User talk:Editorprop

Okay ... what about the Palestinian murders ?!

2 teenage Palestinians were murdered last year by Jewish settlers (it is even claimed the murders in Itamar was carried out as a revenge ). Yet no one has ever heard of these Palestinian murders ... I mean if Palestinians die, who cares ??? right ??!

I'm not here to defend anyone and hereby denounce all sorts of killings and physical assaults SPECIALLY against children and teenagers !! may they be Palestinians or Jews .

But enough with being hypocritical ! .

User Mkewan, please don't leave unsigned comments on my page. What I wrote implied to your question why those who massacred the family in Itamar are considered terrorists. This is a clear issue - anyone who purposely murders citizens is considered a terrorist period. Slaughtering a family in their sleep (as in Itamar) is a terrible terrorist act, and whoever does not understand that must be sick.Editorprop (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE your edit here. [1]Please can you show the two actual Palestinians saying they have confessed, if you cannot and we only have the Israelis word for it then your edit is incorrect and should be reverted.Thanks.Owain the 1st (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I answered in your talk page. Editorprop (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and I have replied to you in my talk page.You did not answer actually as I asked you to provide evidence that the two had confessed outside the Israelis saying so and you provided nothing.Owain the 1st (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote is simple - if there is no argument about a fact, it shouldn't be brought as a POV, and in your long answer over there I didn't see any reply to this point.Editorprop (talk)

You have presented no facts.The only facts are the ones that I put in the article and you tried to change, that fact is that the Israelis say that they have confessed, no one else says they have confessed.Therefore it is not verified and not a fact and what I put there is not a POV, it is a fact.I can direct you to many articles stating that same fact.You do not know they have confessed, you are just taking the Israelis word for it because you are a supporter of them obviously. I happen to know that they lie a lot and have been caught out many times.I am still waiting for you to produce evidence that they have confessed but you have skipped that a few times now because you do not have any.I suggest that if you want to edit on this site then deal in factual information backed up by sources and verified.Anyway I am done with you going around in circles.Owain the 1st (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal thoughts about the Israelis have no place in an encyclopedia period. I am afraid you didn't understand what I wrote to you again and again. A point that no one argues about shouldn't be brought as a POV. But please - if you would like to discuss this more do it on your talk page not here. Editorprop (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a talk page and not in the encyclopedia.I understand what you wrote, I also understand that you have failed to provide any evidence for my original question again and again, guess you have none.btw if you want to stop this debate then stop answering.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1RR[edit]

Just so you are aware, there is a 1 revert rule in place on all articles in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area. You can read more about this here. nableezy - 13:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you have to mention this, as I have not gone over the rule, and when you wrote this I didn't even revert you once, I just moved your words to the place they belonged, (actually I don't think my last edit would be considered reverting too, but that is another issue).

But while we are talking - it seems everything I edit (in the past days) gets reverted or answered or changed by you within minutes! Are you by any chance following my account or something like that?Editorprop (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have now reverted twice. The first time removing East Jerusalem, the second removing Palestinian territories. As far as your accusation of "following [your] account", Ive edited both those article from before you registered this account. So, no, I am not "following [your] account or something like that". nableezy - 13:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider moving down the mentioning of EJ as a revert, since intellectually it reverts the meaning of the sentence beforehand (although I'm not sure about that), so also writing EJ, and then PT would be considered 2 reverts, since intellectually you are reverting to the same idea twice.Editorprop (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I changed to PT to address concerns that you had that it was not really in EJ. They arent the same concept. But no matter. There is a specific consensus to include in the lead of articles on settlements a line that international community considers settlements illegal under international law. You can see this here. Editors have been topic banned for removing that line, (eg here). Please restore that line to the lead. nableezy - 13:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to end the stirrup that (actually you) started last week, and after offering to put a pointer to the material in the lead, and leave the legal status as is (which actually includes your EJ part, yet I don't know how it got in), I didn't get any real opposition, so that is what I did.

I couldn't read through the endless archived article you sent to, but if the pointer I wrote isn't enough, we could always change it to something like - "Because part of the development lies beyond the green line there is a debate about its legitimacy, and considered by some as a settlement, see legal status below." Editorprop (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ramot[edit]

Hi Editorprop, I'm just trying to balance the article so that there isn't more edit warring in the future on such silly subjects. It's also a bit uneven having a short first paragraph, then a very long second paragraph about the legal issue. Cheers. ← George^talk 16:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you consider Ramot a neighborhood and not a suburb of Jerusalem? I was using outskirt as a synonym for suburb that has dual meaning, but I'm not sure how Israeli's classify Ramot. I'm not trying to address Nableezy's dispute specifically, I'm just trying to address what I think is the underlying issue that leads to so many edit wars on the article in a different way. It's pretty clear from Nableezy's sources that a lot of people think it's a settlement, but I don't think it's right to put the de jure status above the de facto status. Likewise, however, I don't think we should put de facto status over de jure status. We can state them equivalently, if we're careful in how we do it. Getting it right will need help from everyone though. ← George^talk 16:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator review of Quds Day and Ramot[edit]