Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shadowbot3 (talk | contribs) at 22:48, 26 April 2007 (Automated archival of 2 sections to User talk:RolandR/Archive/Archive 01). 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)

Block on political grounds?

see ] ابو علي 23:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hey Roland, have you checked out the above link lately? Tiamut 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous Palestinians

Hey Roland. I though you might want to contribute your thoughts at considering your lengthy dicussion of the issue at Arab citizens of Israel. Tiamut 03:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly ambiguity about the meaning of the term "indigenous". I have already been taken to task on Talk:Arab citizens of Israel for "not knowing the meaning of indigenous". I do indeed know the meaning, and refer to Chambers Dictionary, which defines it as "native born; originating or produced naturally in a country, not imported, opp to' 'exotic. In this sense, Palestinians are inarguably indigenous to Palestine, and I was reacting to the repeated removal of the term from the article. It would appear, from comments in the Edit summaries and the Talk page, that the main reason for removing the term -- which actually appears in the source cited -- was not any argument about Palestinian indigenous status, but rather a belief that mentioning this somehow challenged the claim of Israelis/Jews (it is not clear which) to indigenous status in Palestine. But the inclusion of the term in the article has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits, or otherwise, of this claim, which can be debated if the need arises.

It appears that a second debate has now been opened, on the status of Palestinians as an "indigenous people". This, it seems to me, is a separate scientific debate; not having any training (nor much interest) in anthropology, I do not really qualified to contribute. But I would suggest that this is, at present, a distraction from the original issue, which was maintaining the integrity of the quote in the original Arab citizens of Israel article. This relies on the normal, dictionary sense of the word "indigenous", and not on any specific anthropological use. Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine, whether or not they qualify as an "indigenous people". The repeated references to Joan Peters make it clear that some editors here dispute this fact, and promote the false history that has them immigrating as a result of Zionism. I believe that the quote I brought from Ahad Ha'Am should help to nail this falsehood, and I will find a way to introduce it into the article itself. RolandR 12:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. I will support your efforts there of course, but will continue painstakingly making the case over at the Indigenous Peoples page, because of the burgeoning involvement of Palestinians in Indigenous peoples forums, a phenomena that is bound to have implications for future status negotiations on key issues like refugees (if we ever reach that stage). It's been educational for me anyway to explore the difference betweent he meanings of indigenous and learn more about the fora available. I hope to provide a similar service to those interested in understanding the issue of Palestinian indigeneity, from all of its angles. That said, on a personal note, I believe all people should live wherever they feel most comfortable and that boundaries are ridiculous lines in the sand that shouldn't have been drawn in the first place. But that's fodder for another discussion in other times, hopefully those to come in the near future. Tiamut 14:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course I agree with you on boundaries. Some years ago, I was an editor of Border and Territorial Disputes, which confirmed for me the arbitrary and irrational basis of all borders. Meanwhile, have you seen the proposed Democratic Constitution from Adalah? We need to include this in Arab citizens of Israel. RolandR 14:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks very cool. By the way, the discussion at the RfC is getting very interesting now. You might want to look it over. Also, these links might help in clarifying some problems in the Arab citizens of Israel article. I came upon them researching for the RfC. and . Plus, there's this great article on Palestinian Bedouin identity and issues , though it would be prefereable to find the Journal it was cited in, to put to rest any WP:ATT challenges. (Did you hear about this policy change thing by the way? WP:RS is upgraded to policy from guideline and merged with WP:V to become WP:ATT. As long as it is applied evenly, which it is not unfortunately, but here's hoping for better days:)Tiamut 16:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam Keller

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to Adam Keller, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

despite your eagerness to claim "hostile POV editsd, as per talk", you've made the error of not inspecting both on the edit made and the fact that conversation on the talk page seems to be me & adam keller himself who does not deny any statement par the pro-hezbollah tag which was not reintroduced.

i consider your edit to be a well minded mistake but i suggest that in the future you pay better attention to both the text edits and the talk page before you make accusations. Jaakobou 22:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so patronising. Of course I read the talk page; you are distorting its content here. The truth is that there was an edit war going on, in which you played a prominent role; that Adam Keller objected to many of the political characterisations in your edits; that the article was protected as a result; and that, as soon as the protection was lifted you again made many of the same disputed changes, introducing objectionable material while deleting relevant information. RolandR 23:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Adam Keller, you will be blocked from editing.

apparently, you decided in advance that i am sticking to the same edit as before, i suggest you go over the new/current version of the article and dispute the tags you think are not well sourced or unbalanced rather than resort to a blind revert "war" over materials you havn't taken the time reading.

i add that I had the article protected in order to cease the intrusion of an annon. user who cannot read hebrew who was disputing every edit. once the page was blocked and "his version" happened to be the one that stayed, he did not resume talks on the talk page. Jaakobou 07:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. Misplaced Pages is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Adam Keller, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. asside from other activity, you have removed the criticism section of the article under the claim that the information is not cited in the refrence - due the this being not your first "mistake" on the article you get a 3rd level warning rather than a 1st level warning.

here is the citation as appeared in the article: "The influential dovish commentator Nahum Bar'nea wrote in today's "Yediot Aharonot": "Except for the lunatic fringe leftists".

the raticle has been reverted to it's original status.

p.s. "apartheid wall" is not WP:NPOV. Jaakobou 23:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

i am waiting for quite some time for your response on the talk page. Jaakobou 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no comment to make on your unfounded and ad hominem diatribe. You have decided that Adam Keller is a liar, and therefore automatically disbelieve any statements by him unless they conform to your preconceived positions. I cannot discuss this rationally with someone who takes such an irrational stance. RolandR 19:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) pretty much all the sources for the article were published by keller or friends of his group.

(2) numereous innacuracies were found - i.e. "lunatic","alongside" etc...

we should come to some agreement of how we handle criticism on the keller article, and no, censoring criticism on such an article which is so obviously criticizing israel is not good wiki editing. Jaakobou 21:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ezer Weizman quotation (:he: source)

I appreciate your providing the link to the full quotation in context. As it turns out, the whole thing including its parenthetical explanation needed correcting, which I've done. The result is perhaps "less punchy" than a blatantly "notorious quote" but disturbing nonetheless. We'll see what other Users may have to say (or not) in subsequent edits. Anyway, good pickup! -- Thanks, Deborahjay 23:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet?

In light of your actions at Tanyasucked, you might want to look at User talk:Misses giggles for more vandalism of a similar nature. I've even set out the diffs nicely for you! Best wishes, Bencherlite 13:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the list, my previous comment now looks rather flippant - sorry. I'll keep my eyes open for this type of vandalism in future. Regards, Bencherlite 13:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw this guy's edits. Dancing on Tanya's grave after her untimely death by vandalising her article. Very nice! But it does say something about the personal and moral callibre of our opponents.

Please accept my condolences on the death of Shimon Tzabar. May his work be continued. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Schoenman

Hi, wasn´t there a Ralph Schoenman article earlier that was deleted? Well, there is a new article about him now, anyway. I seem to recall that there was an article about one of his books, too? Wasn´t one of his books fully published on a web-site, or something? If so, I think it should be linked from Schoenman article. Regards, Huldra 10:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC) PS: I´m sorry to see the harassment and wiki-stalking you are subjected too; I have never, ever in my time here seen any other editor been harassed as badly as you have been.

There were serious problems with the previous article, which was accused of copy-violation, and I think Schoenman fought to have it removed. There has already been similar edit-warring over this article, which has now been protected. There was previously an article about his book The Hidden History of Zionism; this appears to have been deleted, though the Talk page is still there. Personally, I think it is a very unreliable book, with misleading and even false references -- every time I have tried to trace one back to its source, I find that the original does not say what Schoenman claims it does. So I would prefer not to provide a link to it, or even to be involved in editing artivclkes about it. RolandR 11:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see. I know very little about him; the only thing I had heard about him before I came to Misplaced Pages was Doris Lessings comments about his association with Russel. And those comments were...eh, "not positive." Regards, Huldra 11:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation

Mediation has been requested for the article Adam Keller. Please indicate on the case page if you will accept my assistance as an informal mediator. Thank you! Vassyana 13:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am closing the case since you do not accept mediation. I would suggest possibly seeking other avenues to resolve the dispute. It might be helpful to solicit a third opinion, for example. Thank you for taking the time to respond and explain your rejection. It is appreciated. Take care. Vassyana 14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Story

Hi RonaldR, While searching for stuff on MS, I found this link . It sounds like you have an amazing story! Happy Passover ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Coffee and Baklava! I was not familiar with the 1970s Maavak group, but I'll have a look around. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry, i didn't understand the user talkpage policy...

apparently it's ok to remove warnings from the pages of other users to help them avoid the WP:3RR, sorry, i didn't understand the user talkpage policy... Jaakobou 06:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

btw, i request you remove the nicname "idiotic" from the message you've left on huldra's page. Jaakobou 06:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the tea!

..it was lovely! And yes; my user-page was vadalized for the first time ever, by the vandal. I will take that as a compliment. What I don´t understand is that somebody will spend so much time showing the world their childishness and vulgarity. Unbelievable. Anyway, I freely admit: I am now wikistalking you! ;-) As for the "blog" at "blogspot"; surely there must be some way to shut that down? Have you contacted those who run the blog? Regards, Huldra 15:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course I have contacted the blog hosts. They replied "Blogger.com and Blogspot.com are US sites regulated by US law. Blogger is a provider of content creation tools, not a mediator of that content. We allow our users to create blogs, but we don't make any claims about the content of these pages. Given these facts, and pursuant with section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act, Blogger does not remove allegedly defamatory, libelous, or slanderous material from Blogger.com or BlogSpot.com. If a contact email address is listed on the blog, we recommend you working directly with the author to have the content in question removed or changed." This was not very helpful! There really isn't any point in contacting the anally-obsessed Kahanists who edit the site, even if I had an address. RolandR 15:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Whaw, I had no idea that one was so unprotected! That is rather scary. -Huldra 15:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks

please remove: "I saw that you had reverted several of User:Jaakobou's silly and senseless edits to my Talk page" from Huldra's talk page. Jaakobou 21:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your comments on Talk:Shimon Tzabar: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

solve disputes in the proper manner rather than teag team reversions with Abu Ali and name calling (i.e. "childish"). Jaakobou 14:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The edits were indeed silly and childish. I have made no comment about the editor. RolandR 16:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the ANI. I personally would not support long block against him. I believe that the most poweful propganda against Zionism is the conduct of its adhereants. Many people will have be alienated by his ideas and his manner. Misplaced Pages would not be Misplaced Pages without the likes of jaakobou. And fortunately he can do no harm here except to his own cause. But I agree that he should not post links to libelous material here. And this edit does imply tacit approval of the bots attacking you.

Anyway I do feel honoured that Jaakobu chose to attack me in the same breath as your good self . Who knows, I must be doing something right! ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Guradian Persuit

your comment is requested here: . Jaakobou 14:18, 19 April 2007 (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