Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RolandR (talk | contribs) at 15:05, 30 June 2007 (→[] again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello RolandR, and welcome 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:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  JFW | T@lk 22:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Jewish defense League

It's obvious you have no interest in knowing the truth about the JDL. They are not listed as a terror organization, and no where on the Internet are they published as such. I confirmed this with the FBI on Friday and I suggest you do the same. From your edits it appears you are against Zionism so your edits have a natural reason to be against the JDL and I suggest you refrain from editing that page as you may have a conflict of interest. eternalsleeper

Steven Plaut

Welcome back. I see this article is protected again. Hopefully there will be some way of moving forward toward a consensus version. Let me know if I can be of assistance in discussion at the article's talk page. ··coelacan 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It may also interest you to know that there was an investigation of sockpuppetry regarding this article, but negative results on the two accounts checked. Hit my talk page if you need me. ··coelacan 01:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I had intended to submit the same checkuser/sockpuppet request, as I am certain -- irrespective of Jpgordon's findings -- that these are linked accounts. Further, I believe them to be linked to User:Truthwinsout, who earlier made similar edits. In fact, they are very likely Plaut himself, or his associates; and probably linked to the User:Runtshit vandal who persistently defaces pages with abuse of me and others. Anything you can do to help would be appreciated.RolandR 14:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! Welcome!

Tiamut 16:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Your stalker again

. I noticed you vandalism page and thus user has the name Roland in it. --Abnn 23:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your report

Hello — I've removed your report at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page is intended for cases of simple and persistant vandals who have received a final warning. 84.109.51.71 only appears to have one abusive edit. Sock puppetry should be reported at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets. Happy editing! — Feezo (Talk) 11:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a complex case. Most of the IPs don't seem very persistent though, so maybe semi-protection is the way to go? I suppose problems like this are inevitable when dealing with politically-charged topics. Best of luck — Feezo (Talk) 04:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism report

Re your message: No warnings were issued at the time of the report on AIV. You reported the vandal, I removed the report as noted, and then you issued a warning. 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. -- Gogo Dodo 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

East Jerusalem

Hi. It seems that your revert in the East Jerusalem 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).--Doron 15:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Palestine Userboxes

Thanks for the heads up on the PalReturn UBX. I have requested a deletion review here. 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 binational solution article begins with "The binational solution, also known as the One-State Solution ... " --DieWeisseRose 19:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Roland, I don't know how to be more clear about this. Do not insert this WP:BLP-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. Jayjg 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not violating WP:BLP 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 WP:3RR RolandR 01:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no anti-Finkelstein agenda. I do have an anti-WP:BLP violation agenda. WP:BLP is quite clear that 3RR does not apply to WP:BLP violations. This is not a game, Roland. Jayjg 01:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your 3RR report

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 here, 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. ElinorD (talk) 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? RolandR 00:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP again

I see above that you are having trouble with the policy regarding articles on living persons. Restoring unsourced or improperly sourced content, as you did on José Saramago, 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. | TheBLPGuy 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? RolandR 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 WP:BLP. | TheBLPGuy 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 WP:BLP, 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? | TheBLPGuy 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? RolandR 15:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)