User talk:Colourinthemeaning

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Tiamut^talk 22:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)