User talk:RolandR: Difference between revisions

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• 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 Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  JFW | T@lk 22:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi there Roland. I've noticed your support of my edit on the DY page.

Amuroso on the talk page just posted a link which he claims contains an outright denial of the DY massacre from Milstein. While I still think it breaches WP:UNDUE to give equal billing to Milstein's views over the 160+ books that have endorsed the massacre claim, it might be helpful in the talk page debate to get a confirmation of what Milstein has actually said in this article, as well as the date the article was published and maybe even a partial translation of the article's more important points. Since you apparently read Hebrew yourself, would you be interested in helping out in that regard? Thanks, Gatoclass 03:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Gatoclass, I'm blocked at the moment and can't add anything. But the only Milstein link I can find is to a book I do not have, and which is unlikely to be available in London. I don't intend to buy it for this purpose! RolandR 10:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the link on the talk page, and will check it for you later. RolandR 10:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I not sure if your still banned or not, but when you get unbanned could you come to the talk page and give me some back-up. Some zionist hoodlum named anti-fascist is trying to post the thing about Alan Cabal and Ernest Zundel again and sadly Bobfrombockley seems to be supporting him. I think these charges are flimsy at best and are nothing more than a transparent attempt to bias the article against counterpunch. I feel I need some back-up on this so could you help me out please. annoynmous 19:49, 28 April (UTC)

As it happens, I don't really disagree with those edits. I would probably rephrase some of it, but the substance is to my mind valid, and documented.

However, I agree with your anger at User:Antifascist's libellous attack on you. I think that you should consider placing an abusive edit summary warning {{subst:Edit summary personal 3}} on his talk page RolandR 21:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns and I know how sincere they are, but I think in this case they are unfounded. This article is already has enough accusations against Counterpunch of anti-semitism and this point it's starting to feel a little overloaded with this type of criticism. Nothing Cabal or Mcgowan have said has directly endorsed Holocaust Denial and I don't think Counterpunch should be berated because they publish articles by them. The question is there anything in counterpunch that directly endorses holocaust denial and the simple answer is no! It seems rather silly to criticise and organization because they feature articles by these people when nothing in these articles can construed as holocaust denial. If you have a criticism of them than go after them, not counterpunch because they dare to allow them to speak freely.

I have said before that I'm fine with adding Israel Shamir to your Jew against Zionism criticism, because beleive it or not I actually believe theres more of a reason to criticise counterpunch over him than over Atzmon. I actually think that atzmon, although crude in his phrasing is simply misunderstood, whereas Shamir seems to me like a right winger who seems to have fooled people into thinking he's a left-winger.

Neverthless thank you for your support in regards to anti-fascist's comments. I guess I was just asking for support in case I get threatened with a ban if I stick up for my views too hardly. However, I fully understand if don't wish to get involved, who needs the aggrevation right?

I hope you get unbanned and keep fighting the good fight. annoynmous 01:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tiamut 16:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello — I've removed your report at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Happy editing! — Feezo (Talk) 11:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. I have reported your breach of WP:3RR RolandR 01:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 01:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]