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)

"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)

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)

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)

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:

• Associated Press: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

• ABC News: [13][14][15][16]
• CNN: release an official statement
• MSNBC: [17][18]
• Los Angeles Times: [19][20][21]
• New York Times: [22][23][24][25]
• Boston Globe: [26]
• Washington Post: [27][28][29]
• San Francisco Chronicle: [30][31]

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

I don't mind discussing this issue, but I flatly refuse to be bothered with nonsense. I already reminded you about the WP:NOR issue. To review the sources you gave me: Haaretz is a good source, however, your citation is of an op-ed not an article. Haaretz is very consistent with using "neighborhood" in their articles. Dont try to mislead me. One MSNBC page is of a picture, which does not weigh that much in comparison to the text of an article. In text, neighborhood is usually used. In addition, the other citation of MSNBC (which is actually an AP piece) does NOT refer to a single place as a settlement. Even they explicitly refer to Har Homa as a neighborhood.

The Guardian aligns itself with the political left.

Xinhua does not refer to Pisgat Zeev or Har Homa as settlements.

Still, as a whole, the entire collection of news sources is shadowed by the other collection that uses "neighborhood". I am not looking at opinion article written by a leftist organization (FAIR). I consider that an insult to my intelligence. I am familiar with Wikipedia policy and understand that something like that is not taken at face-value. IF a position like that were to be included (and Im not saying it should be), then it must be written as the opinion of that group.

A statement by CNN, aiming to be factual and objective, clearly states in a statement not to refer to it as a "settlement." In regards to the UNWRA, that's okay when mentioned as the position of the UNWRA. That's fine. However, in such articles, it would be better to cite the UN itself or another arm. I can gladly do that. --Shamir1 (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I am not pin-pointing any political affiliation to remove. I would do the same to right-wing sources, you just have not brought any up yet. (Please, please, please stop accusations.) There is a world of difference between media that officially favors a certain spectrum of political ideas, and media whose official policy is nonpartisan and aims to be objective. I then read a bad example of comparing these officially bent newspapers to Fox News. I assume you are talking about the argument that Fox News favors the conservative. For starters, I didnt even list any Fox News sources so I dont understand your complaint. But anyway, I see this as no different than the long-established argument that the BBC is anti-Israel in coverage, an argument which I thus far have not used.

As to the "review" of the given sources, that was boloney. I dont know if you understand the role of the AP and the media but whether Fox News publishes it or not has no effect on the story the AP writes and publishes. I only used those because I went through Fox News first and tried not to use repeats from other publishers. I will also also very modest in my AP list.

I dont care whether you believe CNN issued that statement following pressure from anyone and I dont care if you think they have a nationalist agenda . Do you know why I dont care? Because Wikipedia doesnt care. Wikipedia looks at hard facts alone. The fact here is plain and simple: CNN issued a statement and the context of that statement. Whether you or anyone agrees with that position, it does not change the fact that they made that statement and it is legitimate. Period.

I am wondering if English is your first language because all of the arguments I see here are not based on truth. To go through one of the first, your argument that "3 and 4 [of ABC News] are both statements by individuals or the city of Jerusalem, not statements of fact" is not one bit true. In the 3rd piece: He said plans were under way to build 370 homes in Har Homa and 750 apartments in Pisgat Zeev, two Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem. This is not a quotation. The description of Pisgat Zeev and Har Homa as "two Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem" is clearly and undoubtedly that of ABC News. You make a bunch of these arguments throughout your review. I have no idea what you mean by "a statement of fact", but I do know that all of the sources I posted refer in their text by their journalists (not quotations from various individuals) to these areas as "neighborhoods" (with the exception of a handful that uses "suburb"). And so what if the San Francisco Chronicle uses "seized land" in the same sentence. I can read. I see their description.

P.S. Its not looking to good with the largest U.S. paper in circulation, the USA Today. [32][33][34] These other ones are AP stories, although some of them are by AP writers writing for USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-12-18-1397760935_x.htm][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]

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

G'day

Goodonya, as PAdams'd say, but we'd all better just stick to our own wickets, which, all the same, often turns out, happily, to be a matter of batting on the same turf. A bloke does get the feeling at times of being a nunty codger chucking donkey drops at codswallop, rather than, as in fantasies, being the Don that cracks full tosses (as in 'tossing off', of course) to the boundary! Cheers mate.Nishidani (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ring

Hey there, just wanted to thank you for your efforts at the Neighborhoods of the Ring entry. What a pain in the arse, monitoring that! What we really need is a right-wing wikipedia entry and a left-wing one, parallel on the page for each topic! If only that wouldn't just promote more 'extremism.' At any rate, I've been suffering from a certain editor recently (she really made me lose it today) and wanted to send out my support. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam J. Yeend

Just to let you know, you accidentally created the deletion discussion in the wrong place: you're meant to create the discussion on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion subpage, when you created on the article itself. It's now fixed, but if you want to continue participating in the discussion you can do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam J. Yeend. Cheers! AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Settlements

Wikipedia:Settlements, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Settlements and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Settlements during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Suntag ☼ 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC) -- Suntag ☼ 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No problemo

Happy to help (if it indeed did, only time will tell:). Happy editing! Tiamut^talk 16:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

stop your disruptions

you need to start showing sources that show that neighborhood is POV. sources that show that settlement in that context is pov are plentiful. therefore it will NOT be ever in that leading sentence. so give up. read npov and understand. you are in danger of being seriously reprimanded by wikipedia community if u continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.70 (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruptions on Jerusalem-related pages

Hi Colourinthemeaning! I have noticed that you have been replacing all instances of 'neighborhood' in Jerusalem-related articles to 'settlement'. There was already consensus not to do this per the centralized discussion which you recently edited, and if you want to really restart it, it would be good form to inform the relevant WikiProjects and/or post an RfC about it. Moreover, as I'm sure you're aware, there's a high-profile Arbitration case going on right now which is related to similar edits to Judea and Samaria-related articles, with editors who edit-warred by adding/removing certain terms facing the possibility of serious sanctions. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Even assuming everything you said was true, it does not change the facts that:

1. You are making a controversial edit to numerous related articles without having been involved in a previous centralized discussion
2. You have not informed any relevant body, such as a WikiProject, of any such discussion
3. You are edit-warring
4. You have personally attacked Chesdovi by implying that he was operating a sock puppet

Please cease your edit-warring and start a discussion, if you wish. Clearly, your edits are not NPOV, because each of the articles already mentions that it's considered a settlement by certain bodies, none of which dispute the neighborhood designation. But don't reply to me, start a discussion about it. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you should ignore much of Ynhockey has said to you. No consensus has been reached anywhere regarding this issue. The latest source to be examined thus far on the centralized discussion page indicates that "settlement" is the most widely used term, even for localities in Jerusalem beyond the Green Line, and that the majority view is that they are in fact "illegal".

I think it's highly improper for Ynhockey to imply that you might be subject to Arbcomm case currently open because of your insistence on reflecting what reliable sources have to say about this subject. As a party to the case and an admin who is expected to act as a role model, the danger is rather greater for him actually.

Only two things he said are true:

1. You are edit-warring. Even when edit-wars are done in slow motion, they are still edit-wars. I was blocked 4 times for that myself years ago, so be careful. Do not continually make the same edit without engaging in discussion and attempting to reach consensus with your fellow editors. This does not mean that you cannot be bold (see WP:BRD for a creative example of how you might go about doing that without being or getting offended). But it does mean you should be careful not to stubbornly reintroduce the same material that others have taken the time to contest on talk (though I notice hardly anybody has been using the talk on this issue until very recently that is).
2. If you did imply that Chesdovi was a sockpuppet, that would be wrong. I haven't looked at the diff but I'd advise to always stick to commmenting on content and not contributors and their motivations. Always try to WP:AGF to the best of your ability (barring solid evidence to the contrary) and to be WP:CIVIL. Wikipedia is not a battleground though in the I-P domain it often feels as though it is.

If you have any questions or need any help/advice, never hesitate to ask. I'll do my best to respond ASAP. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 12:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

About how to deal with content disputes, you can always get an outside opinion by filing a request for comment (See WP:RfC) If you want ever want help drafting one, let me know and we can discuss how to phrase the issue (neutrally and non-combatively) where to list it and how.

About how to deal with issues relating to conduct, rather than content. You can always try WP:ANI. I caution you though that its a dangerous place where often people raising concerns end up getting pummeled for their own wrongdoings. So be careful how you approach issues. Its good to admit when you're wrong or explain when people take offense and hope they will assume good faith. For example, after you explained that you did not mean to call Chesdovi a sockpuppet, it has helped me to see that you are capable of self-reflection and AGF really requires me and others to accept that you are being sincere. That it, unless you keep calling people sockpuppets, and saying t same thing afterward. which you have not. But do you see my point?

About edit-warring (see WP:edit war). You do not have to violate WP:3RR to be considered to be in an edit war. Even only 1RR can be considered edit warring if you are not participating in discussion or not substantively responding to the concerns raised by your felllow editors. Besides WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, a further key policy here is WP:CONSENSUS. We strive to make editing decision based on consensus whenever possible. This require good faith collaboration from everyone, which is not always the case, but which we try to have be the case by being positive in our interacions to the greatest degree possible without letting obvious policy violations and problems go undealt with.

Other places you might find useful depending on what the problem you are dealing with is are the noticeboards like the one for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. There, you post questions about whether or not a source is considered reliable and get feedback from uninvolved editors. This is sometimes a better step to use than an RfC, depending on what this issue is. There are noticeboards for WP:OR and WP:NPOV too (they are linked from those policy pages).

One last thing ... I noticed you reverted the anon IP again. I agree with your edit. But I'd advise to be careful given what I've now told you about edit-warring. Some admins are very strict about these things in the Israel-Palestine conflict articles. There is a project you can participate in that will help you to understand the strange environment besetting this arena WP:IPCOLL. It also explains a set of special restrictions surrounding the I-P articles which is listed at WP:ARBPIA. Other useful projects if you are editing in this domain are WP:ISRAEL and WP:PALESTINE of course.

I hope this helps you find your way around better. If you ever need any more advice, you can ask me or ask at these pages I have pointed you to. Happy editing Colourinthemeaning. Cheers. Tiamut^talk 15:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. You have already been warned in the past, I see, about Jerusalem-related article disruption. You have recently been mass reverting edits with no proper explanation, or providing an explanation for 1 minor detail (which I will add was correct), but in fact hiding behind the explanation an entire reversion of plenty of sourced information. I am talking about [46]this edit. This is unacceptable and I urge you to contribute positively to Wikipedia, otherwise I will be forced to report you to an admin who will take appropriate action if you continue editing in this manner. Thank you, Breein1007 (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Response posted on Talk:Breein1007 but since removed by User:Breein1007 (found in edit here:[47]):

Please stop. You continue to make reverts of my edits, which bring not just a higher level of factual accuracy to the articles in question, but also a bunch of sources. You have cited concern with my edits here [48] except I wonder if you have made a similar request of Gilabrand. You say that I do not provide proper explanations, but I have in each instance provided an explanation as long as wiki will allow. Further, I am not the one removing dozens of sources without so much as a mention of why. I have been warned previously in the past, but no action was taken as my edits were deemed appropriate and useful to wikipedia, unlike the other parties, of whom several were banned. When removing dozens of sources as you have done, without providing any insight into your reasoning what so ever, I personally think a similar situation may occur if you cannot start making your edits on Wikipedia constructive. Please consider this your warning, as if you continue to make such blatantly vandalizing edits and reverts, I will be forced to report you and will request a ban. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Following removal, the following question was posed on Breein1007's page (Found in edit here:[49]):

Just wondering if there is any particular reason that you deleted my request for you to 'please stop' as seen here:[50] Colourinthemeaning (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

To which User:Breein1007 responded:

Regarding your question, editors have the right to remove whatever they want from their talk pages, and I do make a habit of removing nonsense from mine. Cheers, Breein1007 (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

To which I, User:Colourinthemeaning replied (found here:[51]): You of course you have the right to remove content from your talk page, I was just wondering if you would be comfortable with me doing the same? Personally, I don't remember ever having removed content from my talk page as I don't feel I have anything to hide. I am not about to start, but I do plan to provide links to the various ensuing discussions on my talk page. I am wondering though on what basis you consider it 'nonsense,' I am at least willing to keep mine there because it is someone else's opinion. On what basis are your warning well founded, while mine have no place? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Which User:Breein1007 responded here to:

Honestly, and I say this as respectfully as I can manage, I don't have the patience to deal with you anymore. What you do on your talk page is your business. You don't need my approval. Have fun with your edits. Breein1007 (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your third opinion request on Jerusalem

→ in re: the following third opinion request (diff): → (see also: Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute)

# Jerusalem and Talk:Jerusalem: This article seems nationalist and the lead blindly represents the Israeli Government's POV when burried in Footnote 3, you will find that it is a disputed capital and claimed by two different states (one yes, with limited recognition). Please see the edits/reverts here:[52] and if you can provide a third opinion. Cheers. 09:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:3O is for small disagreements which have first been discussed between (usually) two editors. That's not the case here: hard-won consensus is documented in previous lengthy discussions in the archives (including Talk:Jerusalem/capital) which are linked on the talk page. – Athaenara ✉ 22:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)