User talk:RolandR/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Request for
The move/revert war issue for Israeli Apartheid has been referred to arbitration. See Requests for arbitration /SlaveCrixus 17:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/[[Apartheid (disambiguation)]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. /SlaveCrixus 17:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on July 12 2006 (UTC) to Arab_citizens_of_Israel
Re your mail: see WP:AN3 for your reverts William M. Connolley 08:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


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

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)

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)

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:. Thanks again for your posts. Tiamut 14:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

wikEd


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: â¢ syntax highlighting â¢ nifty image buttons â¢ more fixing buttons â¢ paste formatted text from Word or web pages â¢ convert the formatted text into wikicode â¢ adjust the font size â¢ 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)

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)

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. --Zerotalk 00:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning on Steven Plaut
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. 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. ST47 Talk 20:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Discussion continued at User:ST47--RolandR 13:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

David Bukay
Roland, I strongly urge you to read WP:BLP and 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)
 * 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 â 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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, &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 13:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 Requests for checkuser/IP check RolandR 13:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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)


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


 * 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)


 * I have blocked the user as a suspected sockpuppet and semi-protected the article. --  tariq abjotu  15:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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)
 * Alrighty -- for the time being, I've put in a request at Requests for checkuser. 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)

User RanceRol
Looks like you-know-who is back as user RanceRol. Shall be blocked. --Zerotalk 10:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Done. --Zerotalk 11:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There was yet another one taken care of this morning . Regards, Huldra 10:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I really donÂ´t envy you this situation, and IÂ´m lucky in that I have never encountered the same. I donÂ´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: ). 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 Administrator intervention against vandalism to all edits were reverted and s/he was banned; thatÂ´s not bad!

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)

Gilad Atzmon
What makes you think that User:Ednas is GA himself? Isarig 16:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree with your analysis. Isarig 00:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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 ( ÎÎµÎ» ÎÏÎ·ÏÎ·Ï ) 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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  ( ÎÎµÎ» ÎÏÎ·ÏÎ·Ï ) 22:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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)


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

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

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 â¢ contribs â¢ Bot) 19:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion
Dear Comrade, I am trying to get an article Adam_Keller_court_martial on the court Martial of Adam Kellner undeleted. See Deletion_review. 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)

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)

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!
 Abu ali 11:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

see attempt to ban me at See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Maybe you can intervene and ask this individual to calm down? Abu ali 11:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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. ââ Eagle 101 (Need help?) 01:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * Follow this. yandman  10:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Regarding reversions made on   (UTC) to Steven Plaut
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. ST47 Talk 23:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Racism in Israel
Hi Comrade, Have a look at 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)
 * Thanks for your help.... Abu ali 10:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

New Sockpuppet User:Dorightnik
I have reverted these. Let me know if I can be any help. See you soon. --Duncan 21:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * Is there no way to write a bot that automatically reverts any mention of Roland beind added? --Duncan 10:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism
Maybe you help here []? Ø§Ø¨Ù Ø¹ÙÙ 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch
It's very considerate of you.Bless sins 22:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

indiginous or minorities?
I see there is another edit war on Arab citizens of Israel. Are the Beduin and Druze indiginous? Or are the only indiginous those who live in Brooklyn? Who knows. The amusing thing is for all the waring on the beginning of the sentence, noone is challenging the statement at the end of the sentence (that relations between the community and the state are warm). Try telling that to the Al-Ataika family. Also is worth reading. Ø§Ø¨Ù Ø¹ÙÙ 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This issue was discussed months ago, and several editors explained why the word was POV, and why the source did not support the claim being made. User:Tiamut has decided to renew the edit war over this, which I thought had been settled back in December. If you wish to participate in the debate, please do so on the Talk page of the article, but making blind reverts as you have been doing is not acceptable. Isarig 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not an accurate account. Only one editor -- you -- even attempted to explain why this factual and sourced statement was POV. Sevreral editors agreed that it was a valid term, and at least six different editors have reverted your continued removal of the term. User:Tiamut has clearly been taking a break from Wikipedia, and came back to discover that an issue which she believed had been settled by consensu, had subsequently been reverted by you. If there is an edit war here, then you are clearly one of the nmain combatants.
 * No, you need to read much more carefully. I refer you to archive 2, section 46, where in addition to myself, Zeq and Jaygj agreed that it was POV, and to archive 2, section 32, where an anon editor first raised this issue. So, 4 different editors found it POV. Isarig 06:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not the case. In section 32, an unsigned comment asserts, without any reasons, that this is a POV term. (Is there any way to see the page history of an archived page?) Section 46 doesn't deal with this at all, I think you mean 45. Again, you, Zeq and Jayjg assert, without any evidence, that this is a POV statement. You can shout as much as you like, but unless you can provide some backing for your argument that this neutral and factual term should be ethnically-cleansed from the article, it should remain there. RolandR 09:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case, it is ridiculous to imply that the Palestinian Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine. This is characteristic of the fake scholarship of Joan Peters and Alan Dershowitz, and carries unfortunate echoes of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1947-8 and subsequently. The term is accurate, neutral, appropriate and used in the source cited, and it should stay in the article. RolandR 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's all very nice, but here on WP, we are not out to pick sides and decide which arguments are valid and which are not - we are here to accurately describe both POVs. If you insist on including the POV claim that Arabs are indigenous, we have no choice but to include the opposing POV, that they are recent immigrants- no matter how much you personally dislike Peters or Dershowitz. Isarig 06:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Roland. Your sum-up is much more accurate than that given by Isarig. When objections were raised to the term, I defended it use, more than once (I believe successfully, since no one attempted to remove it immediately after those discussions). As you have quite accurately pointed out, I have been on a hiatus (and was not involved in the "edit war") and was rather disappointed to come back and see that the word was removed again despite the source defending its use and the quite obvious history of Palestinians in the region. I would finish by saying that I am disappointed that Isarig sought to misrepresent my actions, and on your talk page no less. Thanks for alerting me. Tiamut 19:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Could you check out Al-Aqsa Intifada, the debate over the tactics section? Thanks. Tiamut 21:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Another one, Law of Return. Am I way off base? Tiamut 21:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That reminds me
Before I took my hiatus, you translated volumed of material from Hebrew into English to help improve the Arab citizens of Israel article. I have not forgotten your hard work, even though I could not include all the material because of persistent edit-warring from parties with rigid POV. I intend to get bak to it one day, but until then, I wanted to award you:


 * Thanks for the tea RolandR. It totally made my day, really. It's so nice to open your talk page and be greeted by people with kindness and intellect. Take care. Tiamut 18:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Block on political grounds?
see [] Ø§Ø¨Ù Ø¹ÙÙ 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)

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)

Adam Keller
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits 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.

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 Wikipedia, 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. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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)

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. Ø§Ø¨Ù Ø¹ÙÙ (Abu Ali) 15:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Schoenman
Hi, wasnÂ´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? WasnÂ´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: IÂ´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 Wikipedia 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 Ø§Ø¨Ù Ø¹ÙÙ (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. Ø§Ø¨Ù Ø¹ÙÙ (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 donÂ´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)

Please see Wikipedia'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.

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. Wikipedia would not be Wikipedia 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! Ø§Ø¨Ù Ø¹ÙÙ (Abu Ali) 19:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Guradian Persuit
your comment is requested here:. Jaakobou 14:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Deir Yassin
Hi there Roland. I've noticed your support of my edit on the DY page.

Amuroso on the talk page just posted a link which he claims contains an outright denial of the DY massacre from Milstein. While I still think it breaches WP:UNDUE to give equal billing to Milstein's views over the 160+ books that have endorsed the massacre claim, it might be helpful in the talk page debate to get a confirmation of what Milstein has actually said in this article, as well as the date the article was published and maybe even a partial translation of the article's more important points. Since you apparently read Hebrew yourself, would you be interested in helping out in that regard? Thanks, Gatoclass 03:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry Gatoclass, I'm blocked at the moment and can't add anything. But the only Milstein link I can find is to a book I do not have, and which is unlikely to be available in London. I don't intend to buy it for this purpose! RolandR 10:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've found the link on the talk page, and will check it for you later. RolandR 10:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Counterpunch
I not sure if your still banned or not, but when you get unbanned could you come to the talk page and give me some back-up. Some zionist hoodlum named anti-fascist is trying to post the thing about Alan Cabal and Ernest Zundel again and sadly Bobfrombockley seems to be supporting him. I think these charges are flimsy at best and are nothing more than a transparent attempt to bias the article against counterpunch. I feel I need some back-up on this so could you help me out please. annoynmous 19:49, 28 April (UTC)


 * As it happens, I don't really disagree with those edits. I would probably rephrase some of it, but the substance is to my mind valid, and documented.
 * However, I agree with your anger at User:Antifascist's libellous attack on you. I think that you should consider placing an abusive edit summary warning  on his talk page RolandR 21:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your concerns and I know how sincere they are, but I think in this case they are unfounded. This article is already has enough accusations against Counterpunch of anti-semitism and this point it's starting to feel a little overloaded with this type of criticism. Nothing Cabal or Mcgowan have said has directly endorsed Holocaust Denial and I don't think Counterpunch should be berated because they publish articles by them. The question is there anything in counterpunch that directly endorses holocaust denial and the simple answer is no! It seems rather silly to criticise and organization because they feature articles by these people when nothing in these articles can construed as holocaust denial. If you have a criticism of them than go after them, not counterpunch because they dare to allow them to speak freely.


 * I have said before that I'm fine with adding Israel Shamir to your Jew against Zionism criticism, because beleive it or not I actually believe theres more of a reason to criticise counterpunch over him than over Atzmon. I actually think that atzmon, although crude in his phrasing is simply misunderstood, whereas Shamir seems to me like a right winger who seems to have fooled people into thinking he's a left-winger.


 * Neverthless thank you for your support in regards to anti-fascist's comments. I guess I was just asking for support in case I get threatened with a ban if I stick up for my views too hardly. However, I fully understand if don't wish to get involved, who needs the aggrevation right?


 * I hope you get unbanned and keep fighting the good fight. annoynmous 01:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Response
I have responded to your question regarding a third opinion. My answer can be found here. --User:Krator (t c) —Preceding comment was added at 12:28, 24 September 2007

I need to communicarte with you
I need to communicarte with you, a bit more privately than this page offers. Can you send your email to otherist@actcom.co.il and write in the subject line "Roland Rance address"? Thanks. Adam Keller —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Keller (talk • contribs) 11:01, 3 August 2008

Re: The Kafka Award
Thanks :) pedrito  - talk  - 06:01 18.05.2009