Jump to content

User talk:RolandR: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs)
172,064 edits
m fixed link
Line 106: Line 106:
==[[Roger Scruton]]==
==[[Roger Scruton]]==
Hi Roland, I've opened an RfC to ask for a neutrality check of [[Roger Scruton]], and to ask whether the POV tag should remain. One of the issues continues to be whether the article makes too much of his having been a consultant for a tobacco company, which is an issue you commented on last year at the BLP noticeboard. If you have time to give your views on any of the issues at the RfC, even if only that one, that would be much appreciated. The RfC is [[Talk:Roger_Scruton#RfC:_Neutrality_check_at_Roger_Scruton|here]] and the section about tobacco is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roger_Scruton&oldid=423952243#World_Health_Organization.2C_tobacco here]. Cheers, <font color="black">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|TALK|]]</font><font color="lime">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|CONTRIBS]]</font></sup></small> 23:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Roland, I've opened an RfC to ask for a neutrality check of [[Roger Scruton]], and to ask whether the POV tag should remain. One of the issues continues to be whether the article makes too much of his having been a consultant for a tobacco company, which is an issue you commented on last year at the BLP noticeboard. If you have time to give your views on any of the issues at the RfC, even if only that one, that would be much appreciated. The RfC is [[Talk:Roger_Scruton#RfC:_Neutrality_check_at_Roger_Scruton|here]] and the section about tobacco is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roger_Scruton&oldid=423952243#World_Health_Organization.2C_tobacco here]. Cheers, <font color="black">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|TALK|]]</font><font color="lime">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|CONTRIBS]]</font></sup></small> 23:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

== Annoying, isn't it? ==

Maybe you won't hound other users edits in future... [[User:AFolkSingersBeard|AFolkSingersBeard]] ([[User talk:AFolkSingersBeard|talk]]) 08:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:52, 14 April 2011


  • Review and Improve: Template:Palestine topics • Palestine Liberation Organization • Palestinian views on the peace process • History of Palestine • Timeline of the name Palestine • Criticism of the Israeli government • Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence
  • Requests and drafts: 1657 Ottoman campaign in Palestine • Abu Nuwar • Al-Hussein Stadium • Demographics of Gaza • Fahmy al-Zaarir • Fawzi Barhoum • Future for Palestine • Khaldoun Al-Halman • Lajee Center • National symbols of the State of Palestine • Palestinian dance • Suleiman Jacir • Weaving in Majdal
  • Expand: Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority • General Union of Palestinian Students • Palestine Monetary Authority• Preventive Security Force • Walid Khalidi • Education in the State of Palestine • Sa'ir • Salman Abu-Sitta • Kawkaba • al Qastal, Palestine • Michel Khleifi • Al-Shajara • Sami Abu Zuhri • Yezid Sayigh • Yatta, Hebron • Qalqilya • Palestinian Scout Association • Arab Liberation Front • Palestinian literature • Muslim Quarter • Christian Quarter
  • Update: Palestinian Christians • Israel's record: human rights in the occupied territories • Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
  • Within WikiProject: Template needs to be edited so that space between bullet and text would be less


    • Kitten

    Carolmooredc has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

    Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

    The Signpost: 14 March 2011

    The Signpost: 21 March 2011

    note

    Hi, I removed what I felt was a personal attack and left the user a warning, if you feel to report it I would fully understand. Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Your behavior has been brought up as well (by me) at a thread on ANI that was originally about this reverted personal attack. It's at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Alexandre8. Based on a too-quick scan of this page, I'd just assumed that this section was notifying you about it, sorry for the delay. Short version: please don't follow Alexandre8 around anymore and correct their edits. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 28 March 2011

    Sock report on Baba

    Hi, RolandR. I have combined our two posts at WP:SPI into one to kind of tidy things up. We posted within a minute of each other; I am surprised we did not get and edit conflict. --Diannaa (Talk) 19:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, so am I. Your repoort was not there when I started mine, but was there when I saved. They are both date-stamped the same time. There must have been some unusual glitch which caused this. The fact that we independently submitted these at thje same time strengthens the prima-facie case here. I see that you removed the Check User request when you merged the reports -- can it be re-added? I don't know how. RolandR (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I thought it was still there. I will try to fix this. --Diannaa (Talk) 20:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, now all is in order. --Diannaa (Talk) 20:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 4 April 2011

    RefToolbar

    Hello. See my reply at Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar 2.0#Problem with NoScript.3F. Kaldari (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    RM alert

    There's a move request discussion going on at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority#Requested move, with which you were previously involved. I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new discussion. Nightw 11:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Your 3RR report

    Since Juliano Mer-Khamis is under a 1RR, it seems you might be blocked as well per your own report. Are you claiming BLP or any other justification that would exempt your reverts under WP:3RR#Exceptions? EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't claim BLP, as tragically Juliano has just been murdered. I have edited this article previously, and was concerned that his murder dragged out of the woodwork characters keen to malign him, or to impose their own misreadings of his history. Some (probably through ignorance rather than malice) removed his description as a Jew; others (for reasons unknown) removed his description as a Palestinian. He was already (since January) described accurately as an Israeli Palestinian. One editor, who has been edit-warring with multiple editors over several articles, and who has already been blocked twice this week for disruptive editing, insisted on removing this description. In the course of attempting to maintain balance in this sensitive article on a person assassinated for political reasons, I quite simply forgot that it should be subject to 1RR. I'm sorry, I should have remembered. In mitigation, I would argue that my edits have not been disruptive; that I have contributed to the discussion on the talk page; that as an existing editor on the page I had a genuine and legitimate pre-existing interest in the subject; and that I was motivated by a sincere desire both to prevent attacks on this recently-deceased person and to maintain a good-quality article. I do not believe that blocking me over this is necessary in order to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I have blocked your account for 48 hours for violation of WP:ARBPIA. I might point out that you have actually violated 3RR on that page with this edit [1]. I don't like having blocked you, but IMHO there has been too much edit warring on your behalf, so I don't find it entirely unjustified. You are of course perfectly well within your right to request review of the block; if an administrator disagrees, that administrator does not need my consent to undo your block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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:

    I request that I be unblocked, for the reasons explained above. I didn't consider the edit noted by Magog above to be a revert, I thought it was a perfectly uncontentious housekeeping edit in line with WP:LEADCITE. Please note that the blocking admin has written that their consent is not needed for undoing the block. RolandR (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

    Decline reason:

    I think it's awfully unfortunate that you have been blocked but I ultimately agree with the blocking admin's logic. Are you able to clearly indicate that you understand what you did wrong? Can you promise not to do it again? If you could do those things, I think an unblock request might be more successful. Meantime I am declining, sorry. John (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    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 accepted the request.

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

    Request reason:

    I'm sorry, I thought that I made it clear that I acted in error, and that I would not act similarly in the future. My explanation was an attempt at an explanation, rather than a justification, of my actions. I accept that I breached the rules of Wikipedia and that I should not have done so; and I undertake to be more careful to adhere in future to the letter of the rules of Wikipedia, even when my understanding of the spirit of these rules might tempt me to act otherwise. RolandR (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

    Accept reason:

    I have unblocked you. FYI: It might be wise to always adhere to 1RR in the first place, no matter if you think you are aware that the article is on 1RR or not and if you think you are correct or not. Even if consensus takes 12 or 24 hours to established, that is the extent for how long the article will be "wrong". After that, there will always be a straightforward justification for any reversion back to a prior state—consensus. I really ought to take my own advice too :) NW (Talk) 13:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. I will take account of your warning. RolandR (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    UAA report

    I now see that you're very autoconfirmed. I was able to submit a UAA report for User:Wikivndlism1 using Twinkle, as that's clearly a disruptive name. I'm not sure why you couldn't submit one yourself. --NellieBly (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Look again; your report has also been deleted by the bot! RolandR (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Argh! I thought it would be OK because the bot made other changes and left mine alone! That dastardly devil! --NellieBly (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 11 April 2011

    Roger Scruton

    Hi Roland, I've opened an RfC to ask for a neutrality check of Roger Scruton, and to ask whether the POV tag should remain. One of the issues continues to be whether the article makes too much of his having been a consultant for a tobacco company, which is an issue you commented on last year at the BLP noticeboard. If you have time to give your views on any of the issues at the RfC, even if only that one, that would be much appreciated. The RfC is here and the section about tobacco is here. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Annoying, isn't it?

    Maybe you won't hound other users edits in future... AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RolandR&oldid=423997955"