User talk:RolandR/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:RolandR. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Reverting one's talk page
Just a note here - Users are allowed to remove what they want from their own talk pages. Putting warning messages back is not vandalism, although it is certainly not polite. Please be advised that both parties here appear to be in violation of the WP:3RR and both parties will be blocked if this behavior continues. Toddst1 (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. The exceptions to 3RR make the Infield Fly Rule in baseball look simple. Sorry about that. Toddst1 (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You may want to request the edit where your identity was revealed be removed at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Let me know if you need help. Toddst1 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment
It appears that you and Amoruso got pretty tangled up tonight. I'm giving both of you the same friendly advice, one editor to another, not as an admin. Perhaps you should take a couple of days off Wikipedia for a short {{Wikibreak}} and come back fresh. It seems both of you are competent editors and would probably benefit from a voluntary break. Feel free to disregard this as it's just my personal suggestion. Good luck and happy editing in the future. Toddst1 (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME!
I don't know who you are and I am just getting started learning my way around wikipedia. But I take offense that you are accusing me. I am not familiar with blogging and have absolutely no skills in this area. All I have done so far is try to figure out how to do edits. So, I thought I was starting to get the hang of it by just fixing some little grammatical and spelling errors in topics that were of interest to me. Please remove your sockpuppet accusation against me. But also, please do not expect me to engage in back and forth discussions with you. That't not my kind of thing. I only check my emails every few days. So I won't have time to be checking back on this topic very soon. I am sorry I haven't put any personal information about me on my page yet. I was afraid to, because of privacy issues. However, I see I will now have to do something like that. So, here is a sneak peak -
My most exciting experience ever was when I took a trip with my father, husband and son (Jer) to see a total solar eclipse, in Mexico, about 17 years ago. We watched it from a sightseeing boat and just before totality our ship was surrounded by dolphins that were jumping out of the water quite furiously.
If you have never witnessed a TOTAL solar eclipse, I highly recommend it. Now please remove your accusations and allow me to continue to learn how to make edits on this website at my own slow pace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersmum (talk • contribs) 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from deleting my comments from talk pages
Consider this a final warning before Arbcom and measures of Wikipedia. Amoruso (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi RolandR, I guess I made a mistake, or two, I see. I see you restored the comments, that's good. (looks like the warning above made you more vigilant!) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Coments
Thanks for the explanation. -- Avi (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
"Conspiracy"
You know how insidious those Zionist conspiracists are... Jayjg (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- So how are you enjoying your interactions with Carol? Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"Conspiracy"
You know how insidious those Zionist conspiracists are... Jayjg (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- So how are you enjoying your interactions with Carol? Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"Conspiracy"
You know how insidious those Zionist conspiracists are... Jayjg (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- So how are you enjoying your interactions with Carol? Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Your input would be beneficial at the above AfD. --MPerel 02:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Persistent edits
Runtshits edits are of course pointless, he tends to get reverted almost instantly, but they annoy me as they increase the noise in my watchlist, as we unfortunately seem to share some political interest. :) The question is: Do you think it would be useful to semi-protect the pages so that only established users can edit them for a period? Maybe he then would get bored and go away? I don't know how people like him works... :) --Regebro (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- As I suspected then. Nope, I have no suggestions. It's a case for profesionals, clearly. --Regebro (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Replied here. · AndonicO Engage. 16:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's obvious vandalism, though (at least those I checked?), so huggle users can take care of it. If you still think it should be protected, maybe ask Rudget or Acalamari for a second opinion (they've a bit more experience than I in RFPP, so they've probably come across a case like this one in the past). · AndonicO Engage. 16:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks re: my first-ever barnstar!
That means I really and truly have been avoiding my other work far too much, far too obsessively, far too passionately. Thanks much, RolandR, you put a proud little, embarassed little smile on my face:)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
How do you revert vandalism/5 edits at once? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Ilan P.
Hello RolandR,
Thank you for the correction. English is not my mother tongue.
Kind Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 25 | 23 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 26 | 26 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Neve Gordon
Thank you for participating in this page. Please do not abuse pop up tools and do not revert pages without engaging in talk pages. That kind of behavior may be construed as vandalism. You are an experienced user, but you may face repercussions next time. Cheers, Amoruso (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Good grief!
Thanks for catching that,RR. I was working on notes to events in 1954 when I happened to catch the Al-Arif tidbit. No excuses though. Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Gordon edit war
I'm watching both sides here -- I strongly recommend working it out on Talk before I have to start blocking.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 27 | 30 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
for telling me. It's the first time I've bothered to read the rear the dust jacket of her book...I knew she was in Exeter but never thought about to even check whether male or female....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
How come the Matzpen link isn't in her wiki page?..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
"In search of Fatima" I don't have; Exodus, Married to Another, are the ones I do have....You seem to know more about her than appears on her page, she looks an interesting character; can't you add something?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to learn more...I look forwards to seeing what you can do to her page.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
AfD
Nobody denies expulsions, expropriation etc. But what exodus ? Ceedjee (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Roland,
- I am a little bit disappointed that you didn't answer me and your only comment about this author was that she was a woman (and not a man).
- I think we are here first to write an encyclopaedia and it seems obvious that, the main issue concerning this lady, is that she is not a wp:rs secondary source for historical issues but she is rather a political activist... (which I didn't know)
- Why didn't you point out that first ?
- As long as there will not be a "huge amount" of editors able to take distance with their own feeling and understand they are not here to "defend a community" (sic!), whichever it is, but to develop a know-how, there is no "risk" (sic!) to move forward...
- Ceedjee (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- She is Doctor in Medicine, right ?
- When did she get her PhD in history or political science ?
- Ceedjee (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- They are certainly greater than mine in history.
- But when did she get her PhD in history of political science ? Because the criteria to be a wp:rs source in not to have a greater academic credit than mine : it is to have an academic credit on the field of expertise : the Palestinian exodus.
- The fact you like her, you would love her; the fact what she writes would be humanist and peaceful (but it doens't seem so) is irrelevant. What is important is her expertise in the area related to the topic.
- Here is a second disappointing point : while Benny Morris is discarded by Ashley and while she puts forward this book (she has just found after a google search, without reading this), you go to her and support her. Are you here to write an enclopaedia or to "defend a community" (like user:Zeq). That is the question.
- I am not much amazed of seeing numerous articles I edit regularly vandalized with "uncivil comments" against you if this little exchanges describes your way of seeing wikipedia's contribution.
- Let's just wait for the other Zeq like we have just unherited of Ashley.
- Ceedjee (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I note your endorsement of the offensive and racist campaign of vandalism and harassment against me, and will bear this in mind in any future exchanges with you. RolandR (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)'s
- What ? As pointed out here above, I never supported this campaign ! And I reverted this more than once.
- But the way you lie with facts and this attack you dare to throw at my face makes me understand why you be could the victim of such attacks.
- I am happy that the argument that she never got nor PhD was strong enough but I am not happy that instead of admitting this, you didn't find any exit but attacking me (and diffaming).
- Ceedjee (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I want to point out that all these attacks performed by people outside wikipedia are not at all acceptable. Everything should be done to stop them.
- I should not have made any reference to them in this discussion in the context of an editorial disagreement with RolandR. Additionnally, I didn't respect WP:AGF.
- Ceedjee (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Allegations of apartheid deletion notification
Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of apartheid in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 28 | 7 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
"your" vandal
Hi, I just wanted to let you know (in case you didn't already) that I've semi-protected three articles that your plague-dog/stalker has persistently vandalised. I keep an eye on those and related articles anyway, but let me know if there are other articles that are being similarly vandalised that I can protect. This seems like a nasty business you've had to deal with... Best, Pinkville (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed it is a nasty business. But it's not all bad news:
- It's a huge pleasure to revert this fool's nonsense - so thank you for that
- But nearly always someone else gets there before me though - another good sign
- If he were right, or had any sort of validity for his beliefs, he wouldn't need to indulge in these tactics
- He is bringing in more editors and admins on your side
- --NSH001 (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you. Some of us are well aware who is behind this, and why. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Israeli politics could make an informed guess by studying this character's edits and comments (though there are signs that he may now have a possibly-surprising emulator). In any case, this vandalism will not serve his declared aim of driving me away from Wikipedia, and it will certainly not serve the political ends he seeks. Indeed, several editors who do not in the least share my political outlook are thoroughly hacked off at this vandalism and harassment, and make a point of reversing it and blocking the vandal on sight, since he discredits his own cause far more than he embarrasses me or inconveniences Wikipedia generally. RolandR (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- And I suppose we can take comfort in knowing that the more time he wastes on this, the less he has to devote to activities that might have a more significant impact. Ciao! Pinkville (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, has this issue ever gone to WP:AN/I? Pinkville (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, several times. As you can see, it's been going on for almost two years, and I imagine that all administrators know about it by now. There seems to be little that can be done technically to prevent these attacks or to conclusively identify the vandal, since they generally involve registration via an anonymiser and a proxy server. But appearances of this vandalism are dealt with swiftly and without fuss.
- By the way, has this issue ever gone to WP:AN/I? Pinkville (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
ARV/SSP
Saw your note - that's what I thought I was doing, clicked the ARV tab on twinkle, it didn't seem to want to do what I wanted it to do, so I somehow ended up at SSP (better than nothing I suppose). TW seems to be as clear as mud to use, though I suppose it's OK once you get used to it. Wish there was some way to "practise" on it. --NSH001 (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, hopefully it will go more smoothly next time. AFAICR, "vandalism" comes up by default when you press "ARV", but I was put off by the fact that none of the options presented (for an IP vandal) seemed appropriate, so I tried something else ("sockpuppetry", obviously). Nope, I've never reported a sockpuppet -- by any means - except by this unintended (but not altogether inappropriate) use of TW. In the past I've made maybe a dozen reports to AIV, but have always found doing it manually tedious and frustrating (nearly always get an edit conflict), and that was my main reason for trying Twinkle. I'm still not sure whether it's worth all those extra buttons cluttering up my screen, but will keep it for now.
- --NSH001 (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
coords
Thanks yourself. The answer to your comment was just outright absurd, and certainly proves the point of the apartheid analogy even further. I'm not an expert of using coordinates, but to make a tag like the one I did I simply pasted 31°46'59"N 35°15'50"E into the template {{coor dms}} manually. You can get these templates on google maps directly through this link. You click on the place you want the coords of, copy the coor dms tag and paste it into wikipedia. --Soman (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Please review deletion of Shmuel Yerushalmi
I apologize for the length of time it took me to respond, but I wanted to get another admin's opinion before I answered. The standard AFD process runs for five days only. It can run longer, but that's generally because of two things: 1) There is a significant backlog of AFDs that admins haven't gotten around to closing some, 2) There was little to no discussion about that particular AFD. Unfortunately, for you, this didn't qualify for either. Although there were only five contributors to the AFD discussion, it was a pretty clear consensus that it should be deleted. Perhaps if it had run longer, it might have been different, but once AFDs are closed, they generally don't get reopened to generate more discussion if there was generally enough the first time around. My best advice to you would be to sometime in the future, recreate the article in your userspace addressing the issues brought up in the AFD discussion, and then have someone else look at it. However, if it isn't significantly different from the deleted version with issues addressed, it could very well get speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G4. You can also try to bring this up to WP:DRV, however that is generally not used if you disagree with the outcome. If you have significant new information that might have swayed the discussion, then this might be a good place to go, too. However, be sure not to canvass other people who might agree with you. Good luck. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Transparency | ||
| WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
****
Leave my edits alone.****. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.162.90 (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know who you are or what you are talking about, since the above appears to be your sole edit. In any case, I will edit as I see fit. RolandR (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Help wanted | ||
| WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Addbot (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
PNA
Roland -- friendly reminder -- do not deal w Fipplet or others simply by reverting back. It's fine that you issued a warning (tho it's not vandalism per se). Try to Talk page or ask for an admin to help bring down the edit warring. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- His edit to your user page is definitely not vandalism. It's a newbie attempting to communicate with you in a quite civil manner. The fact that he (mis)placed it on your user page does not make it vandalism at all. Pls remember WP:BITE. So, to give a warning or an edit summary that treats it as "vandalism" is improper and arguably misleading. Thanks for your note. HG | Talk 15:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to file report at WP:3RR, that would be helpful. Highly recommend that you do not revert back. HG | Talk 15:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've added information to (or modified) your report at WP:3RRN. Please remember not to revert again yourself or you would be in violation of 3RR. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Capital
Hello can you please stop chainging the Palestinian Authority capital to Jerusalem? Cause it's not. Im willing to discuss this with you. PNA claim Jerusalem to be the capital of a future palestinian state not the current authority. And furthermore a claim doesn't make Jerusalem ones capital. Fipplet (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Fipplet's user page
Hello RolandR. The rules say that sockpuppet notices can be removed by the person charged, unless the puppeting is confirmed. ('Confirmed' means that an administrator has ruled on the matter). See Wikipedia:USER#Removal of comments.2C_warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I first checked Template talk:Sockpuppet, which implies that the tags shouuld be retained. RolandR (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:User page is a guideline, while the thing you cited is only a discussion thread. If you read closely, you'll note that there was no consensus reached there. If a person attempting to reinstate a sock warning got into a revert war, I would not want to be the one trying to justify the reverts at the 3RR board. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- But I always understood (and there is some document about this, though I don't remember where) that there is a difference between a warning, which is intended to draw the user's attention to a guideline or policy, and a sockpuppet tag, which is intended to inform other editors about concern over the user's behaviour. RolandR (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- In practice there is no way to prevent a user from removing a sock tag unless they are blocked, or their user page is full protected. Note that I updated WP:Suspected sock puppets/Fipplet and you're welcome to add your own comment there. EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- But I always understood (and there is some document about this, though I don't remember where) that there is a difference between a warning, which is intended to draw the user's attention to a guideline or policy, and a sockpuppet tag, which is intended to inform other editors about concern over the user's behaviour. RolandR (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:User page is a guideline, while the thing you cited is only a discussion thread. If you read closely, you'll note that there was no consensus reached there. If a person attempting to reinstate a sock warning got into a revert war, I would not want to be the one trying to justify the reverts at the 3RR board. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Ive now created a separate page for my Swedish Jew User box. Thank you for your help.Fipplet (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Yeah I agree it's complicated but I am learning. Thank you very much. Fipplet (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 35 | 25 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 36 | 8 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 37 | 15 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Sock report needs to be signed
Hello RolandR. Regarding Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/138.40.153.43 (2nd), don't forget to sign! EdJohnston (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think you need to add the line:
- ;Report added by
- and then your signature below it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
September 2008
Thank you for making a report about Depaulicize (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! Toddst1 (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You might consider joining WikiProject Friesland for we allways need more participants. I saw the very cool anti-Nazi and pro-Palestine image and I thought you could be a great participant. Even if you have no knowledge of our people, you can still try to remove some vandalism or make some templates. Care to join? -The Bold Guy- (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Galloway
Galloway suggests being muslim a lot more then being Catholic, I can prove it through some videos of his radio program and things of that nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The4thwall (talk • contribs) 12:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Norman Finkelstein protection
Like I said before, I simply don't think once-a-day should result in permanent semi-protection. While you use the term "genuine editors" for those who are autoconfirmed, IP and new users should be considered genuine until proven otherwise. As to the SPAs using proxies or anonymiers, those should be checkusered and blocked per WP:PROXY. That would be more effective in reducing the vandalism. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Look, if you want, request permanent semi-protection. You could have a decent policy argument. I just happen to disagree. I see an article with vandalism once every day or even less. The fact that the majority of edits are vandalism doesn't mean it gets protected. There are plenty of articles vandalized with nastier stuff than this daily that don't get full semi-protection. Again, you seem set on the idea that there isn't a single new user who could possible be interested in actually improving the article. Also, this is probably the last real edit going back quite a while (not just vandalism or reverting) so it's not like the regular editors are doing much there and, my biggest problem, there is a lot of just plain reverting without any warnings to the users. You want those guys blocked and/or stopped? Warn them per policy and let's get those proxies addresses blocked. The idiotic "Fipps revenge" accounts all should have been immediately blocked per WP:DUCK. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Icon of Evil
Jeffrey Goldberg’s predictable review of Segev’s review Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- As Finkelstein argued, JG just does not know his job. To say, as an historian, that one can decontextualize al-Husayni's acts from related acts on the other side, like those of Shamir, Lehi and the Irgun, and focus on his Nazi links, while ignoring the Ha'avara and Lehi links, about which al-Husayni was probably well-informed, is to practice propaganda, and not the art of precise historical reconstruction. Thanks again.Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
October 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Bukay. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Jakezing (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)