User talk:Robertert

Robertert,

Welcome to Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if you could familiarize yourself with the NPOV policy as I have noticed your most recent edit did not seem to comply with it.

Also: i noticed you reverted the article which cites links that no longer work. If you are going to revert an edit, please make sure to check this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colourinthemeaning (talk • contribs) 17:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Term 'Settlement' and 'Neighborhood'

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And as we have established on Talk:Gilo both the terms are political and in fact determined by governments. Aren't they as much of a political position as each other? I would even argue that it is conclusively a settlement as the only government who doesn't agree is that which has to gain from saying it is not. I'd say 99% consensus is pretty conclusive. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Hi, I'm sorry, but I don't think I'll be able to help. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing restrictions

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

Please present your position and any suggestions on how to solve the dispute here. El_C 10:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"inventing that"

You have said i "invented" the fact that Gilo and these other places are not neighborhoods of Jerusalem according to the UN, which I most certainly have not "invented". UN Resolution 476 [1] disputes the border changes made by Israel which make it a neighborhood of Jerusalem. And yet you say it being a neighborhood is not disputed? The UNWRA [2] also clearly calls it a settlement and not a neighborhood, funnily enough two sources you chose to completely remove when reverting the article on Gilo. I do not deny that some other sources i have added call it both a neighborhood and a settlement, but this is what I am trying to call it, so you citing those as contradicting me is such a distortion of what is going on here. Can you please try and explain all this? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pisgat Ze'ev

It is hardly "In Context". You have minimised the opposing viewpoints (it is not just 'some' sources that view it as a settlement), removed valuable sources (UN and more) and just reverted this to a shamefully nationalist page Robertert. You use (and lead with) the disputed term neighborhood without any mention of the dispute over it, the legal problem or the international communities view on this, and yet you go out of your way to minimise the (yes disputed) viewpoint that it is a settlement, which when it comes down to it is only disputed by Israel. Please Robertert, I urge you to fix up this page. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Robertert, you are wrong, this is not just a black and white issue, there are many different perspectives on it. This isnt about MY interpretation of a UN document, but as I have said the generally accepted meaning of it. Look at the Talk:Gilo page for other referrences, including BBC and others. The Israeli Settlements page clearly states that 'East Jerusalem, which is incorporated within the municipal borders of Jerusalem, though this de jure annexation under the Jerusalem Law is not recognized by the international community;[2][3]'. If the annexation isnt recognised by the international community, and is disputed, then calling them a neighborhood is incredibly misleading, is taking a side with the article and a POV, especially if you dont so much as mention this issue. Using 'neighborhood' without mentioning that the international community doesnt recognise it as a neighborhood of Jerusalem is nationalist and prejudices any information that follows. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"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)

No Robertert, that is where I summarised the argument of the 4 or 5 sources I listed on the Talk:Gilo page which I thought you might take a look at. I should have known though, sometimes I have to wonder if you're even trying Robertert. I'm not sure how many times I have to point this out to you but the sources you keep mentioning do not contradict me at all. If they contradicted me, they would refer to them ONLY as neighborhoods, but they refer to them as both - which is what i want to do in these articles, and mention the dispute over each them, as this is the only way we can take a NPOV with these articles, unless we lead with no 'labels' at all. I don't think that those sources understand the issue any less than I at all, I do however, think your understanding of the situation, and your reluctance to read the sources I am providing in full and in context, and rather Ctrl+Find the words you're looking for in them, is critically undermining your understanding of them. Peace Now, for instance effectively says that the Israeli neighborhoods of East Jerusalem are settlements. Just because it doesnt go into the label and the legal issues behind it does not mean this is what Peace Now believes them to be. It could instead be what it see's as an error of judgement and an attempt to correct that. ARIJ similarly uses the term 'neighborhood' to lay out the position of the Israeli Government, as is Saeb Erekat. In fact, citing this as a contradiction is just such a distortion of facts. He is quoted, in that article as saying "As far as we're concerned, Har Homa, Givat Ze'ev and Ma'ale Adumim are not part of Jerusalem and also Jewish neighborhoods like Ramot and Gilo are settlements for all intents and purposes." (emphasis added) and you want to tell me their being neighborhoods and a part of Jerusalem is not disputed? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)

And thats where YOU jump to personal opinion. The UN exclusively uses the term settlement, but every use of that I have provided you have removed. The UN doesn't say what? And what about the 5 articles i provided that dispute the use of the term neighborhood? They're not relevant, in your opinion im assuming? You'll notice that in disputing the term neighborhood, they also use the term neighborhood. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Why don't you take a look at Talk:Gilo where I have provided 5 sources which say there is something wrong with calling it a neighborhood. You have complete double standards Robertert, there are no sources for it being a neighborhood that do not also call it a settlement, and yet you do everything to make sure that word is avoided and if it is not, that the viewpoint is minimised, toned down and already mentioned after establishing that it as a 'neighborhood'. The sources will of course need to use the term neighborhood to be able to dispute it, so it is only in your opinion that they use it with no sign of controversy, and i cannot help but feel that not reading them in full might contribute to that. There is a large international consensus that these places are settlements, and yet no international concensus that they are neighborhoods - and yet you lead with that term. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Please see WP:AN/I#Confirmed sockpuppet account continuing to edit war. Tiamut^talk 11:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Robertert (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Essentially what I said on the Incidents board. There was zero violations of any policy, nor any proof that I am Amoruso. Please contact me by email.

Decline reason:

Sorry, you were confirmed by a checkuser to be operating at least two other accounts, with another account "likely," which is sufficient grounds for a block when there is evidence of abuse as there was here. You were using multiple accounts to avoid WP:3RR. Even if these accounts are operated by different people, that constitutes meatpuppetry which is also not allowed. For privacy reasons, I prefer not to respond to unblock requests by email, however another administrator may at their discretion notify you in that manner. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.