Talk:Pisgat Ze'ev

message: I'm sorry for using rollback on you there, Ilike2beAnonymous. I saw the user name and the upper-case letters in the edit summary and assumed it was a new account causing trouble. In fact, having reviewed your contribs, I see you're an established editor and that this was a genuine content dispute. My apologies. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My revert

message: We have "neighborhood" and "neighbourhood" in this article. The usual thing is to use the spelling used in the country itself, and I believe Israel uses American English spelling, so it should be neighborhood. Whichever way we go, it needs to be consistent. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: Please talk out your differences, solicit consensus, let me know when you're done - I'll implement. - crz crztalk 00:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands, the article makes note of the disputed POV that it is a settlement, as well as the disputed Israeli position that East Jerusalem is legally different from the rest of the West Bank, as well as the reality that it is administered as such by Israel. Attempts to replace every mention of the word 'neighbourhood' with 'settlement' make as much sense as replacing every mention of the word 'city' in Ariel with 'settlement.' Israeli settlement is a political status. Being an Israeli settlement does not make an entity cease to be a village/town/city. This has seen plenty of discussion above. TewfikTalk 16:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected - crz crztalk 05:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Protected again - crz crztalk 13:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have solicited input from others for a block for this person on ANI, and will likely block him soon for an extended period of time. Would like one more uninvolved person to weigh in. - crz crztalk 17:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two sides to this edit war. If one side is to be subjected to blocking then so should the other. It should be obvious from the discussion above that many contributors regard the Amoruso-et al version as utterly biased. The Amoruso et al version may have on balance slightly keener edit warriors taking up the cudgels on its behalf, that doesn't mean it commands consensus. And I think it should be clear from the earlier discussion above that asking people to engage in discussion or solicit consensus is coming about six months too late. You could have done that before vicious personal slurs persuaded us that editing this article or talk page wasn't worth putting up with the nastiness that came with it. Palmiro | Talk 22:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A discussion of this is (or was) occurring on Talk:Har Homa, which is a parallel situation to this article, but is still awaiting responses. Ramallite (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't forgotten about you, I just haven't had so much time for complex arguments recently. However, this is about the replacement of every mention of Pisgat Ze'ev's physical nature with "settlement," which is far more clearcut, and which wasn't a position that you advocated on Har Homa (unless I misunderstood - always a possibility). TewfikTalk 01:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the term "neighborhood" is not by any means a simple "mention of Pisgat Ze'ev's physical nature"; as pointed out above, it has acquired distinct political overtones when used to refer to those residential areas that are known to most of the world as Israeli settlements. Secondly, it appears to be the case (though I haven't checked) that as Amoruso and ILike2BeAnonymous have gone their merry way, both of the alternating versions have grown increasingly, em, uncompromising. It's still outrageous that the edit-warrior in chief on one side should be blocked while his counterpart on the other side, who's been wreaking havoc across Wikipedia's Middle-East coverage and not just here, remains unsanctioned. Palmiro | Talk 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: It seems to me that the dispute over the term "settlement" is one whose connotations will be lost on most readers, but that the phrase "located in territory captured by Israel during the Six-Day War in 1967 and subsequently annexed (first through the Jerusalem annexation directorate of 1967, then through the Jerusalem Law of 1980)" could be featured far more prominently in the article. This is, after all, less controversial, and makes (far more clearly) the point that some are trying to make through the word "settlement". - Jmabel | Talk 23:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another county heard from 

message: I think that the first step towards removing the scales of justice icon on the top of this page is adding a settlement section.
Users can find out more about Pisgat Ze'ev (minus postcard and travel guide tidbits) from the talk page then the article right now and that's sad.
Settlement section
The settlement section should present both sides of the settlement issue. It should touch on the politicality of the words "neighborhood" and "settlement". It should discuss all of the things that have been issues in here--because if you are fighting about them, and if millions of people are fighting about them, it might be important to the article.
Category placement isn't exclusive
Also, is there any reason that this article can't go in both the "Neighbourhoods of Jerusalem" category and the "Settlements of Jerusalem" category?
Neutral language--what to do about neighborhood
First, I want to ask a question that someone raised on this talk page before. Technically, what is Pisgat Ze'ev? I know that words like suberb and neighborhood are often used interchangeably, but these words do have individual definitions. Obviously we couldn't get more neutral than if the answer was municipality.
If neighborhood is the correct term, or if we just can't find a correct term, then there are two things. One, we use the word way less often. Not because it's not neutral but because it's used too often, too close together in the article. For a lot of sentences it would be perfectly simple to substitute a pronoun or Pisgat Ze'eve (or whatever is being referred to) in the place of the word neighborhood. It would read better too. But, that still means that we are using the word-that-must-not-be-used. I say we can. Read on.
Arguement for why neighborhood can be used as a neutral term
The words settlement and neighborhood may be carrying a lot of baggage nowadays, but they still have dictionary definitions. Whatever baggage the word has, doesn't mean that these places aren't neighborhoods. They can in fact be both settlements and neighborhoods--the words mean two completely different things and they are not exclusive. Something can be a neighborhood and not a settlement and something can be both a neighborhood and a settlement and I suppose it's possible that something could be a settlement but not a neighborhood. So, which is more appropriate to use for the article? Well, think about this. If a realtor is telling you about a piece of property and you ask where it is--they are going to use the term neighborhood, not settlement to tell you where it is. In this case, we need to use the term that the people use when not referring to politics. Neighborhood is a neutral word--that's why Israel uses it in a political context. And perhaps Israel shouldn't use it, perhaps the term neighborhood shouldn't be used in the context of politics. But this article covers more than politics, has a section to deal with the politics of the area, which should soon be expanded to cover more, including the politics of settlement v. neighborhood. TStein 11:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to make this a neutral article 

message: This sentence doesn't make sense:
"The neighbourhood is divided into five sections whose construction followed the original Center (1982), West (1988), East and North (1990), and South (1998)."
Followed the original what? TStein 11:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsensical sentence 

message: First, thanks for the revert on the wiki citation...I was pretty sure that you couldn't link to a Wiki article but when I went to check--the citation page said nada.
Second, it's fine for you to look at my edit and add citation needed again--saying that you specifically want a citation that refers to Pisgat Ze'ev, but, there was no point in reverting it. The citation was still appropriate for the section--whether or not you wanted another one.
Also, don't take this as an opportunity to go back and change the original language of the text which has already survived multiple revert wars. This page won't improve if users can't do anything without sparking a revert war.
I've added a reference for both Pisgat Ze'ev as a settlement, but it's very hard to find a reference that does that and addresses the broad issue really well so I'm including one of my previous references as a secondary reference even though it does not have Pisgat Ze'ev. TStein 08:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, I see that we're here at the same time. While references are certainly a good thing, I don't believe anyone here is challenging that a position exists that believes that Pisgat Ze'ev is a settlement. The issue is only that that position is disputed, but you probably didn't have a chance to read my comments above yet 
. Cheers, TewfikTalk 08:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think you missed someone adding a CN there. And the first round of reverts saying that my refs weren't good enough :) That's why I was adding the references in the first place. TStein 09:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm, i think i've missed something here. "A position exists which holds that it is a settlement."? I fail to see how that position is less dominant than the view that it is a neighborhood when the only government in the world that says it is a neighborhood is Israel, and every other government in the world says it is a settlement. Isn't in this case, calling it a neighborhood and then almost as a footnote mentioning it is 'viewed by some' as a settlement giving too much weight to a minimally held position and not enough weight to a majority held one, resulting in an article evident with national bias? Further, im confused why the nearby Arab towns are referred to as Villages, is this to make them sound more primitive and less developed? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please log in to see my comment on your talk page. Your wholesale revert (which also removed my  is highly problmatic. In fact, I am inclined to add you the arbitration restrictions right now. El_C 22:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert, neither I nor El_C removed the term neighborhood. In fact, the only words i removed were settlement so that it doesnt keep using it over and over again (as i assumed you had some kind of problem with this from your removal of it from the first sentence). It is both an Israeli Settlement and neighborhood of Jerusalem - just like i said they are not mutually exclusive, but I am not the one who keeps removing the references to one of those terms from the opening sentence. I never have said, or even insinuated that it being a settlement makes it a seperate municipal entity - but being a  neighborhood does not stop or cancel out the fact it is also a settlement. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I did not definitively decide anything - this was decided by the UN, The European Union and all these other organisations. The fact you are unwilling to recognise this, and the difference between the view of the Israeli Government and the view of the rest of the worlds governments (and how each is just as much a perspective as each other, the latter being a more held and common perspective) makes me truly question the motives behind your evident bias. I have and will make no comment as to the legal nature of these settlements - but the UN has, and its certainly worth noting that if it is worth noting the position of the Israeli Government. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Robertert I assume you edited Neve Yaakov because you were warned from editing this page, and you can see my response to your above comments over at The Gilo talk page. However, you state that 'many organizations label it a settlement and we say that, but there is no reason to lead with a disputed term when we can supply a simple description while giving context to the dispute' which is such a flawed statement and I think highlights your misunderstanding of this topic. In calling it a settlement, these organisations and governments are disputing that it is in fact a neighborhood of Jerusalem. Each term is disputed, and as you have even pointed out above, it is the term 'neighborhood' which is disputed more heavily and by a wider range of governments and international bodies. Saying that in this context, the term 'neighorhood' can supply a simple description while giving context to the dispute is just laughable. Context is more than one viewpoint and omitted or disguised historical facts and half truths. It can supply a simple description of the position of the Israeli Government, but it cannot provide a simple description of the dispute unless both the term 'settlement' and 'neighborhood' are used together. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, it calls the neighborhood a settlement,  - 'The settlement bloc north of Jerusalem contains neighborhoods such as Ramot, Pisgat Ze'ev and Neve Ya’akov.' Just because this one 'partisan' source doesn't deny its viewed as a neighborhood by the Israeli Government (and i haven't listed one that does) does not mean the term neighborhood is any less disputed. Why would city or town be used instead of neighborhood? You said yourself, governments determine what constitutes a neighborhood or a town or a city, and none (that im aware of) refer to it as a town or city. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Lets continue this at Talk:Gilo no need to have it going in two places.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colourinthemeaning (talk • contribs) 04:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation/Settlement 

message: Why is this talk page in the category of Arab localities in Palestine 1948? Whatever the discussion is about, the town is certainly not an Arab locality in any year.
- Al Ameer son
:Funny, i think some Arabs might see it a bit differently - I mean they do claim that Pisgat Ne'ev was built (at least in part) on Arab land, do they not?  Colourinthemeaning (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab Locality? 

message: The blind reverts are removing information, but more importantly, are adopting a political position as "true" instead of attributing it. As the neutral point of view policy says, "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively." Accusing me of bias doesn't change that. --Robertert (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except Robertert and Arzkibar are the same person, now arent you? See here. So dont go trying to pass off like you have other peoples support here Robertert. I do not argue that one side is right, in fact, I have been the one trying to have ALL SIDES told here, and give and equal time to each. I source everything I add, and if i forgot I usually add it within a minute or so. You're the one going around making claims unsourced in your edits, so don't go accusing me of that Robertert. Stop misrepresenting the situation. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 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) 12:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I have restored the text deleted by Robertert. The sources clearly indicate that the site is viewed as an Israeli settlement by the international community. I would urge Robertert to cease downplaying the prominence of that view, which is indeed the majority viewpoint. I note that he is also doing this at other pages like Gilo, with the assistance of sockpuppets, and would  like to request that this disruption cease. Tiamuttalk 09:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Robertert, the term neighborhood is disputed too, though. See the bottom of Talk:Gilo. I am afraid we are going to have to take this to dispute resolution I fear.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colourinthemeaning (talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the term 'neighborhood' is also disputed, and is no longer being used on a number of other pages without qualifying in who's opinion it is a neighborhood, I dont think we should lead with that here for NPOV purposes. Does anyone have any objections to a restatement of the opening paragraph similar to that over at Gilo? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do have an objection. Gilo has intricate wording according to sources specifically about Gilo. If you can find sources that support similar wording for Pisgat Ze'ev, then it's a different story. Breein1007 (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do that, I will post my sources and proposed changes here a little later. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adopting a Point of View 

message: Given Pisgat Ze'ev and the other Ring Neighborhoods are only located within the Jerusalem municipality under Israeli Laws that are not recognized or accepted internationally, and that they are only part of Jerusalem because of law that the United Nations calls 'null and void,' how can you lead with it being located (with)IN Jerusalem, as a so-called fact, in line with wikipedia NPOV policy?  Colourinthemeaning (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to control your obsessiveness. The Arab point of view is repeatedly stated in this article, both in the lead and in the article itself. In fact, it appears in almost every single paragraph. What more do you want???? Can't you use your editing talents for anything positive? I have not seen you add a single piece of information that enhances and improves any of the handful of articles that you keep hovering over. All you do is fight with everybody--Gilabrand (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First, Gilabrand, I would like you to address the questions I have raised.  How can you possibly see edits that 'improve' and 'enhance' wikipedia when you cant even understand how your own edits do not live up to wikipedia's NPOV policy? You simply remove sources, information and other information I add, and I wonder if you ever look at the sources, or just remove them because you know my edits dont sit with your POV. I do not fight with everybody, and I would appreciate it if you could, when next time entering the dialogue, use it to address the issues at hand and not personally attack me. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're one to talk about not personally attacking people. Let's take a look at the post you made on an article talk page accusing people of making edits with the purpose of "legitimizing" Israeli citizens who live in neighborhoods east of the Green Line. Imagine that! Someone attempting to stand up for those evil warmongers. On the topic of this article, it is Israel who decides what neighborhoods are in what municipalities. The UN and EU don't decide for other countries how to map out their municipalities. And that is not to mention the references from INTERNATIONAL sources that mention that these neighborhoods are in Jerusalem. So back off, calm down, and take a bit of your own advice about WP:NPOV. Breein1007 (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I said it seemed to me that part of the intention of them was to create a sense of legitimacy, and that if this was not their intention, this has been, in my opinion, the result. I said nothing about legitimizing the people, and I said nothing about evil warmongerers, so will you please stop putting words into my mouth? Your Rhetoric is offensive. Why does Israel get to decide? Who decides that Israel gets to decide? Do you understand the notion of sovereignty and that it is recognition of sovereignty itself and of decisisions by OTHER sovereigns that makes them so? Where does Israel get to decide what it wants and where does it not? Does Israel get to decide what it calls places outside recognised Israel? What about Bethlehem, what about Beirut, Beijing? Obviuosly it doesn't, so what about this page, and this area makes it qualified to do so, and qualifies it to, as you say 'decide what neighborhoods are in what municipalities'? You are right, the UN and the EU doesn't tell other countries how to map out their municipalities, but then no other country in the world, as far as I am aware, has attempted to increase the size of their municipalities beyond their own borders. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really believe that last statement? Countries are always trying to extend their borders, and the U.S. is no exception (remember Puerto Rico and Guam?). Israel has every right to determine its own borders. You cannot say that Neve Yaakov is "outside" Jerusalem when it's part of the city map. You can say that other nations dispute Jerusalem's right to Neve Yaakov. Both these contentions are included in the first paragraph of the lead. That is NPOV. Yoninah (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Your comparisons are highly flawed. NPOV would be to not lead with one particular viewpoint over the other, as both are ultimately points of view. What makes the Israeli map more accurate than others? You know perfectly well it is part of a city map not internationally recognised, and that it is only because other places are part of city maps that ARE internationally recognised that we can state that as fact on wikipedia. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 09:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Dumbness'/ IN Jerusalem or not. 

message: Gilabrand, you have provided no sources in your revisions for it being a 'neighborhood' or being located in Jerusalem. You have provided no source for the Israeli position, or the CURRENT U.S. one. You have blatantly removed sources (reliable ones too) from the lead that use terms that contradict the POV which runs throughout the content of your edits. This is unacceptable. If you cannot fix this, I will be forced to revise it, call for RfCs, Third Opinions and possibly other actions that may be relevant. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: i like to read the rare bird alert lists to find out what rare bird sightings happened in the state i live in. i cant find a online explaination or definition of why these birds are on the rare bird alert list except self explanatory they must have been rare sightings. also i cant find any information on the list and how it got established. i am sorry for interupting your feed that is more important to the world. i cant find anywhere to email my request. this was a last resort. i had no idea no one is in charge of wikipedia till i tried to make this request. i would like to know what makes a bird rare if it is an invasion species or almost exstict species. also i would like to know if rare birds that could be invasion species are "invading" as a natural response to environmental changes and feeding or breeding grounds being disturbed. if a rare bird even if it is a invading species if it is only considered invasive because of lack of understanding and lack of records to how these birds cope with enviromental threats, if they are bieng introduced or if weather patterns could be leading them to differnt places than they were accustomed, does rare bird sitings give better surval outcomes to endangered species or does it endanger them more. i have lots of questions i am not equipt nor trained nor edjucated enough to do the research and write a substantial article myself. could one of the writers find any interest in supplying me and other bird lovers with infor mation in a few or atleast on article that stems from the definition if it can be defined rare bird alert? the list is there cause obviously rare birds exist. i want to know why they are classified this why the list was made and how it is determined what bird qualifies to go on it and as much info as well that you can supply to edjucate me on this subject. thank you for your time please forgive me for my intrusion, i doubt it would be nessacary to cry for help like this again in the next ten years. i usually find more info than i can digest or co relate googling, this is rare for me to find a lack of information available even in wikipedia. i hope  you resolve your current goal criteria and conflicts, and hopefully you can put the alert out that this is a hard to find term that is undefined. and personally i doubt the urban dictionary will give me even a true social understanding of this rare bird alert thing i am trying to understand. thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.215.35 (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Try posting specific questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  could you please post a request on a subject not listed? i googled rare bird alert. there are rare bird alerts lists online. i need more info. not found defined or explained or anything on this subject, just a reference to a music name. also off sub. 

message: My legitimate, good faith edit to this article was vandalized by sean.hoyland, a user infamous for his close watch and POV editing of articles involving the Jewish state. Any further attempts to reverse any of my good faith edits will result in taking appropriate action to enjoin any vandalism. Z554 (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:VANDAL. I suggest you report me at ANI or arbitration enforcement. I can report myself if you like. Your edit can't possibly be regarded as good faith. It's the usual kind of disruption that damages articles about settlements. Why for example would an editor acting in good faith remove the line (diff) "The land was later expropriated along with Palestinian land to build Pisgat Ze'ev" with the edit summary "Haaretz article does not provide specifics about Arabs claims" when the line is fully supported by the source cited, Haaretz ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Oh, and refugee camp is not a euphemism for Arab town. I dont even know how to respond to something like this in which you both dishonestly claim the source doesnt back up the sentence by saying They were eventually expropriated, together with Palestinian-owned land, to build Pisgat Ze'ev and make the, honestly, outrageous remark that refugee camp is a euphemism that is equivalent to Arab town. nableezy - 17:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: nableezy posted an obvious attempt at intimidation on my talk page, and is another editor infamous for his close watch and POV editing of articles involving the Jewish state. He is also quite a comedian, stating on the Jerusalem talk page that he has "no conflict of interest with this topic". This is blatant dishonesty, in other words, a lie.  It appears sean.hoyland and nableezy are working in tandem. It is against protocol to make threats against an editor who makes legitimate, good faith edits. Intellectual dishonesty has no place here. Z554 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean intellectual dishonesty like claiming that a source doesnt support what it clearly does? Or am I missing something? nableezy - 20:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  My legitimate, good faith edits were vandalized by a POV editor. Don't ever threaten me or another editor again. Ever. Z554 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Z554, try to understand that your actions damage the integrity and value of information in an encyclopedia. You are disrupting a charity. It's wrong. Try to stop. Consider this. Why would an editor acting in good faith remove "an Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem" from an article about an Israeli settlement that is in East Jerusalem together with the source that supports that information ? Why would an editor acting good faith change "Shuafat refugee camp" to "Shuafat" when the source cited is talking about the Shuafat refugee camp. Why would an editor acting in good faith remove the phrase "The international community considers Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this" from both the lead and article body, standard text present in all settlement articles, but just leave the Israeli government view. Bizarre, no, deleting the view of the international community and just leaving the Israeli government's view despite Wikipedia content being covered by the mandatory WP:NPOV policy. These kind of actions are typical instances of disruptive editing in the WP:ARBPIA topic area. You should ask yourself whether you suited to editing in this topic area and are able to make rational policy based content decisions about this subject. The evidence says no. You aren't making legitimate and good faith edits in a righteous and noble battle against POV pushers and vandals intent on damaging the Jewish state and Wikipedia content. You are simply disrupting a charity, making evidence-less attacks against other editors and I have to say, making Israel supporters look bad. Unless you can provide compelling evidence to support the statement "POV editing of articles involving the Jewish state" you should strike it. You are welcome to put the evidence on my talk page. If the evidence is compelling you should file an arbitration enforcement report, but if you continue to disrupt the project and make statements like this without providing evidence I will be obliged to file an arbitration enforcement report. The discretionary sanctions are there to prevent this kind of disruptive behavior. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have a well documented record of POV behavior on the subject of Israel. You have no authority, now or at any time in the future, to lecture me or any editor on what is proper or improper behavior. Z554 (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to stop, yes or no ? Your response will determine whether I file an arbitration report. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Z is currently blocked, and somethign has been raised at ANI (probably a better forum than ARb for this type of problem). Rich Farmbrough, 18:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism of edit 

message: Repetition of the sentence "The international community considers Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." is not good article writing.  Can article regulars remove the less appropriate copy of the sentence? Rich Farmbrough, 18:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Better now? nableezy - 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Repetition

message: Does this place include Kh  Adasa? On the 1940s map Kh  Adasa is less than 0.5 km south of Ras at-Tawill. If it is included in Pisgat Ze'ev,  then we should include information from: 
*   (pp.      17 - 18) 
* (p. 234)
Huldra (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Kh Adasa is included, but I don't have something that shows actual boundaries of Pisgat Ze'ev. Zerotalk 03:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I also suspect Kh Adasa is included, but unless I have some actual sources on the Pisgat Ze'ev boundaries I can hardly include it. And some of the stuff in the article at present (about the Byzantine monastery at Ras at-Tawil) is less that brilliantly sourced, to put it very mildly, Huldra (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kh  Adasa?