User talk:RolandR: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:08, 30 July 2007 editShadowbot3 (talk \| contribs)51,520 editsm Automated archival of 1 sections to User talk:RolandR/Archive/Archive 01 ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 18:23, 15 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,002 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:RolandR/Archive 18) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	{\| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;"
			\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
	\|-
			\|maxarchivesize = 70K
	\|This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''60''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
			\|counter = 18
	\|-
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
	\|}<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-60 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:RolandR/Archive/Archive 01--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
			\|algo = old(31d)
			\|archive = User talk:RolandR/Archive %(counter)d
			}}

	'''Welcome!'''

			{{archives\| search = <yes>}}
	Hello {{PAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! 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 ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out ] or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  ] \| ] 22:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

			{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Palestine/Open tasks\|inc_cur=2}}
	== Re: Vandalism report ==

			<span id="63259568085" ></span>
	Re : No warnings were issued at the time of the report on AIV. You , I , and then you . The warning issued previous to yours was for edits in March. With anonymous and potentially shared IPs like this one, warnings are not necessarily cumulative like user accounts or non-shared IPs. While the edits you reported were certainly egregious, a warning should still be issued before the report to AIV. Additionally, your warning and report to AIV was done nearly two hours after the last edit occurred and was reverted by another editor. -- ] 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

			== Apologies for not sending this yesterday ==
	== East Jerusalem ==

			Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of an ] decision. The thread is ''']'''. <!--Template:AE-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 02:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	Hi. It seems that your revert in the ] article was to a bad version by me which I self-reverted. This version is bad because it repeats the "Israelis of all religions" bit (see previous sentence).--] 15:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

			== ''The Signpost'': 24 December 2024 ==
	== Palestine Userboxes ==

			<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-12-24}} </div><!--Volume 20, Issue 18--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 00:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
	Thanks for the heads up on the PalReturn UBX. I have requested a deletion review ]. As for the one-state UBX, I don't care to get into a prolonged discussion about the matter. Suffice it to say, I agree that the two terms are not ''necessarily'' synonymous; however, in general usage I think they are and, in my experience, most people who support a binational solution have in mind a one-state solution in all of Palestine. For instance, the ] article begins with "The binational solution, also known as the One-State Solution ... " --] 19:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1263792399 -->

			== Books & Bytes – Issue 66 ==
	== ] ==

			<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
	Roland, I don't know how to be more clear about this. Do '''not''' insert this ]-violating material again. Instead, come to the Talk: page, and engage in the discussion on the page. You came ''very'' close to being blocked today; I don't want that to happen. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
			<div style="font-size: 1.5em; margin: 0 100px;">
			]</div>
			<div style="line-height: 1.2;">
			<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">'''The Misplaced Pages Library''': ''Books & Bytes''</span><br />
			Issue 66, November – December 2024
			</div>
			<div style="margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em;">
			* Les Jours and East View Press join the library
			* Tech tip: Newspapers.com
			<big>''']'''</big>
			</div>
			</div>
			<small>Sent by ] on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library team --17:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Samwalton9 (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter/Recipients&oldid=28051347 -->

			== ''The Signpost'': 15 January 2025 ==
	I am not violating ] by posting a DEFENCE of someone being libelled and defamed. You have absolutely no justifcation for blocking, or threatening to block, me. and I consider your behaviour to be an unacceptable attempt to bully me into complying with your anti-Finkelstein agenda. But it won't work; I have not acted against either the letter or the spirit of Misplaced Pages. I have reported your breach of ] ] 01:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
	:I have no anti-Finkelstein agenda. I do have an anti-] violation agenda. ] is quite clear that 3RR does not apply to ] violations. This is not a game, Roland. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

			<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2025-01-15}} </div><!--Volume 21, Issue 1--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 07:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div>
	==Your 3RR report==
			<!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1269316164 -->
	Hello, Roland. I am the admin who dealt with your 3RR report about Jayjg. I want to stress that BLP is something that Misplaced Pages takes very, very seriously, and it's best to err on the side of caution. If someone other than an obvious troll removes something, citing BLP, and you disagree, it's a really bad idea to revert. I've been following an ArbCom case where an administrator who had absolutely no history of vandalism or trolling undeleted some articles which had been deleted citing BLP. She didn't do it with the intention of harming Misplaced Pages; she simply thought that the articles shouldn't have been deleted. She's now facing an admonition with threat of desysopping in the ArbCom rulings.

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

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

	:Thank you for your helpful response. I will be more careful in any future 3RR reports.

	:However, I do not agree that there was any BLP violation at all in this instance. Finkelstein is being attacked by Dershowitz, and Menetzer carefully studied the allegations, concluding that there is no merit in any of them. When the link was originally posted, Jayjg objected, on the grounds that it was published in CounterPunch, which he rejects (wrongly, in kmy view) as an unacceptable source. As you will see in the 3RR discussion, SlimVirgin accepts that Menetzer is an okay source, but also argues that CounterPunch is unreliable. Rather than argue the merits of CounterPunch, I found another version of the article; this time on Finkelstein's own site. Jayjg then dropped his claim that the source was unacceptable, and instead claimed that this was a BLP violation and should be deleted even if found in a reliable location.

	:I see several problems here. Jayjg is repeatedly making disputed edits, and shifting his ground in defence of them. He is also acting as an admin on the same article, semi-protecting it and making threats (see above) to block editors who repost this important link. And we are, in effect, denying Finkelstein the opportunity to respond to very serious allegations against him -- allegations which have cost him his job, and which have been found by Menetzer to be unfounded, and, in at least one instance, even deliberately fraudulent.

	:How can we resolve the disagreement over whether there is any BLP violation here? ] 00:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

	==] again==

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

	:The sentences which I added, and which you have again deleted as "unsourced", are in fact the '''only''' sourced statements in the entire article. What is your problem with them? ] 14:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

	::You are mistaken; there are sources for other statements - the paragraph following the one I deleted, for example, is properly sourced, since it provides a link to the document he signed - and there are sources at the bottom, such as his Nobel Prize biography, that verify much of the other content. I went after that one paragraph because it was the one paragraph that wasn't sourced at all. Most of what you re-inserted is acceptable, but the sentence that states that his works have aroused controversy in Portugal '''must''' be sourced, per ]. \| ] 16:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

	:::There is a link to the document he signed since I inserted it. I repeat, the only sourced statements are those I inserted. For instance, there is no source for "Saramago was in his mid-fifties before he won international acclaim", for "It was the 1988 publication of his Baltasar and Blimunda that first brought him to the attention of an English-speaking readership", or for "This novel won the Portuguese PEN Club Award" in the first paragraph alone. It seems very strange to me that the only statements you removed on blp grounds were the sourced ones which i had inserted, and not any of the others.

	::::I removed the content I removed because it was "contentious," which is grounds for immediate removal under ], a policy for which you don't seem to have much regard. The content to which I objected is now properly sourced. Was that so hard? \| ] 14:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

	::::: I don't need your patronising tone, thank you very much. What was in the least contentious about the statement? Has anyone ever suggested that Saramago's work is not controversial, or that it is offensive or defamatory to state this? And what about the statement that hsi wife comes from "a very powerful Barcelona family of editors who actively promote his books around the world", to which I added a citation needed tag two and a half months ago, but which no-one has attempted to justify? Why do you not focus on the dubious claims, not the well-attesrted facts? ] 15:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

	:''Template removed''

	: I am mystified by your message. Please specify where you believe that I violated ] by "adding commentary and my personal analysis". I do not believe that I have done so on any article, and it doesn't help that you don't specify where this is supposed to have happened. Thank you. ] 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

	::Hello, I misintepreted one of your edits on ]. Pardon my mistake. ] 18:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

	==Unfounded claims of sockpuppetry==

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

	:The accounts were all blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of Truthprofessor, and the blocking admin added the Confirmed Sockpuppet tag. If you dispute this, you should ask the same admin to remove the tag; to do so yourself could be construed as vandalism.
	:I am truly grateful that you have not descended to the gutter language of the hundreds of sockpuppets who have attacked me. ] 18:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

	::OK, I will ask the admin.
	::I suspect that the attacks by the socks are happening because you're posting very hostile allegations about participants in political controversies when you're clearly on the opposing side. (For example you want to include Newman's claims about Plaut even though Newman doesn't give any source for those claims.) This makes some excitable people decide that it's a free-for-all.
	::] 18:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::That sounds like a confession to me. In fact, I am being attacked because ] bigots cannot accept the idea of an anti-Zionist Jew. I am not the only victim; the abuse that has been poured on ], ], ], ], ], ] and many others who have never edited Misplaced Pages shows that the abuse is directed ar anyone who dares to step beyond the parameters which you determine. And it goes well beyond Misplaced Pages. As you well know, the abuse directed at me frequently links to a website set up to attack me; this is clearly linked to similar websites set to attack Tony Greenstein, Richard Silverstein and others, and to ]. There is an obvious pattern here, and it's worth noting that you see fir to excuse and justify this. ] 20:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

	::::Is this abuse just unprovoked nastiness, or have you and your friends contributed by calling people racists, war criminals, Nazis, apartheid supporters and Kahanist bigots? If it really is just unprovoked nastiness, why are you getting your revenge here on Misplaced Pages? If you try to use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox for attacks on political enemies, isn't it obvious that their supporters are going to do the same? Maybe I'm being naive, but why not look for ways to de-escalate the situation. ] 22:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::::As I said, you are excusing and justifying libellous and defamatory lies. Anyone who reads my edits, and the abuse I have faced, can see who is telling the truth and who is lying here. ] 01:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

	] 11:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

	] 11:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:23, 15 January 2025

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.