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

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

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

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

[edit] Help please

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

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

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

[edit] wikEd

The wikEdlogo

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

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

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

Cacycle 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Plaut email

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

[edit] 3RR warning on Steven Plaut

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

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

[edit] David Bukay

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

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

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

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

[edit] Notice

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

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

[edit] User RanceRol

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

Thanks Zero. Can you also block User:Greenran. Obviously set up as an attack on genuine User:Rangreen, and making the same edits as Rancerol.--RolandR 10:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. --Zerotalk 11:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ilan Pappé

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

I don't think semi-protection is necessary. The problematic user(s) has/have been blocked. -- tariqabjotu 03:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
And the same libellous and disruptive edit has now been made by User:Harmont. This will keep happening until the article is protected.--RolandR 15:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked the user as a suspected sockpuppet and semi-protected the article. -- tariqabjotu 15:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/l/User_talk%7ERolandR_dc41.html"