Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:51, 28 December 2013

Judea and Samaria

• Your version is biased and unbalanced, and that's why I reverted to a more NEUTRAL version (note, not pro-Israel, but neutral). Eliyyahu (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Your discussion is pertinent to the article West Bank, and therefore not here. Eliyyahu (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not relevant to the article, but as long as it is not part of the definition, that's all right with me. For the most part, those individuals that consider Judaea and Samaria to be "occupied territory" never actually refer to it as "Judea" and "Samaria", but rather by the Jordanian-coined neologism "the West Bank ", so that's where it belongs. Eliyyahu (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Palestine? Part of Israel, Not?

I have much bigger things to worry about, you enjoy your little crusade, I could care less about the outcome, an older version of the map, my version featured Palestine, Spesh531 changed it to include all Israels territories, look at the history! Now I also know for a fact the State of Palestine is not recognized by the United States or the United Nations, the Jews have already been forced to give up so much, but people like you will not be satisfied until the Israelis are pushed into the sea, there cities Islamified, there legacy damned and forgotten. I support Israel and its territorial ambitions, but will respect your decision to hate, and support a people to whom life means little, women second class citizens, and want to bring an end to the free western world. I say no more, have a nice day. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It is true that your version did not include West Bank and Gaza as part of Israel, however you have insisted that Palestine should be part of Israel by answering my comment with the following text "I dont remember Palestine ever gaining independence from Israel". No matter what you write, West Bank and Gaza is not a part of Israel. Not even Israel claims this.

Your part about "crusade", "pushed into the sea", "Islamified", "hate" etc is just pure guessings about my positions. I hope you learn to not engage in irrelevant conclusions in the future. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

We each have our own opinions, I have now updated the map to include Palestine as a separate country, please leave me alone. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Great that you changed it. Yes, I will "leave" you "alone". --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

East Jerusalem in 1948

Hello,

You made this edit :

In fact in 1948 and until 1967, Jerusalem was considered to be in the corpus separatum defined by the Partition Plan. The inclusion of East-Jerusalem in the West Bank in speeches is more recent and even today is not fully admitted, some governments still defending the legitimacy of the '47 vote. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

East Jerusalem in 1948

Hello,

You made this edit :

In fact in 1948 and until 1967, Jerusalem was considered to be in the corpus separatum defined by the Partition Plan. The inclusion of East-Jerusalem in the West Bank in speeches is more recent and even today is not fully admitted, some governments still defending the legitimacy of the '47 vote. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. East Jerusalem became a part of what came to be known as the West Bank. It is not different from Nablus or Hebron. So separating them is not correct. Bethlehem was also a part of the corpus separatum and no one is saying Jordan occupied the West Bank, Bethlehem and East Jerusalem.

However, it could be an alternative to write that Jerusalem was divided in two parts: West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem.

See also Jordanian occupation of the West Bank. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It is true for Bethlehem but all this is due to the lack of precision on the final status of Jerusalem.

Seeking in sources how they introduce the topic, both versions can be found : some include East-Jerusalem in the West Bank and others don't.

I don't think it is a major issue but you should not rename so many articles before getting a consensus on the question.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a consensus that all part of that territory is the West Bank, which is reflected in many articles where it says "including East Jerusalem" etc. The article I linked to (Jordanian occupation of the West Bank) was changed from naming both to just the West Bank, which is correct. Therefore, I can't see any issues because it's based on fact. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

NPov learns us that a fact for someone is not one for someone else...

•  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ; ...

The status of Jerusalem (East and West) is not defined today and it was even less in 1949...

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees but this is how it is defined by most. If you look at the article I linked to, you will se a big difference and that most see East Jerusalem as a part of the West Bank. Look at West Bank and see how it is described. If you don't think it's a part of it, then go make your case in for example that talk page and we will se what others say. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Use the article talk page, and stop edit-warring

You have repeatedly tried to change the characterization of East Jerusalem in the BLP for Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. I have reverted you. Instead of discussing, you began an edit-warring to keep in your change, for which there was no consensus. If you make a change which is reverted, you are supposed to initiate a discussion, either on the article talk page, or the talk page of the user with whom you are having a dispute. You have done neither. A quick look at your user talk page indicates that you are pushing the same PoV on other pages, and have encountered pushback. Start discussing the issue and come up with a policy-compliant consensus, or you will find yourself dragged to the Administrators' Noticeboard for a discussion on your behavior. Horologium (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I changed the article to reflect the consensus view. It's you who have challenged that and started an edit war. As I've pointed out several times, this is the consensus.

I have now written here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.

A quick look of your recent contributions indicates that you are wandering into an area in which active sanctions are in place. You need to be made aware of this. I will be logging this at Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Log of notifications because many of your edits (especially on 17 December 2013) fall under the scope of the sanctions. Horologium (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I think my edits are supported by the consensus view, which is also reflected here in articles such as West Bank. When I started editing, I had that in mind and I have no agenda. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It is also interesting because I discovered for some minutes ago disruptive edits on Church of the Holy Sepulchre but now I am not sure I can revert those, though this is the consensus view and was discussed in the talk page (link above). --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the notice is clear enough. Does this mean I can edit as usual, like on the article about the church or edit this article which says that East Jerusalem is in Israel?

Furthermore, I hardly see you as an "uninvolved administrator". This all happened after our dispute at the article about Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, which was about the same thing as this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Arab localities in Israel

Hello Iriszoom. I notice you've been adding this category to several articles. However, they're already in Category:Arab villages in Israel, which is a subcategory of the former. Cheers, Number 57 19:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. While I was updating the links to Arab localities in Israel, I think I saw some articles with the category and then started to insert in those missing it. I didn't know it was a subcategory. I will removed it now. Thanks for sharing the information. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleting material

I'm writing you this warning message because as you may or may not know, a talk page needs to be archived properly, not deleted. Repeated violation of WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE will lead to you being blocked. Yambaram (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)