User talk:Colourinthemeaning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] your threats

I don't enjoy being threatened. You don't have a monopoly over this article, and neither do I. You are welcome to add sourced information that improves it, but don't think you can blanket revert my edits. If you have an interest in improving things, then please let's do it together, preferably without the nasty tone. --Gilabrand (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not threaten you, I gave you a warning (i copied and pasted the standard one in fact) - as is required when reporting a user who violates the 3RR. I am more than happy to try and make additions, but every time i have you have reverted them without discussion, to a page that reads like it was lifted directly from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Can't it be both an Israeli Settlement and a neighborhood? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed that when I merged the two versions. I've stuck it all in the history section now. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Very much appreciated Number 57 :) Colourinthemeaning (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If I found the term "personally offensive" then I wouldn't have made clear that that is what East Jerusalem is often called, but saying that it being a neighborhood is exclusive to the Israeli government is fiction. Whether or not someplace is a settlement doesn't stop it from being a city or village, and in this case a naighborhood, and pretending that it does simply conflicts with reality. --RobertRobertert (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC) I never said it was exclusive - what i meant is that the view is pretty limited when compared to the view that it is a Settlement. That said, however, I do not disagree that being a settlement stops it from being city or village, or even neighborhood - on the contrary, i agree completely, but it works both ways. Being a neighborhood does not stop it from being a Settlement. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was exclusive - what i meant is that the view is pretty limited when compared to the view that it is a Settlement. That said, however, I do not disagree that being a settlement stops it from being city or village, or even neighborhood - on the contrary, i agree completely, but it works both ways. Being a neighborhood does not stop it from being a Settlement. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Where did I say that being a neighborhood makes it stop being a settlement? Every version before you edited already said that it is in East Jerusalem and called a settlement by many. Your edits on the other hand treats neighborhood as a political position and concluseively labels it as a settlement, while calling those who disagree hypocrites who are hiding the truth, reporting others for reverts and then breaking the rules yourself - what kind of discussion is that? --RobertRobertert (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You did not say as much, i assumed from every revision where you removed Israeli Settlement from the first sentence. When you consider that there is International consensus that it is a Settlement, and only one nation (Israel) who considers it a neighborhood, don't you think it is of equal weight? I did not break any more rules than the person I reported - in fact, all I was doing was acting in the best interests of Wikipedia (THE golden rule), which I believe the mod realized when they ignored your request and protected the page. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gilo citation error

G'day, first of all thanks for protecting the Gilo article. I just noticed however, there is a small error with one of the citations (number 4) i think that is giving a citation error if you would be able to fix that up sometime or possibly point me in the right direction for these sort of requests. Cheers. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can tell me exactly what you want changed then I will do it, otherwise put {{editprotected}} on the talk page with details of what is wrong and an admin will stop by and fix it. Stifle (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You say "You use (and lead with) the disputed term neighborhood without any mention of the dispute over it". What dispute over the term? You keep referring me to UN documents that that "you" interpret as making the term neighborhood disputed, while at the same time your own sources have no problem using the term. If it was disputed, Saeb Erekat, ARIJ and Peace Now would be the last people to use it. --Robertert (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"If the annexation isnt recognised by the international community, and is disputed, then calling them a neighborhood is incredibly misleading", That is where you make the jump from what the sources say to what *you* say. I might understand the argument except *your own sources* disagree with you. Do you believe that Saeb Erekat, ARIJ, or Peace Now are less aware of the issues than you are? --Robertert (talk) 07:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know they call them settlements, and they also call them neighborhoods, meaning that they do not believe that "neighborhood" is a disputed or incorrect term. The UN doesn't say that either, just you. --Robertert (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you need a source that explicitly says that something is wrong with calling it a "neighborhood". Instead your own sources use the term without any sign of controversy. --Robertert (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: [The] term 'Settlement' and 'Neighborhood' (refractored note)

The most important thing is to discuss and to try to minimize reverts. Further revert wars may result in revert restrictions being imposed. Thx. El_C 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing restrictions

Hi. Please refer to this notice. Thanks. Regards, El_C 23:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please present your position and any suggestions on how to solve the dispute here. 10:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by El C (talk • contribs)

[edit] 3RR violation

Please note you violated 3RR on the Jerusalem neighborhood articles. If you don't self revert, you risk getting banned. Amoruso (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As a citizen of Jerusalem, I'm familar enough with the subject, unlike you, to know that these are neighborhoods in Jerusalem. It's just a fact. Nothing political about it. Your objection to the 3RR rule noted, I will report you then. Amoruso (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
When you say "legally", you mean "Internationally law (doctrine of U.N non binding resolutions) legally... I suppose. So yes, they might not be "legal" neighborhoods but they are still neighborhoods... you don't understand the difference? Amoruso (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Los Angeles is a city EXACTLY AND ONLY because the U.S, or California says it is. You don't need to study "first year politics" (where do they teach that?) you need to study FIRST YEAR LAW. Countries define this anyway they want. That is the national laws. What you refer to is the doctrine, controversial doctrine, of International Law. Here, we have the non binding resolutions or assertions of politicians which dispute the LEGITIMACY of Jerusalem's borders. At any case, they can't dispute, and they don't, the fact that these are neighborhoods. Amoruso (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
"But these laws are made legal by the fact no other government disputes it" - this is not true my friend. I agree that the dispute should be mentioned though... and it is. Quite prominently. Amoruso (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There are two sides: (1) it's a settlment (2) it's not a settlement. Both are presented. But both would agree that this is a neighborhoods, as illegal or immoral that might be ! Amoruso (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. A country doesn't need other countries to agree with its laws. The laws will still be in effect no matter what. And the term "neighborhood" is not disputed. The term "settlement" is disputed. Amoruso (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That is where you are wrong, my friend. A country can pass whatever law it likes, but without international recogition, it cannot be considered valid outside that country, and least of all on Wikipedia. There are not simply two sides, this is not black and white, there are MANY viewpoints, and its important to highlight them all. Some say its a settlement, some deny its a settlement. The UN however, as you admitted to me, disputes that its a neighborhood of Jerusalem. Your euphemisms and doublespeak have no place on wikipedia. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pisgat Ze'ev. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I wouldn't recommend you take WP:IAR too literally on this one as you're going to get yourself blocked if you keep reverting — not everyone is going to agree that the rule is preventing you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Gilo

Thank you for your note, Colour. You might be interested in the little report that I filed here, based on this. Regards, Huldra (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, someone will take action on that report, which will significantly improve the odds towards finding a resolution (hard to do so with sockpuppets in the mix). Anyway, I'll keep an eye out on those pages. Happy editing. Tiamuttalk 22:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem

Hi Colourinthemeaning. Because the dispute is over this point, I am not going to change it until the dispute is resolved. Administrators are neutral, and the tag makes it clear that the current version is in no way and endorsement of the "right" version. When there is a resolution, hopefully soon given the nature of the page, the version will be changed and the page will be unprotected. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ramot

Why did I remove that sentence? Because it is loaded and unsourced. Israel, which governs Jerusalem, treats it as any other neighborhood of the city. (Secondly, if it "widely considered" any Israeli settlement, then why aren't their reputable sources (not from think tanks or that sort) who call it that? The source would have to identify that neighborhood specifically as an Israeli settlement. Without that, it certainly cannot be worded that way and that description certainly does not belong in the introduction. I have just read in the last 24 hours articles from CNN and the New York Times that refer to either this or Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem as just that. I cannot assume anything else. --Shamir1 (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"...from think tanks to academics to the governments of other nations of the world." This is the most mistaken idea. The views and opinions of think tanks and academics (who are not obligated to uphold journalistic objectivity) does NOT belong in the introduction. The New York Times and other mainstream, reputable sources do and as an encyclopedia we refer to it as what they do. IF another notable source carries a different view, then that view has a chance of being stated, citing the source explicitly in text. But, that controversy does not belong in the introduction, which meant to introduce the subject. --Shamir1 (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Show me. And remember that saying something along the lines of "some view it as an Israeli settlement" is not the same. Introducing Gilo as "a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem" for instance refers to it as that--it does not say that "some view" it as that. --Shamir1 (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Disregarding all mainstream, reputable news sources in favor of the opinions of think tanks and academics (oh, and a page or two from Al Jazeera -- should that be matched with articles from Yedioth Ahronoth? At least that is based in a country with a level of freedom of the press) is not the way of Wikipedia. There is a clear consensus among news agencies (Associated Press, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, CNN, FOX News, ABC News, MSNBC) as to what they refer to these areas in specific when they introduce them in their news reports. And please stop accusing editors of pushing a "nationalist" agenda. That's ludicrous considering the loads of mainstream sources that write just that. So lets stick with the mainstream. --Shamir1 (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
A count of how many results a search yields means absolutely, positively nothing. Try clicking a source. The Xinhua article, CNN article, and Reuters article do not identify any neighborhood in Jerusalem as a "settlement". The Independent aligns itself with the political left. "The National" of the Arab Emirates? Right, okay. The cited IHT article also does not identify any neighborhood as a "settlement" either--on the other hand, it identifies Har Homa and Pisgat Zeev as "Jewish suburbs." All I see is one AFP article, and even they are not exactly consistent.[1] Sorry, there appears to be a clear consensus among the mainstream news world, and I'm not making up facts. (Your accusations are getting to point of ridiculousness and are quite laughable.) That is a news report of a fact, it is no one's view. The view of the UN and such can be added as the view of the UN in the appropriate place. --Shamir1 (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
All of the news sources I mentioned above came from their articles. Several of them, in fact. Each one had articles that identified these places in Jerusalem specifically as neighborhoods. You want the whole list? Sure, it will take a while to compile since there is so much out there for each, but it can be done. --Shamir1 (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
PS It makes no difference and is irrelevant if so-and-so from BBC or wherever now works at Al Jazeera. --Shamir1 (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, its 2 AM where I am and I am tired. I am not going to compile the reports from the sources that I just went through online and I just stated in our discussion, but I will soon after a good nights rest. I am curious as to why you are not citing many of these sources directly. In addition, I cant find some of those statements at all. In regards to my knowing "exactly" what those articles mean. They would have to, as with any Wikipedia article, identify that neighborhood specifically as a settlement. Those sources did no such thing. As to your pushing idea that they talk about settlements in Jerusalem, Wikipedia WP:NOR states: "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research.[6] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." Pushing those sources to introduce the places in Wikipedia articles as settlements would be conclusion C and a blatant violation of WP:NOR. --Shamir1 (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Here are just a few:

--Shamir1 (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent checkuser request

You recently submitted a request for checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Crum375. A clerk has moved your request to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant temporarily; this does not mean the request has necessarily been accepted or rejected, as clerks are generally concerned with maintenance and upkeep, not making decisions on the merit of any given request. Please provide diff evidence to demonstrate the alleged 3RR violation, and then follow the instructions in the box at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Non-compliant. Thank you for your co-operation. Chenzw  Talk  07:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC), checkuser clerk