Jump to content

User talk:RolandR/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Reluctantly

Roland. I am forbidden to comment or edit on the page Israel Shahak, but Joshua did ask for a clarification, and I think your memory of what Segev wrote is incorrect. He, as distinct from IS and IJ, identifies the person asking for use of the phone as Jewish. Regards Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing galling, friend, though I appreciate your kind words. I read far more now than when I did as an editor, and for this I am in Arbcom's debt. I was just a tad concerned that your assurance might have misled JoshuaZ into not himself inquiring further.
The Google search vehicle, and the page if I recall, sourced Segev's account to p.99. I only have the Abacus 2008 edition, where he summarizes the tale on pp.119-20. Segev identifies Shahak as the person to whom someone in the neighbourhood refused the use of his telephone.(p.119). Of course both Shahak and Jakobovitz speak of Shahak only witnessing this, which implies in English that S was not actively involved. Segev, with whom I corresponded on this, knew Shahak and deeply deplored attempts to write off Shahak as an antisemite. He also wrote that book, as many others, following closely, day by day, the press reports of the period, and there were many, of this incident. So one does not know whether his version, which differs from the brief note Shahak used in 1993, or the laconic remarks in Jakobovitz's paper, is based on the press, or on private information. He is however a RS. Where all this leaves Boteach's version only you guys can decide. As the archive will show, I, when active, tried to have the incident described not in synthesis (as had been the case) but according to the different RS versions.
I'm afraid referring even this to an editor may infringe the sanctions, so I will shut up. Eventually editors will get round to applying the in-wiki methodology to the page to clear up its many confusions, I'm sure. Best wishes, Roland. I am just at the real tipping edge of my definitive exit, namely a precise 13,000 edits, so can't dialogue much more! Always did aspire to go out on a round figure! Cheers (and apologies to Arbcom)Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
p.s.Just in case you or JoshuaZ have difficulty googling the page.
Key text,'It was on the Sabbath and a nearby resident refused to allow Dr. Shahak to use his telephone to call an ambulance,' Tom Segev, 1967, (2007)tr, Jessica Cohen, Abacus ed. 2008 p.119Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratan Lal Basu

I have removed the {{db-a7}} you placed on Ratan Lal Basu because notability is asserted by the sentence, "Dr. Basu joined the Bhairab Ganguly College, Kolkata as a Lecturer in Economics and later on became a Reader and retired as the Teacher-in-Charge (acting Principal)". If you would like to pursue deletion, feel free to nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD. Best, Cunard (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009


The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 12:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Article for deletion?

Possibly of interest: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misuse_of_antisemitic_accusations --Noleander (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009


Admins Comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misuse of antisemitic accusations

FYI: I’ve started a discussion of the comment:The topic in general might be notable as defined by WP:N, but this is in no way an acceptable encyclopedic article as it (fundamentally) violates such basic content policies and guidelines as WP:OR . at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

On Leon Trotsky

Dear Friend. Thank you for staying on top of the Trotsky page. I did make further changes to the matter of opposition to fascism, but please read my entry on the talk page before you react. I hope that you will agree that my changes support the fact that Trotsky was indeed so opposed. I only wanted to correct the erroneous assertion that it was the 1939 German-Soviet non-aggression pact to which he was opposed (a impossibility due to the dates), rather than his actual opposition the the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918). Best regards.

Deceglie (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I made a gross error. The text has been restored to its original historical accuracy by another observant user. Very sorry for the trouble. Deceglie (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Thanks

I missed one of the vandal edits on Karl Marx thanks for the assist. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Your removal of two portals from Moonie (Unification Church)

Please engage in discussion, at Talk:Moonie (Unification Church).Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Both portals are relevant. Please discuss on the talk page before removing either again. Cirt (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Please, stop removing this portal until the issue has been resolved on the talk page. You have not responded to my points there. The article is not about the movement, it is about this term in language and its usage as such. Cirt (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

help? at Commodity Fetishism?

Can you look at this:[1]? I saw a comment from a new user complaining that the article on Commodity Fetishism is hard to understand. I don't think the concept is that complicated, and believe it is possibl to explain it in a relatively jargon-free way. When I read the article, it seemed to me that it was in fact a litle too jargony and overwrought. My sole intention in editing it was to reduce the jargon and make it as clear as possible.

Maybe I didn't do the best job of that, but I ant to be very clear that (1) the only problem I saw was obscure prose and (2) my only intention in editing was to make it more accessible to a general audience.

Another editor reverted me and accused me of violating NOR. Although the version he reverted to did not have any citations, he demanded I put citations in.

I put citations in, but as far as I am concerned this does not resolve the dispute. I assume the other person was acting in good faith, but despite my requests he never provided a clear example or explanation of what he considered "original research."

I take NPOV and NOR seriously and it was never my intention to distort Marx's understanding of commodity fetishism or to push my own interpretation. It concerns me that anyone would think this.

Moreover, since this is what another editor thinks, then I am also concerned that I failed in my objective, to edit the earlier version for clarity.

I do not like being reverted, wholesale (with the implication that I edited in bad faith). But I don't mind another editor saying what I wrote is imperfect and can be improved upon. I certainly don't mind if someone can edit what I wrote and make it better ... after all, this is just what I thought I was doing earlier today!!

I'd appreciate your looking at this. Whether you comment on the talk page or not, well, obviously up to you. But I am hoping you can give some thought to the article. If you think I was right that the previous version was not accessible to a wide audience, i.e. that my attempt to revise it had merit, perhaps you can further edit this section of the article, perhaps you can find a way to make it a clearer and more accessible account of Marx's understanding of the concept. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Sandstein/Nableezy

Hi RolandR. I would like to work on two things regarding what has happened to Nableezy. One is to file an appeal of Sandstein's decision which I will begin in my user space shortly. The second, concurrent to this, would be opening a User RfC on Sandstein regading his abuse of his admin powers. I have asked Gatoclass for some advice on how to proceed. I hope he responds soon. When I have drafts up in my user space, I will be contacting you for feedback. I hope you will co-sign both the appeal and the User RfC. Also, check out Nableezy's talk page to see what has happened most recently and why these steps are absolutely necessary. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 19:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Roland. I'm sorry we didn't have a chance to meet up. Things were quite crazy with my sister visiting and I lost my phone at a time when you no doubt would have been trying to reach me. In any case, thanks for the prompt reply. I'm waiting for a cue from Nableezy now on how to proceed. Seems he wants to proceed more prudently than I have thus far. ;) I hope you have a good holiday and visit with your loved ones. And while we missed this chance, I hope we get another one in the not so distant future. Tiamuttalk 14:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be my pleasure. Thank you very much for the offer. Perhaps I might visit you where you live before you get back to this region. Until then, we have our virtual world. I love tea, especially with lots of sugar. So sweet of you to think of it. Tiamuttalk 18:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Nableezy has decided to file an appeal at AE. Tiamuttalk 21:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

RESIST vs. RESPECT

Hi there! What do you mean by claiming that RESIST and RESPECT are/were "absolutely unrelated"? Just because you approve the political line of one while you disapprove of the other's doesn't mean that they were not created in a similar and particular period and with similar motives, thus deserving interlinking between respective articles. Simply show their names and composition to a third person and take his opinion. Ciao! Behemoth (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is merely your own opinion that they were "created in a similar and particular period and with similar motives". Without any evidence from a reliable source, this remains unacceptable original research or synthesis, and therefore cannot be used in Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know since when we have to cite sources for interlinking. I think this is a novelty. "See also" simply means that two articles together may provide a more holistic view for the reader. In this case, the two are both alliances of political organisations of Islamic immigrants and fringe leftist currents. Otherwise, I consider you claim that they cannot be linked simply because England and Belgium are not the one and same country. Sorry, I don't have any reliable sources to negate this assertion of yours. Ciao! Behemoth (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Your statements are unsourced synthesis, and as such are not acceptable edits in Wikipedia. You can consider what you like; the fact remains that, without reliable sources, you may not add this speculation to the articles. RolandR (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Good Call on the Marx article

I only left it in because it looked like it was from the pre-religiosity debate version.Simonm223 (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It was, and you were probably right to keep the issues separate. RolandR (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

reply

@Jaakobou: JaakobouChalk Talk 22:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

January 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Socialism. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.  Sandstein  20:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RolandR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why have I been blocked? I reverted only three times, each time undoing an edit by a new user, acting against consensus, who had reverted two other users in addition to me over the same edit. This editor made the same contentious edit, without discussion, five times today, and was reverted by three editors. I had just warned him for edit-warring, reverted his fourth reversion (against another editor) when I was blocked. My other edit to this page, at [2], was totally unrelated, a reversion of clear vandalism. I don't believe that I was edit-warring, or that I contravened policy here, and I counted before my latest edit in order to ensure that I didn't breach 3RR.

Decline reason:

I suggest that you re-read WP:EW ... you do not need to breach 3RR to be edit-warring. A contentious edit is not necessarily vandalism - and you may always report a user for 3RR yourself, rather than break the line (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RolandR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive -- which is what this feels like. I got carried away dealing with clearly disruptive editing from an edit-warring single-purpose account, who had made the same edit five time in a day, reverting three other editors and failing to offer any reasons, while attacking other editors in edit summaries. I had already warned the editor about potential breach of 3RR before their final edit. My "offence" was to then revert for a third time before reporting the editor for edit-warring. I believe that, in this case, I should have been reminded that I was myself in danger of breaching this policy, and asked to self-revert, which I would have done. Nobody is denying that my edit was valid, only that someone else, not me, should have done it. In the circumstances, a block serves no purpose, and is unwarranted.

Decline reason:

A 24-hour block is so short it is little more than a token. An unblock at this time might carry the implication that the original block was given in error, which is certainly not the case. Experienced editors such as yourself don't need to be warned against violating WP:3RR. Your use of the term 'vandalism' on this page doesn't seem to meet the very narrow definition used in the WP:3RR policy, which defines vandalism as something obvious to everyone, such as page blanking or cruel or offensive language. Still, if you would promise to leave this article alone for a week I imagine the block would be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm just going to advise that because the above does not seem to accept responsibility for your actions by how it reads. Care to rephrase? If you already clearly understood WP:EW (which is often assumed if you're reporting someone for 3RR), then warning is typically not needed. On top of that, 24hrs is obviously not punishment, it's a day! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand your comment. When I used the word "warning", I was not intending to refer to a formal 3RR or edit-war notice, but a gentle hint that my own behaviour could also be considered disruptive. I have rephrased my request in line with your suggestion. RolandR (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd have no problem unblocking you if you can convince me or another admin that you understand why you are blocked, but your request above does not convince me of that. "Nobody is denying that my edit was valid, only that someone else, not me, should have done it" is a false premise. Apart from vandalism, which this was not despite your labeling it as such, there are no "valid" or "invalid" edits, just edits about which people may disagree, and when they do, they need to talk instead of revert. For this reason, no, somebody else should not have made that revert. Had they done so, they'd just have joined the edit war.  Sandstein  12:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Responded

Hi RolandR. I've responded to your note at Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics‎. Just thought I'd tell you since I'm not sure you have it watchlisted. (I noticed a lot of pages that were made spin-offs of the main page did not show up in my watchlist until I retaged them).

I noticed your block above. Sorry about that. Who reported you by the way? And were they blocked as well? Take care of yourself friend. Tiamuttalk 16:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm ... that is quite odd. Having been blocked myself though, following my reporting of an account later discovered to be a sockpuppet even though I only made 3 reverts (one of which I made after filing the report, so sure was I of the veracity of what I doing) can't say that I am surprised. Some admins take a very harsh view of any reverting at all, while others won't sanction those who haven't made more than three. Some won't sanction anyone when there is more than one edit warrior (which is usually the case, since you can't tango alone) chossing instead to page protect. I totally see where you are coming from, but admins also take a dim view of any explanations for edit-warring. They interpret them as justifications rather than the providing of context. Oh well.
If you ever need someone to take a look at a heated page outside the I-P area, don't hesitate to call on me to take a look. Sometimes it helps to gets outside eyes. Tiamuttalk 17:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RolandR/Archive_5&oldid=1166515608"