User talk:RolandR

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:

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]

Notability and the wiki

Hi, good for getting an account. I have taken the liberty to point out on Talk:Roland Rance that you are a registered user (this is very common, see Talk:Angela Beesley for an example). JFW | T@lk 22:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editing and Reasons

Merged from User talk:81.178.85.213

It might not have been your intent, but you recently removed content from List of British Jews. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Beno1000 22:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed state the reason in the Talk Page. I removed Nick Cohen's name, as he has stated explicitly that he is not Jewish. I assume that he was included because someone took it for granted that anyone named Cohen is Jewish. And it does not appear to me that you have reverted the removal, or made any comment on the talk page. RolandR 18:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please NPOV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Haretz_article

you latest text is not NPOV. Zeq 20:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly NPOV. I quoted the gist and the conclusion of an article in Ha'Aretz. And the quote you imply I deliberately left out repeats "Arab children will not benefit, but Haredi children will". If you have a problem with this, take it up with Ha'Aretz, not with me.RolandR 21:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selective quotes is not NPOV. Placing an encdote on lead section is not NPOV. Edit warring to over come the objections of other editors is a violation of policy. wordfs you used that are not in haharetz are not NPOV. shall I go on. You are trying to push your political agenda to the top of an encyclopedia article. Violation of WP:Not Zeq 09:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread the Ha'Arretz article and my extract from it, and tell me a) which words I used that are not in the article; b) how the sense of the article differs from what I quoted.RolandR 09:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you spend time in wikipedia you will find that those who bleat loudest about "NPOV issues" are prewcisely those who seek to promote their onw POV hardest. Check out Zeq's contributions before you assume good faith. 86.27.72.39 22:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for

The move/revert war issue for Israeli Apartheid has been referred to arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Move and revert warring at Israeli Apartheid /SlaveCrixus 17:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

/SlaveCrixus 17:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on July 12 2006 (UTC) to Arab_citizens_of_Israel

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 3 hours. William M. Connolley 07:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your mail: see WP:AN3 for your reverts William M. Connolley 08:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I say, you want to talk, talk here. But I checked the links on the 3RR page... it looks valid to me. Maybe read the rules? William M. Connolley 08:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check again. I edited the article, to introduce new information and correct stylistic errors. It was reverted three times by edirtors who I believe to be acting in concert. I reverted twice only. I then edited to remove an unrelated comment. The final edit was to add just part of my original edit; the true, and documented, statement that "East Jerusalem was illegally annexed by Israel in 1980". I note that this has now been edited by a further editor, to remove the word "illegal", which is used explicitly in the UN document which I cited. I have read the rules, and I don't believe that I violated 3RR.RolandR 09:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I suppose I'll have to spoon-feed you. The rules clearly state that *unrelated* reverts count. So removing the unrelated comment counts. As does restoring only part of your edit William M. Connolley 15:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate your condescending tone, and I really don't understand. The unrelated edit was not a revert. You seem to suggest that three separate, unrelated, edits to an article would lead to blocking. But the policy clearly states "if an editor makes three separate successive edits, each of which reverts a different section, but with no intervening edits by other editors, this is counted as one revert". Thus my removal of one comment, which I had previously not edited, and my addition of another within half an hour should not be counted as two reverts. These were separate, unrelated, edits.RolandR 22:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is boring, you have forgotten but with no intervening edits by other editors William M. Connolley 07:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

Hi Roland. I reformulated the election issue incoporating the information from the article you provided. Isarig has reverted my edits citing a bunch of non-sequiter stuff I can't really follow. Would you mind looking at the previous version and editing it appropriately (if it needs such editing)? Additionally, I would appreciate your insight on the discussion on the talk page. Thanks. Tiamut 11:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear RolandR. Thanks so much for your message and help in locating sources. I scanned the document you sent in Hebrew (though I have to admit, my Hebrew skills are rather poor, since I studied at the university level in North America in English). So I defeinitely would appreciate a translation of the relevant sections. By the way, I love your user page (content and design wise!) Tiamut 13:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RolandR. I noticed the discussion above and thought I might share my experiences with you. Check out the discussion on 3RR at this page: [2]. Thanks again for your posts. Tiamut 14:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikEd

The wikEdlogo

Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus: • syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • more fixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages • convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjust the font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Often it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cacycle. I had some difficulty installing it over the previous editor, and eventually had to remove that first and then install wikiEd. It seems to be OK now, I look forward to trying it out. It certainly looks a lot friendlier and easier to use than the old editor. --RolandR 12:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plaut email

Hi, for the record I don't think Plaut's email about the address list is particularly encyclopedic, and the source (copy of mailing list posting) doesn't seem to satisfy the guidelines at WP:RS. I have no doubt it is true, but rules are rules. It would be different if the episode was published in a recognised magazine. --Zero^talk 00:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning on Steven Plaut

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Steven Plaut. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ST47Talk 20:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued at User:ST47#Requesting_Your_Help_to_stop_vandal--RolandR 13:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Bukay

Roland, I strongly urge you to read WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden, and consider in particular the implications of the latter for your editing on David Bukay. Also, plagiarism is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it, and I don't see the relevance to my edits of David Bukay. I note the statement that "the BLP policy that he cites in defense of his position specifically states that if an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it", and would suggest that this reflects on those who are removing the materia;l that I have added. And I really don't understand the allegation of plagiarism. I am quoting and acknowledging sources; if you think this is plagiarism, then nearly every Wikipedia editor is guilty in nearly every article.--RolandR 23:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a Wikipedia policy statement on plagiarism. However, I think we all know what it is. To quote Plagiarism, "Plagiarism is the practice of 'dishonestly' claiming or implying original authorship of material which one has not actually created, such as when a person incorporates material from someone else's work into their own work without attributing it". I have been meticulous in my citation of sources, and the accusation of plagiarism is simply a red herring, raised in order to remove unpalatable quotations from the article.--RolandR 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You copied large sections of text without in any way indicating you were quoting a source. More fundamentally, you created an biography which is essentially nothing more than an attack article on Bukay. As it is, the article is 70% negative - you have cherry picked what you consider to be his most radical and outrageous views, and solely quoted them in the "Views" section, while not providing him any forum for promoting his own version of his views. Your previous version was even worse, and, frankly, would have constituted a blocking offense had I not cleaned it up a little for you. The Rachel Marsden case hinged on The typical negatively biased version of Rachel Marsden contains elaborate negative information, but very little positive or neutral information. Take a very careful look at the Rachel Marsden article now. Look at the history as well. Is that the fate you are hoping for for the David Bukay article? If I were you, I'd accept an article that is only 70% negative, and not insist it needs to be 80% negative. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I indicated that I was quoting. The passage started "According to the Arab Association for Human Rights", and the quotes were in quotation marks. What else was I supposed to do -- write it in a funny accent? I honestly can't see why you thought my previous version was worse, and as you will see I have retained all of your changes, except the removal of the alleged statements in class. In fact, I don't think I have removed any pro-Bukay comments from the article -- though I have several times deleted vandalism by malicious editors who have added derogatory comments about me to the main text.

By the way, I didn't create the article. I noticed that it existed, yet did not even mention the controversy around his views. It was surely legitimate and necessary to add this material. --RolandR 09:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Try warning users before putting them up on the WP:AN3 page. It is not always prudent to believe that they are sockpuppets. In case you want to ascertain if they are; go to WP:RFCU and present the evidence. The sockpuppets would be blocked. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I accept your advice, and would act this way in normal citcumstances. I did in fact post a vandalism warning, though not for 3RR, on the relevant userpage. The reason I assumed sockpuppetry was because the behaviour exacrtly mirrored that of several confirmed and blocked sockpuppets; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Fumigate RolandR 13:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User RanceRol

Looks like you-know-who is back as user RanceRol. Shall be blocked. --Zero^talk 10:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zero. Can you also block User:Greenran. Obviously set up as an attack on genuine User:Rangreen, and making the same edits as Rancerol.--RolandR 10:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Zero^talk 11:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was yet another one taken care of this morning [3]. Regards, Huldra 10:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don´t envy you this situation, and I´m lucky in that I have never encountered the same. I don´t have any good suggestions, but I think you can note that it did not take many minutes before this last version was blocked. And the more people get to be aware about him/her, the better. I would suggest that you collect all the information you have on a subpage, ( I see that Jayjg has done that on a couple, see here: [4]). Then somebody "new" to the situation will quickly get the picture. Best of luck to you, regards, Huldra 14:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC) PS: it only took 2 minutes from I reported it on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to all edits were reverted and s/he was banned; that´s not bad![reply]

Ilan Pappé

You have declined the request to semi-protect Ilan Pappé, on the grounds that "There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time." I think you should look at the logs for the now-protected Steven Plaut, David Bukay, and Kurt Nimmo, and if possible at the deleted logs for Roland Rance, and reconsider. The latest edits were clearly made by the same person/people, using the same language and accusations. We can be certain that this page will continue to be vandalised in the same libellous way until it is protected, when the culprit/s will move on to attack another anti-Zionist Jew. Why wait for the inevitable recurrence of vandalism before acting? If the article is semi-protected, established bona fide editors will still be able to edit it, but the string of disposable accounts set up in order to carry out such attacks will be stymied. RolandR 02:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think semi-protection is necessary. The problematic user(s) has/have been blocked. -- tariqabjotu 03:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the same libellous and disruptive edit has now been made by User:Harmont. This will keep happening until the article is protected.--RolandR 15:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the user as a suspected sockpuppet and semi-protected the article. -- tariqabjotu 15:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friend and Comrade

Hello, I am realtively new to wikipedia, but it's nice to meet someone who isn't a mad Pro-Zionist at Wikipedia. I have already left a message at Abu-ali's talk page and I suggested to him that those of us who want to counter the Pro-Israel bias at wikipedia need to stick together. I have been involved in a highly contentious battle with Isarig on the second intifada for the past few days. I disputed a number that said that the number of non-combatants killed on the Israelie side was 77% where as the number of Palestinians non-combatants killed was only 36%. Like you I was banned for a while by William Connelly, who from your correspondence above seems very rude and nasty.

At the moment I seem to be winning on the Intifada article, but I wondered if you had anything you could contribute to this article to help me rebute Isarig and the others. annoynmous 18:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Serial vandalism

I'll look into this, some. We have a variety of tools at our disposal -- picking a particular set would depend on the situation. I'll check out the accounts listed in those prior checkuser requests, and see if I can build up an MO and figure where to go from there. If there's anything you think I should know, feel free; mainly, right now, I need to figure out their habits and patterns. Luna Santin 00:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty -- for the time being, I've put in a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Fumigate again. I've put in a word with some of the people on RC patrol about this (myself included), and done some other things I shouldn't go into too much detail about, so hopefully we'll catch onto this more quickly, if they return. Will see if there's anything more for me to do, at this point. In the meantime, feel free to let me know if I'm missing any such abuse, or if there's anything else I should know. You shouldn't have to put up with abuse of this sort, under any circumstances. Luna Santin 01:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isarig

Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think? Abu ali 20:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gilad Atzmon

What makes you think that User:Ednas is GA himself? Isarig 16:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree with your analysis. Isarig 00:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Rantshole

I was just leaving a block message at this page, when something odd happened; when I checked the history I discovered that I'd overridden you edit in an edit conflict (possibly because I Previewed and then Saved?). However, your edit consisted of blanking the Talk page in order to replace it with a vandalism warning. Why? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feelings, but I think that blanking a Talk page is a bad idea in general, and especially when it also removes an earlier warning. If you need any help dealing with him, though, I'll do my best. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rosen

Roland, you have removed the category regarding the British UK SWP (obviously since the party does not organise in Northern Island the category is wrong), but not my own addition linking Rosen to the SWP. In relation to the Socialist Worker letter on Atzmon and at other times Rosen has been referred to as an SWP member. Please clarify his precise relationship to the SWP, if you know what it is. Philip Cross 12:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification and the link. Cheers! Philip Cross 14:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your solidarity! Abu ali 08:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, RolandR! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion

Dear Comrade, I am trying to get an article Adam_Keller_court_martial on the court Martial of Adam Kellner undeleted. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Adam_Keller_court_martial. I think the article is worth keeping and helps show that Israelis are not all gun-toting settlers, and that a certain level of revulsion exists in Israeli society to the repressive actions of the state. If you find anything constructive to add to the deletion review discussion, please feel free to have your say. Fraternally yours Abu ali 21:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Keller article

~~I hope Adam Keller is not too dismayed to find a biography of himself on Wikipedia. And~~ I hope that our zionist friends don't don't use the article as a vehicle for character assasination. Abu ali 14:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment

Your taking the effort to write my biography is a nice compliment. I have been the spokeperson of Gush Shalom since its foundation in late 1992 and before that I was the spokesperson of the Shelli Peace Party 1980-1983 and later of the Progressive List for Peace which was created by the more left wing splinter resulting from the split of Shelli in 1983. You can also mention that as an eighteen-year old conscript I wanted very much to be a combat soldier and that my decision to become "disobedient" while on reserve military duty started from the Lebanon War of 1982, when it was manifestly clear that the war was not fought for Israel's survivial but for implemeting "a new order in the Middle East". I have been three times imprisoned in military prisons: one month in 1984 for refusing to go to Lebanon, three months for the famous graffiti incident in 1988, and one month in 1990 for refusing military service altogether in rotest at the pardon given to four soldiers who had beaten a Gaza Palestinian to death in front of his children (they got nine months for this act, but got a pardon after two and a half). While I was imprisoned in 1990 I refused to wear a military uniform, wasundressed by force and a uniform pout on me, and started a hunger strike. After two weeks an army phychatrist diagnosed me as "metally unfit for military service". I also was imprisoned many timesby the civilian police,unsually for no more than a few hours but once for eight days, for either writing graffiti ("defacing real property" is the legal term) or for participating in unautorised demonstrations. I was alsoonearrested by the French police for wrting anti-Le Pen grafitti in the Paris metro.

I have studied history at Tel-Aviv University (1977-1982) and got a B.A., but found myself unable to combine continued academic studies with intensive daily political activity and chose for the latter. While at the university I worked closely with the present Hadash Knesset Member Mohammad Barakeh, then a fellow student, in the framework of CAMPUS (which is the Hebrew acronym of "Student Social and Political Involvement Group). There is some relevant info in the Barakeh Wikipedia page. Aside from the political details I work as a translator and freelance journalist (in addition to being the editor of the Other Israel). I am married to Beate Zilversmidt, a veteran peace activist in her own right, who was in the 1980's active in the Amsterdam-based Jewish-Palestinian Dialogue Group, until we met during a conference in 1986, and in 1987 she came to live with me in Israel and share my work. I have one son, Uri Ya'akobi, born in 1984 of a laison with Rama Ya'akobi who is an activist of the Jeresualem Women in Black (and still a good friend of me and my wife). Uri served a half year prison term in 2002-2003 for refusing to join the army (unlike me, he is a complete pacifist who would not join any army anywhere).

I saw you are a vegetarian. So am I since the age of sixteen, and a complete vegan since 1997. I also regularly feed street cats of whom there are many in the street near my home (in Holon, a large "unfashonable" (lower-middle class) suburb of Tel-Aviv, and I support animalrightsd groups in Israel though having no time to be actively involved in them. Make what you can of all this, thanks again for taking the trouble. Adam Keller 14:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Help!

[5] Abu ali 11:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see attempt to ban me at See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#personal_attack_and_abuse_of_personal_userpage. Maybe you can intervene and ask this individual to calm down? Abu ali 11:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Shamir

RolandR, I have wikified the opening of this article to indicate his year of birth. As far as I can tell this does not appear to be in doubt. Obviously, if you know otherwise... Philip Cross 18:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

====Regarding reversions[6] made on {{subst:currentmonth}} {{subst:currentday}} {{subst:currentyear}} (UTC) to Steven Plaut====

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning, but aviod making any reverts within 24 hours of this warning in order to avoid any confusion. ST47Talk 23:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR -- 24 hour block

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

—— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 01:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I mis-counted the edits.

ASlthough Eagle 101 has removed the block he mistakenly placed on me, I am still autoblocked and unable to edit. I urgently nreed to replace several abusive links placed all over Wikipedia. Please help! RolandR 10:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow this. yandman 10:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 81.179.79.225 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: yandman 10:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpunch Article

RolandR I don't understand, why are you helping some mad Zionist fool bias the article on Counterpunch. The article already contains links to accusations of anti-semtism from that moron Steven Plaut, why does this extended diatribe of a paragraph need to be there which is obvious POV pushing. There is absolutely no evidence to support anything in that extended paragraph and the only purpose it serves is this fool going on an extended rant. RolandR, I was under the assumption that you and I were on the same page and I would think you would to help me block this fool, not restore his delusional edits. Annoynmous 20:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Counterpunch is playing a very dubious role here, and in effect undermining the anti-Zionist position. It is publishing articles by characters like Shamir and Atzmon, which deliberately blur the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism and attack Jews in the stupid belief that this somehow helps the Palestinian cause; it has published false and malicious attacks on anti-Zionist activists (including me and my friend Tony Greenstein), but refuses to publish our response; and it is lending credence to the argument of reactionaries like Plaut that opposition to Israel is necessarily and automatically antisemitic. If we do not respond to this, if we cover it up and pretend that everything is alright, then we are ourselves aiding this deception and strengthening Israeli propaganda. The paragraph is true, no matter who wrote it -- and, as you will see from the article on him -- I am certainly not a fan of Plaut.RolandR 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off your assumption that the article is true no matter who wrote it strikes me as an extremely arrogant thing to say. The fact is that there is not one link or corroborating source in the unkown users paragraph. From the way it's written it's obvious that this is just his own biased viewpoint that he wants to get across and not some carefully researched point. I have read the article on counterpunch that mentions your friend Tony Greenstein and as far as I can tell the criticism in the article was simply Mr. Greenstein's suggestion that Atzmon not be invited to a convention sponsored by the SWP. I think this is a valid criticism and this whole support for the annoynmous user smacks of the personal rather your thinking he has a legitimate point. I agree that Atzmon is a controversial figure and that one can legitimately criticise statements he's made, but those should be made on his article, not counterpunch's. Counterpunch as you also no publishes articles by Uri Avnery someone who is far from an anti-semite. You need to look at the wording this phantom user used in his article describing Atzmon and Shamir, "explicitly anti-jewish rascists", who knows I may come to agree with that assumption after some more thorough research on both men, but it would still be my opinion and not absolute fact. I think most people agree that both men have rather ambigous arguments that could be interpreted both ways. As for the nonsense about Ernest Zundel, do you really beleive that Cockburn and St. Clair are neo-nazi holocaust deniers as the user claims. Alexander Cockburn may be anti-zionist, but he's also written articles bashing christopher hitchens for holocaust denial comments he's made in the past. Why can't the passages of counterpunch being accused of anti-semitism suffice instead of this hastily written piece of opionated garbage. RolandR I have great respect for you and have silently cheered you on in your attempts to show up that douchebag Plaut and I sincerely hope that when your ban lifts for that article you go right back to fighting the bastards. However, I beg you don't let whatever legitimate grievance you may have with Atzmon contaminate this article by unwittingly being sucked in by zionist garbage. annoynmous 01:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RolandR I hope that I haven't come across as overly harsh, because I have the greatest respect for you and hope that we could be allies in the future. I would hate for this incident to lead to a prolonged antagonism between us. I'm sure that you are sincere in your beliefs and I am in no way accusing you of "betraying the greater cause" or some nonsense like that. I hope thats not how my comments came off. It just that I read Counterpunch regularly and it is one of the few refuges we have here in America from the insuferable corporate media. It is one of the the few publications here willing to take up the cause of the palestinians, and I fear that because of this paragraph there going to come off as a bunch of neo-nazi rascists. I just think what ever criticism's of Atzmon and Shamir need be made should be made on there pages, not on Counterpunch's. Even if I did think some mention of them on this article would be appropiate, I would rather you right it than the zionist moron who wrote this paragraph. annoynmous 02:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i accept your point, and have added a sentence and refs to the article detailing the criticism from anti-Zionist activists. Counterpunch are of course not a bunch of neo-nazi racists. But I am very sceptical of some they work with, and I think that their refusal to publish -- or indeed even acknowledge -- responses by left activists attacked in their pages is reprehensible. RolandR 13:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well know I'm a Nazi apologist according to the unkown user. I warned you about this RolandR, this guy isn't doing this because he's concerned about the blurring between anti-zionism and anti-semitism, he's a mad zionist who hates counterpunch because they criticize Israel. To him, everyone is a neo-nazi holocaust denier. I still think the critique of Atzmon should be on his page and not on counterpunch's, but I have respect for your opinion and won't press the matter any further. My edits to your writing were simply trying to give it a more neutral sense in that it is only your opinion that Atzmon blurs the lines between anti-zionism and anti-semitism. I happen to think your wrong on Atzmon, he may be rather harsh in his wording sometimes, but I don't think he has any great overiding hatred against jews. Israel shamir is a another matter, and I do agree that Counterpunch may have shown poor judgement in running his articles. However, we can discuss that at another time and for now I won't make any further edits on your writing. I must however stress that the unkown user is seriously starting to piss me off and I will continue to revert his edits if he keeps trying to add in his biased paragraph. I really don't like banning anyone from an article, but if he persists I would suggest you try and ban him from the article. annoynmous 06:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RolandR I don't if you been reading the discussion page lately, but suffice to say it's gotten pretty ugly between me and the unkown user. I frankly don't like the guy, but I'm gonna try and put aside by anger and try to embrace a mutual compromise that both he and I would like. Will Beback has lifted the ban and I have suggested that you do another rewrite that this time include Israel Shamir as well as Atzmon. The unkown user also wants some mention of Alan Cabal article on Ernest Zundel, but I think that should be left out as it is only in the print edition of counterpunch and can only be referenced through blogs that mention it. However, I guess you should probably talk more with the unkown user directly about coming to a compromise in that area. Despite our dislike for each other we both seem to trust you and feel you would be a good mediator for both our viewpoints. We are both holding off editing in wait of your new contributions.

annoynmous 21:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have been following the battle there. Although I haven't intervened directly, I have posted warnings on the editor's talk page not to make personal attacks, and not to threaten legal action. I've replied more fully on the article talk page about my reluctance further to amend the article. RolandR 22:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RolandR would you please come and talk to this guy again. Frankly I don't care what you say to him as long I don't have to deal with him anymore. I frankly don't blame you for not wanting to change the paragraph you've written and agree it is sufficient for now. I'm not asking you to do that, just do something so he'll go away.

I literally can't stand this guy anymore. I don't know why, but every time I make up my mind not to talk to him I keep coming back even although it makes me upset. As you can see on the talk page I posted another post after I said I wasn't going to post anymore. This guy just irks me so much that I can't help but respond. I'm not asking you to commit to anything with him, just talk to him for a little while so I don't have to. Then maybe he'll go away and my blood pressure can go back down.annoynmous 22:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Israel

Hi Comrade, Have a look at [7] and Talk:Racism by country. Our Zionist friends are trying to purge any reference to Israeli racism from Wikipedia. And so far they are succeeding. regards, Abu ali 20:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help.... Abu ali 10:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New sockpuppet

I just blocked User:Rolandshat indefinitely, for obvious reasons. Also, I've added that blogspot site he keeps vandalizing with to Shadowbot's blacklist, so I should be able to keep tabs on him in the future. Shadow1 (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong edit apology

Dear RolandR - I am sorry about the mistake, however I cannot remove my text as the article has gone from the wiki. Kotovasii 19:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]