User talk:Zero0000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



before 2010


Would you happen to have access to full versions of this journal? I'm interested in seeing the full length version of the article on pages 104, 107 and 108. I believe it begins on page 61 and is titled Arab Israelis: Demography, Dependency, and Distinctiveness, though I could be wrong. Help possible? Tiamuttalk 11:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

My library has it on paper, but I'm about 10,000km from home until the end of next week. I can send you a scan after that. Zerotalk 13:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
It can wait. Thanks and enjoy your travels. Tiamuttalk 13:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to remind me. Meanwhile I sent you something else I just found. Zerotalk 16:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you ... that will make for some fascinating reading and could perhaps be useful to improving our articles on the subject. Tiamuttalk 17:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Finally managed to see what you last sent (my email is wonky these days ... can't send anything from there and it takes hours to load old pages ... I'm sure I've missed some important mails altogether). Thanks for sending it. Can't understand why it was paraphrased the way it was (or I can, but its better left unsaid). I was wondering if I could trouble you to send a few pages of the article I asked for above. Just one or two before the excerpt in question (if you think it would suffice to give it context, or perhaps the one or two pages after it? use your judgement, which has repeatedly shown to be superb). Fully agree with what you said at the Lydda page too by the way ... and would add that I tried to broach the subject earlier, which no success (see here and check out the linked article). Tiamuttalk 16:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, it isn't the article you suspected, but I sent both. Please check your email. Zerotalk 10:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Tiamuttalk 17:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary[edit]

Wikipe-tan mopping.png
Wishing Zero0000 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 00:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


Would you mind coming and giving your mind on commons asap : here. This discussion has been re-opened. Many thanks. Noisetier (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


I just wanted to mention since you said you had copies of the two pamphlets he anonymously authored. I have these too. They show that Walid Khalidi was wrong in his article Why did the Palestinians Leave on (at least) two points: 1)The publisher of the articles, and 2) saying Schechtman's pamphlet was responsible for the "elaborate story" of the broadcasts. The only mention of broadcasts by Schechtman in those pamphlets is the one that was said by the "oft-cited" article in the Spectator to have occurred in Haifa. He mentions it as evidence of pressure exerted by the Arab side to evacuate, not as evidence of broadcasts of same. How much pressure was exerted by Arabs is a matter of debate, but the "broadcasts" issue is hyped bigtime by Khalidi and others, imo, and acts as a strawman to deflect from the real issue of responsiblity. Just saying. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You are right that he got the publisher wrong. I'm not sure that the Israeli Information Office even existed then. Khalidi also focusses too much on the "broadcast" aspect of the claim that the Arab flight was planned, but otherwise he seems to be correct. Schechtman was probably the first to publish the allegation "the mass exodus of the Arab population was deliberately stimulated to serve the political ends of the Arab leadership" (Facts and Figures, p13). Schechtman continued to develop this theme and his book The Arab Refugee Problem (1952) has 5 pages devoted to "proving" it. That 1952 book seems to be the main source for scores of following books. Zerotalk 13:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Some history resurfacing[edit]

Hi Zero, just wanted to let you know that some comments you made 7 years ago here Talk:Palestine/Archive_5#Palestinian_views_of_the_peace_process have been very helpful in this article Timeline of the name Palestine. Thought it might be nice to know that all those archived talk pages are not lost forever! Oncenawhile (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrator review of Quds Day and Ramot[edit]

This message is to inform you that I have initiated an administrator review of the recent editing at the articles Quds Day (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) and Ramot (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views). This review will result in any editors whose conduct is disruptive being sanctioned under the provision of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions. You are welcome to participate in the review, which is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Israel/Palestine articles generally. Regards, AGK [] 12:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, although my post at AE was 24 minutes earlier than yours, it was directed some of the issues you've raised there including socking, reverts and how to admin the area. Btw, have you considered archiving this talk page? There's a lot here.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It took longer than 24 minutes for me to write my post. Btw, is there any big technical reason for archiving rather than collapsing? Zerotalk 06:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I think even if things are collapsed, the page will still need to load all of the messages - the collapsing action only occurs after it has all loaded? That meant that for users who were/are stuck on dialup/slow connection speeds for whatever reason, it would take unreasonably long to access the user talk page they are trying to view or post to. When the content is moved to another page, there is no extra content to load. Mind you, I'm no techie; this is just what I found when I was stuck on slow speeds a couple of years back. I don't know if 100+ messages has the same effect as it did back then (for all I know, maybe we could get away with 300 before it started causing problems for the faster connection speeds), but I guess it's better to draw the line somewhere to be on the safe side. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Zero: At your first convenience, please see my recent comment to you at AE. Regards, AGK [] 20:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Bayt Nuba[edit]

User:Tiamut/Bayt Nuba. Yes, please help. I don't have time to do much (so tired at the end of the day). So whatever you can do is appreciated. You can edit there directly, or we can move into mainspace as a stub and work there. The only advantage to waiting is that we could move it when its ready to nom for DYK without working under the pressure of a five day time limit. Tiamuttalk 18:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for your input there. I'll get to workingon incorporating all that ASAP. Question though: what is the best way to proceed regarding NW's ridiculous bloc of Nableezy? Should there be an WP:AN post on this? Tiamuttalk 14:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
AN will be appropriate if nobody is willing to step in. Zerotalk 14:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, Sandstein is declining to do anything and advising Nableezy to plead his case with NW himself, pledging not to repeat the conduct that got him blocked (?!?) which was .... well, nobody understands exactly. Shall I go ahead? Or do you want to do it? Tiamuttalk 20:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be resolved now? Zerotalk 01:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I guess so. I'm deeply unsatisfied by the way Nableezy has been treated, but I don't see what other recourse there is for now. Thanks for your prompt responses to this and my questions about Bayt Nuba and its environs. Happy editing. Tiamuttalk 10:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Hello. You blocked user:Foo Bar Buzz Netz for 12 hours, not 24 hours as you said. Just thought I'd point it out.Brambleclawx 15:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I sent you en email. Could you please answer this ? Thx. Noisetier (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I can confirm that User talk:Foo Bar Buzz Netz's concern is likely to be valid and by a good-faith user. I need to look up some material to confirm I've got it rightm and get clear in my mind where to go from here, then I'll fill you in further and consult. Can you unblock him as a first step, while we sort the rest out? Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I have been appraised of another view of this issue, and I oppose unblocking, because we should not free a user to cast aspersions where a breach of policy has not been publicly demonstrated. I don't know what FT2's interest in this is, but he should not be providing sensitive off-wiki information to new users -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I also oppose unblocking, and would encourage more investigation into the details of the Foo Bar account. I'd also like to see an address to the larger problem that drive-by/short-term accounts in the I/P area who are obviously experienced users pose for the Wiki. We've seen a tremendous upsurge in such accounts in the last three months or so; they come in, make these rapid fire POV reverts, and are gone, evidently on to the next account.
Because they usually operate only for a few days of actual editing, they usually don't leave enough behavioral evidence behind to tie them to any other account. They appear to be sophisticated enough to defeat checkuser tools, and they cause editors who uphold the rights of the Palestinian people (they nearly always seem to edit from a stridently pro-Israeli orientation) to have to "burn" a 1rr edit to restore balance to an article, with established pro-Israeli editors then free to do whatever they like with the article. We really need a comprehensive solution to this problem. It seriously compromises the integrity of our editorial process.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Foo Bar Buzz Netz and Noisetier: - I have provided basic background by email to the admins involved - Boing and Zero - (to a point they can understand the background but not to the point of breaching privacy policy), as a first step, to see whether they believe the matter can be dealt with on-wiki. If there is consensus it can be addressed on-wiki then this information will be posted at WP:ANI for the community to discuss and to also consider how to avoid it in future. If consensus is that it cannot easily or safely be resolved on-wiki, I will suggest the matter is treated per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Confidential evidence and referred to Arbcom to decide upon. There's a good chance it can be handled safely on-wiki but I'd like to consult briefly before making such a call, in case I'm wrong or others aren't convinced.

I hope all involved will hold off any posts or escalation until we at least have clarity of consultation whether it can be handled on-wiki. Hopefully as all concerned are active right now, we'll have this within a short while (24 hrs latest). Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated, thanks - I got your email, but it's 01:07am here and I need some zzzzzzzzzz - will get back to you tomorrow -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've commented at User talk:Foo Bar Buzz Netz -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK and Caroline Glick[edit]

User:Zero0000, please consider that your assertion here may conflict with Wikipedia guidelines at WP:BLPTALK, as Caroline Glick is a living person. I suggest you either support your statement with a source or strike it out.—Biosketch (talk) 07:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit dubious, since placing someone on the left-right spectrum is obviously just a subjective opinion and is too vague to be taken as a claim of a fact about a person. But poking around led me to Btselem's reply to Glick's charges. Makes hot reading. More on the other page. Zerotalk 12:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Alright, but to be on the safe side and for future reference I've started a discussion at WP:BLPN.—Biosketch (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
It does seem excessive, undue and unnecessary to compare one of our living subjects, a journalist, to someone from history whose campaigns often resulted in the wholesale massacres of civilian populations, and I would also request you strike it. Please be a bit more cautious in comparisons you make in regard to living people in future. Off2riorob (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Answered at WP:BLPN. Maybe you are not familiar with the expression? Zerotalk 07:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The so called expression is undue, unnecessary and excessive. Two people are here now opining as such and asking you simply strike that small piece. Doing so will remove nothing by way of understanding from your comment. Off2riorob (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Azzam Pasha and Momentous Massacres[edit]

Hi you said that you have a copy of the news paper in which Pasha's alleged statement about massacring jews in the 1984 war can be found. i haven't seen any upload of it. did you scan it? i don't need translation and i'll be happy to see it, can you provide me with a copy? MrZaf (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Send me email using the "E-mail this user" button on this page and I will send it to you. Zerotalk 01:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
sorry, i can't find this button... can you direct link me to the button or give me direction on where it is ? thanks. -never mind, found it. (i'm new here :) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrZaf (talkcontribs) 12:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Try this. You need to have set up your own email address (in your preferences) before it will work. Zerotalk 04:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I would also be very interested in getting a copy of the Ahkbar Al-Yawm, October 11, 1947 piece that you have. I do not see the "email this user" button anywhere, and the link you provided for the other user sends me to a page that says error. If you could email it to that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Challahhuakbar (talkcontribs) 03:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Indented lineNevermind, I have found the "email user" button. Thanks!--Challahhuakbar (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


Another example of history resurfacing - I found your scan of the transcript in the article archives. Have a look at this - it seems that this mis-quote became part of the zionist propaganda effort immediately and over time became accepted as fact. Did you ever hear back from Fisk (the archives suggested you emailed him)? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

An honest critique[edit]

Hi Zero,

About your request, unfortunately I don't have any info on Al-Jiftlik that might be helpful. And instead of being helpful, I'm coming here to make a request.

I need an outside set of eyes to take a look at 2011 Syrian uprising. I have some strong opinions on this subject which I suspect may be influencing my editing there. What I need is someone who respects sources and NPOV without a bone to grind to take a look at the article and some of my recent edits there, and to be brutally honest in assessing how they could be improved, if at all, to be better in line with NPOV. I think the article has a perceptible tilt towards favouring the opposition narrative over the government narrative. Perhaps there is no tilt and my opinions on the subject are overshadowing my objectivity or perhaps there is a tilt bt its justifiable? Your opinion would be very much appreciated. Tiamuttalk 20:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Jaffa massacre[edit]

Napoleonic quote belongs better at Jaffa. Tel Aviv history should include summary of adjacent town. Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You are right, I'll move it. But tomorrow, really I shouldn't be doing Wikipedia at all. Zerotalk 12:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Why? Have you been permanently banned? Chesdovi (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Dream on :). No, I have urgent work to do in real life. Zerotalk 13:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Question about Bil'in[edit]

Yesterday, shortly after my edit at Bil'in in relation to the West Bank barrier, you also edited the article, removing one of the two references I included as a source for the added content. My question is, Was your edit on account of Bil'in being on your watchlist, or is it that I am on your watchlist? As you may know, the issue of users tracking one another's edit histories in the I/P area has come up recently, with one user in particular, Nableezy (talk · contribs), accusing me rather harshly of being obsessed with his edits. In his case, it was for making one edit at an article I had been involved in fairly recently and that was on my watchlist and for a second edit at another article that I'd never before contributed to and that wasn't on my watchlist at the time. Your last edit at Bil'in was over a year ago, yet your edit yesterday was less than two hours after mine. I suppose you're not under any obligation to explain to me the circumstances of your edit, but input from you could be helpful to me regarding my own conduct in the topic area in the future. Thanks.—Biosketch (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I have every locality in Palestine/Israel on my watchlist (unless I missed some), so I'm likely to notice any edits made to those articles. Btw, I have a lot of reliable sources supporting what I said about A7 and you can see for yourself that it is nonsense by checking the distance of Bilin from the airport. Zerotalk 07:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Then I'm to understand that your edit at the article was on account of it being on your watchlist and not on account of routinely monitoring my edit history. Ok. About Arutz Sheva, I'm not contesting your removal of the source, although my guess is that it would pass WP:NPOVN scrutiny if I were to insist on it. We don't disqualify Human Rights Watch reports even though they're consistently biased against the settlements and their inhabitants and are completely open about whom they're out to get, so unless Arutz Sheva has a history of unreliable reports it shouldn't be a problem either. It's a moot point in this case, though, because there was the Haaretz reference and you didn't challenge the content of my edit. My query was strictly behavior-related.—Biosketch (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
A closer analogy would be Ma'an News Agency. In my opinion, all of these polemic sources, including HRW, can be used as sources of opinion but should be identified as the source and the opinion should be something worth reporting (not just vague predictable statements). I would not source something to HRW without something like "According to Human Rights Watch, ....". Zerotalk 07:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena[edit]

I have posted a complaint at [[1]]. Should I just leave they write as they wish? Could you recommend us anyboby in WP able to stop this? I have noticed you wrote in A A-V page and are interested in Jewish (Middle East) affaires. Thank you for your patience (9 years is too much).

Another point:now it is very fashionable in newspapers to criticize WP because "it is used by all kind of interested organizations".In fact,in Spain an office for Internet data violation will be available since July 1st.Apparently one has only to report the case by Internet and fill in a short questionaire.

Do not you think that in the Wikileaks Epoch,WP could ask more data (full name or IP) for editing LPB?Symbio04 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

On Symbio04 (Arnaiz-Villena) user page[edit]

Hello.COuld you please take a look at what is written in user:Symbio04 main page, accusing other editors of spoiling (and attributing that opinion to you) and making other asserts and conspiracy theories (for example accusations against A-V were raised after a public countable inspection which missed a great quantity of money....). I thought that user pages were not intended for that use. Am I mistaken? Regards. Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I left a warning on his talk page. Beyond that, I am at the A-V article as an administrator and will steadfastly ignore any dispute on that page that might be remotely connected to the areas I edit in. I only intend to address the Basque matter, which I am totally uninvolved in. Zerotalk 14:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I hope you can understand I (and some other editors) am tired of the behaviour of those "users" and their aggressive manners. Maybe, instead of wasting your time looking at the precedent of that bunch of puppets, you could ask to any administrator who had been involved in this nasty question (since the times he pretended he had the right to add a page on his alleged discoveries.....), because this is the never ending story. Every some months he comes back with the same accusstaion and complaining, he contact with a "new" admin who does not know the previous cases, and the same story has to be repeated.... it is a mockery Dumu Eduba (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Israeli-Palestinian conflict[edit]

Hey! I'm looking to de-redlink this template and I wonder if you could assist me with your valued opinion and shared knowledge on these questions: Shoplifter (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


Don't say "a very long journey." It sounds as if you may never be coming back. Chesdovi (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Palestine Post article on Mamilla Cemetery[edit]

Hi Zero0000,

I'm working on completely revamping the Mamilla Cemetery article and was wondering if you have access to the Thursday, July 22, 1945, edition of the Palestine Post where it was reported that:

"An area of over 450 dunams [111 acres] in the heart of Jerusalem, now forming the Mamillah Cemetery, is to be converted into a business centre. The townplan is being completed under the supervision of the Supreme Muslim Council in conjunction with the Government Town Planning Adviser. A six-storeyed building to house the Supreme Muslim Council and other offices, a four-storeyed hotel, a bank and other buildings suitable for a college, a club and a factory are to be the main structures. There will also be a park to be called the Salah ed Din Park, after the Muslim warrior of Crusader times."

I'd like to see the full article contents if possible and use it as a source. Currently, this is quoted in our article by way of an op-ed in the New York Daily News, and i"d like to use the original instead and see what else is in there.

Hope your travels are going well. Tiamuttalk 20:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You can search the entire PP at . July 22 1945 was a Sunday. I don't see anything offhand but I won't have time to search properly until tomorrow. Let me know if you find anything meanwhile. Incidentally, the OCR is woeful so often words are not recognised; it means you have to search in multiple ways to find things. Zerotalk 21:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Found it here at entry #1. Seems the date of the article was Thursday, November 22, 1945 (I got the date from the Hier's article in NYDN, which he apparently got wrong). Thanks for the link. Please pitch in there if you get a chance. `Tiamuttalk 21:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Also highly relevant article December 18, 1945, p4. Zerotalk 21:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ariel (city)[edit]

dear ZERO, could you please read my last comment on Talk:Ariel (city) and re-write accordingly? thanks!-- (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


Cheers, Huldra (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, not I'm not sure. Zerotalk 12:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Thanks for finding public law 86-90 heavily burried in a 130MB pdf. I've added it to the relevant articles (Captive Nations, National Captive Nations Committee, and Captive Nations Week). Thanks again! Smallman12q (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Yummy! Zerotalk 14:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
You have helped me out at WP:RX and elsewhere. I am well aware that you are helping countless other people out with regard to sourcing issues. It is probably a thankless task ... but I thank you. Now, I need a definitive source that the earth is flat and a square peg can fit into a round hole. No rush! - Sitush (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A Palestinian rabbi for you![edit]

Raphael Chayyim Isaac Carregal.jpg

Thanks for your support at the Afd on Palestinian rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


Hello, thank you very much for finding the wayback for the time article I asked for. If you don't mind, can you tell me how you found it? I tried to use the wayback machine, but did not get any results for that article (or any of the other articles from that part of time magazine online). Any clue what I'm doing wrong? Thanks in advance, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


Hello -- at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 22#Pro-Palestinian consensus was reached to retarget the "Pro-Palestinian" redirect from "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" to "Palestinian cause". On 14 August 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian cause was closed as "Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", inadvertently reversing the consensus reached at the RfD regarding the "Pro-Palestinian" redirect (the redirect was not mentioned during the discussion). In subsequent discussion at Talk:Pro-Palestinian#Extract from RFD discussion for future reference it has been suggested that both redirects ("Pro-Palestinian" and "Palestinian cause") would be better targeted at Palestinian nationalism. It was also agreed to initiate a widely-advertised RfD, with notifications to relevant WikiProjects and participants in the AfD and RfD. Accordingly, your comments are invited at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 26#Pro-Palestinian. Best, —Ireilly talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

Intl law and Israeli settlements[edit]

Im going to start compiling sources in my userspace that specifically discuss the view of the "international community", not ones that make an argument one way or the other. I started with the ones I quoted earlier here, but any help you could give would be greatly appreciated. nableezy - 06:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:New Historians[edit]

I've made this template to provide oversight to the articles related to the NH. Just wanted to check with you if there are any other relevant articles that can/should be included. Thanks! Shoplifter (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

merge of Amka and Amqa[edit]

There is a currently ongoing merger proposal discussion regarding merging of Amqa article into the previously created article of Amka. According to sources and geographic location we are speaking of different prenounsation of the same place name Amka/Amqa/Amca, the same as Acre/Acco/Akko and Tiberias/Tabariya/Tveriya. As done with other towns/cities, all time periods are listed in one article.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


Hi Zero,

I just remembered that you had sent me a message about email some time ago with sources I had requested. I'm sorry, but my email is no longer working. Its been on and off accessible for some time and recently I've lost all access. I still haven't got a new one in the vain hope I'll sort out the problems with the old one. Anyway, sorry again for troubling you without following up. Tiamuttalk 17:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem, let me know when it is stable and we'll figure out if anything wasn't delivered. Zerotalk 02:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Laccognathus embryi[edit]

Sorry can't reply through email, at the moment, wrestling with problems in Yahoo, ugh. Had to use another computer to forward your email to an alternate email account of mine so I can download the attachment. But I got it finally, so thanks heaps! The paper will be really helpful for the 3d reconstruction I'm making.-- Obsidin Soul 01:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for clearing up this. I have another question, this time about Az-Zakariyya; I found three pictures in the Matson-collection of the same place, taken over a number of years (=notice the same three in the front!)..however, I am not sure wether it is Az-Zakariyya, or Zakariyya, Khirbat, or perhaps even a third place? The Matson-collection identifies it with one of the Biblical Sukkot (place)s; namely the one mention in the Book of Judges. However, what little I have found on that Succoth in SWP indicate that Conder found it further north, in the Beisan-district. And these pictures are clearly not from there, as one is marked "Southern Palestine, Hebron, Beersheba and Gaza area." Any suggestions? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I see an identification of Succoth with Khirbet Abbad (SWP III, 104; Guerin Judee III, 332; but neither of those give the identification). It was only a few km away from Az-Zakariyya, so I think that one is a reasonable identification. You could compare the photos to the photos in Khalidi. Zerotalk 01:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
There seem to have been considerable confusion/discussion about Succoth, see eg this discussion from QS, 1877 p.81ff.
There are 3 pictures in Khalidi, and someone has scanned them and uploaded them all: house, mosque and village site. At the same place someone has uploaded one of the Matson-pictures: here, however, that does not mean that it is correct! But the Mason-pictures do remind me of the "village site"-picture in Khalidi, so I think I will take the chance.

On another note; your edits to Al-Shajara etc; now, I understand the reasoning that it was not Hadawis survey, and should therefore not be referred to as such. However, earlier it had direct links to the relevant pages (p73 & 123), but not anymore. Is there a reason for you removing them? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess it was laziness, as the template I made doesn't have a url field. Specifically, {{VillageStatistics1945|page=23}} creates
Government of Palestine, Department of Statistics. Village Statistics, April, 1945. Quoted in S. Hadawi, Village Statistics, 1945. PLO Research Center, 1970, p23. [2]
However, I will see if I can add a url field to the template that allows an optional replacement url. Zerotalk 08:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, testing... {{VillageStatistics1945|pages=23–24|url=}}
Government of Palestine, Department of Statistics. Village Statistics, April, 1945. Quoted in S. Hadawi, Village Statistics, 1945. PLO Research Center, 1970, pp23–24. [3]
Seems to work ;). Zerotalk 08:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Great; I like to click directly to the page (my laziness..;) ). And also; I just found the picture I just added to the Az-Zakariyya-article in Khalidi, it is actually on p. 206, on the introduction to the District of Hebron. So that problem solved. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

AE request[edit]

Hello. You may have noticed that I've made an AE request against No More Mr Nice Guy. It looked to me as though Talknic was being hazed by a number of editors on the 1948 Arab Israeli War article talk page. I struck out a comment of NMMNG's, ""How about you desist wasting everyone's time with your silly trolling," which, since Talknic was discussing in a civil and reasoned way, looked unacceptably offensive to me. The comment was then reinstated, struck out by me once more and reinstated again. NMMG has pointed out that you had earlier told Talknic: "You seem to be trolling. It's time to ignore you on this issue." It certainly didn't look to me as though Talknic was deliberately trying to provoke disruption, but perhaps I'm not aware of something that happened earlier. I wonder whether you would comment here or at the AE noticeboard about whether you think that I have made a mistake and whether NMMG's talk page style needs toning down. If you think that I have made a mistake, I will withdraw the request and apologise. At the moment I'm recovering from a lung infection which caused problems like lack of sleep which have had an effect on my mood and judgement.     ←   ZScarpia   17:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Look magazine[edit]

Hi! I haven't gotten the article yet! I'll see if somebody who can access it for free can get a copy of it... WhisperToMe (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  • If you can get it, that would be so awesome! WhisperToMe (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay - Please let me know around tuesday if you got the volume WhisperToMe (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Alright - My e-mail is whisper (dot) world (at) yahoo (dot) com - Thank you very much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, do you know what the kanji is of Shizuka Saeki, the author of the article? I've been having trouble finding it. I'd like to post it in the section about Japanese names in English WhisperToMe (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Now see Japanese_name#Japanese_names_in_English :) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Ohhh! Tee hee! ;)
I made a post on the WikiProject Japan page.
I also tried looking up their old website, but haven't found nothing yet
WhisperToMe (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

mysterious revert[edit]


Are you aware that you reverted a routine edit of mine at WT:V hereUnscintillating (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Merging Isdud into Ashdod[edit]

Merge proposal of Isdud into Ashdod has been recently relisted for further discussion to find clarifications and consensus prior to merge. As a former contributor please clarify your opinion. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Al-Hamma, Tiberias[edit]

Hi, I´m trying to get Al-Hamma, Tiberias DYK-ready (was tempted when I saw there were pictures on commons..) Would be very happy for any help, especially co-ord., which are now missing. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be onto it soon. Zerotalk 01:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on Al-Hamma, Tiberias! Next project is Al Jalama, Tulkarm (which already checks out ok according to my DYK-check)..however, still a lot to add post-1948 from Benvenisti and Morris. Anything you could add would be appreciated, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Gough (1990)[edit]

Hello, Zero0000. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.Senra (Talk) 23:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sha'ab, Israel[edit]

Hi, According to Petersen, Hütteroth and Abdulfattah writes that the place had a population of 139 households but, alas, Petersen does not write their religion (which I believe HA normally gives?) Could you please fill in the details there, if you have them?

Also, the 1931 census report, does it mention Sha'ab?

Cheers Huldra (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Alon Shvut[edit]

You helped me a lot with your comment. Most of my editing has been in the Comics project. The sources there are a little different, mostly the comics themselves or comics news sites. I'm a little bit on new ground here with sources but you'll see that I learn fast. I think it'll be good for both of us if we're a little less aggressive, but it's alright. I argue some things because it seems they need to be argued. We all have a lot to learn. At any rate, thanks for the help. I'll turn to you soon to verify some sources for Tel-Zecharia but I'm busy with some other things in the meantime. MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the link. I downloaded more than half the articles and will hopefully do the other half before it's stopped. Excellent archive. MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalisation of Israeli history[edit]

Yes, that's right, vandalisation of history itself is what you are doing... according to this. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please block [edit]

A few days ago I got several dozen emails from this user, all the same nasty stuff. (email was, so it might be the Runtshit-vandal), Anyway, he was already blocked, thankfully. But just now I have gotten nearly 50 messages from this joker, all (well, the three I bothered to read!) with the charming message "Fakestinian vermin‏ I can't wait for you scum to be exterminated once and for all." Could you please block him? (Hmm, he is going to exterminate all Scandinavians? Oh, dear.) Done

Also; about co-ords: I´m sorry, that is one thing I know little about, I have only added co-ords as I have gotten them from others. But it sure seems silly to give co-ords down to the centimeters. So yeah; I agree: out with the decimals. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Coordinates[edit]

I don't really mind. Back in the day I wrote a tool to make it easy to add coordinates. The tool gets precise Google Maps coordinates and outputs something I can copy and paste, so I don't usually check the roundness of the numbers. However, if it is important to you, I can do this in the future, and possibly modify the tool. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi there. The AFP report says, in its headline no less, "Mein Kampf" makes it to Palestinian bestseller list". That sentence in the lead , which you are repeatedly removing, is clearly supported by the sources. Can you explain why you are deleting sourced information, with a misleading edit summary? Shanghai Sally (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The headline of a newspaper article is written by sub-editors and does not form part of the article. The body of the article makes it clear that the reference is to a single bookshop selling less than 10 copies per week, and it even gives a reason why this minor popularity is not typical. Your sentence is inadmissible as it will certainly mislead readers into believing something that is not supported by the source. Zerotalk 01:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I haven't found the original AFP story yet, but the the body of other articles used as references in our article make the same claim. to wit, The Guardian, in the body,says: "According to an Agence France Presse report on September 8, the book, previously banned by Israel, had been allowed by the PA and was sixth on the Palestinian bestseller list." As I am sure you are aware, in this project we go by what releiable source SAY, not by our personal interprration of what they SHOULD HAVE SAID, based on our differing interpretation of the facts. Now, Do you agree that the Guardian article Supports the statement "The 1963 translation of the autobiography became a bestseller in the Palestinian Territories during the late 1990's and early 2000's." which you removed? If not, would you agree that it supports, at a minimum the alternate formulation "The 1963 translation of the autobiography became a bestseller in the Palestinian Territories in 2001" or "The 1963 translation of the autobiography was 6th on the Palestinian bestseller in the 2001"? .Shanghai Sally (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I have the AFP source, and it agrees with the text that Oncenawhile posted on the talk page. It says what I described. You found some tertiary sources, other newspapers that base their stories on AFP and make newspaper-like errors like changing "bookstore" to "bookstores", and you are happy because you really want to convince the world that all those Palestinians are reading Mein Kampf when you know damn well they aren't. The kindest description of this behavior is WP:Wikilawyering. The sourcing rules are not there as an excuse for posting distortions. Zerotalk 10:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Tira, Israel[edit]

If you have the time, could you please check the 1596 -census for Tira, Israel? It is (partly) given in Peterson, alas, he does not give the religion of the villagers. Oh, and I found I actually have a copy 1931 census ; I had forgotten that! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong location! Hutteroth references al-Tira (Ramla). I can't see this Tira in Hutteroth at all. Zerotalk 10:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Whaw. This is definitely the worst mistake I have found in Petersen so far. Not only is the 1596 date wrong, so is SWP and Guerin! (Khalidi has Hutteroth & SWP correctly listed under al-Tira (Ramla).) The SWP-ref is a dead give-away that something is wrong: it refers to map XIV, while Tira, Israel is clearly on map XI.
I´m going to make a list on the talk-page of Tira, Israel of the sources he use, and if they are ok or not. (Btw: I checked and rechecked wether it was me who had placed it wrongly; it isn´t, Petersen clearly gives the coords of Tira, Israel and describes it as "a modern village, with a core of traditional stone houses". There is a (partly) old mosque there, which he inspected in 1995.
Anyway, thanks for spotting this! Huldra (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
By the way, here is how the identification of sites in Hutteroth goes. The tax registers are organized into liwas and nahiyas. Hutteroth used the approximately known nahiya boundaries to identify key villages by their names, then used this to draw more accurate nahiya boundaries. Then they identified as many villages as possible using historical maps and gave their conclusions by naming the map and giving grid coordinates. In this case the grid coordinates they give are those of al-Tira (Ramla). Sometimes they mark their identification as uncertain and sometimes they don't even guess. Today I'll send you a map from Hutteroth showing the nahiya boundaries. That will be enough to identify most incorrect identifications if the nahiya name is given in the reference to Hutteroth. Zerotalk 00:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks a lot. Btw, the liwas are given in the Peteren-book online: p197. Also; any help finding out which Petersen-ref for Tira are ok (look at the talk-page), would be appreciated. I am really surprised: everything else has basically checked out fine with the Petersen-book. (ok, a few typos) Ah well, nobody is perfect, Cheers, 00:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC

Ooopsh, there seems to be a MFU (="Major F... Up", as we said at a place I worked) at Tayibe, as well; I have noted it on the talk-page; the Guérin-ref is revealing: some correct; some not. I want to go through all of the refs (eventually), ..but for now, if you could please check the "HG"-ref (=Hütteroth and Abdulfattah), it would be great. (And yeah: it look as it P. looked at the index of old books, & noted it down), (Hmmmprh: I now just want to through all my edits... wherever I have added something to an article which has a "See also/For other meanings, see/For other uses, see", etc. the top: recheck it). Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm confused about Hutteroth. Please tell me the grid coordinates Petersen has (two 3-digit or two 4-digit numbers near the start of the entry). In fact, please always tell me that when you ask about a location, it makes it much easier to check Hutteroth and some other sources. Thanks. Zerotalk 23:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure, he gives for Tayba: Location 1513.1858 32.16N/35.01E This Tayba is on map XI of SWP, the West Bank one is on map XIV. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
It is on page 141. See for yourself (check your email). Zerotalk 13:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that was very useful. I see you have found Taybeh, West Bank, is p. 116. I assume that means the Taybeh Petersen refers to on 157, 160 must be Taybes no 3 & 4. Huldra (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Alon Shvut discussion at IPCOL[edit]

Hi Zero, just to let you know I asked for outside advice on disagreements over Alon Shvut that you're also party to. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Is Aretz Sheva a reliable source?[edit]

Is the Pope an atheist? PiCo (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

White Buses[edit]

I have added some references to the article about the White Buses and can add more, would be good with some outside help of what need references. Ulflarsen (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the information. I made the changes once on the refs, because I wasn't aware of Huldra's work or reasoning, and followed the standard I was aware of. Her explanation sheds new light on the subject and it makes more sense now, so no problem on that. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

John of Damascus[edit]

Do you have acces to this paper? I need to read it to help settle a dispute over this man's family background. Hope you are well. Tiamuttalk 19:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That volume is on paper and stored off-site. However I requested it and will have it on Monday. The journal is now called "Ancient Near Eastern Studies". Would a paper "John of Damascus on Islam" be the right one? Zerotalk 22:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure ... it may be the earlier paper he wrote. Sorry I didn't provide you with the full details ... its D. Sahas, "John of Damascus on Islam Revisited" in Abr-Nahrain 23 (1984-85) , 105-118 . My bad ... Tiamuttalk 18:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
No, my bad. It has the title you say. Zerotalk 01:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Check your email. Zerotalk 13:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sha'ab, Israel[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


"Rachelim" isn't a valid plural form in Hebrew. If you have some background, you probably know that nouns like "Ya'el" and "Namer," and even adjectives like "Tsameh" and "Yareh," pluralize as "Ye'elim," "Nemerim," "Tseme'im," and "Yere'im." An exception is "Panther," which becomes "Pantherim," but it's probably either because the word has a different vowel configuration or because it's a loan word.—Biosketch (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


Trophy.png Request
Dear Zero0000,

I'm a french student, interested in Middle East history. I saw in a discussion you said "I can send a copy of pages 315-317 of Yisraeli's thesis to anyone who asks by email". Please is it possible to you to send me by mail theses pages ? I can give you my e-mail if you want. tell me just where I can send you my e-mail.

My best regards.

C.Hazale (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

See your talk page. Zerotalk 07:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Map question[edit]

Hello Zero. Ynhockey has claimed that the location of Jerusalem in this map in inaccurate here. Could you please take a look? Thanks, nableezy - 15:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, unrelated to this, if you have access, could you please email me this article? Thanks, nableezy - 16:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Check your email for the latter. I'm at a conference and will look at the former when I can. Zerotalk 06:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk page size[edit]

Hm, at 250.000 bytes, even rollback on this page gets a little slow. Have you considered moving those collapsible boxes to subpages? →Στc. 01:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem: Abode of Peace[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Jerusalem: Abode of Peace". Thank you.

Katzrin and the mythical largest city[edit]

Do you think Haaretz might publish a correction to this article? nableezy - 21:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it, due to the time delay. Zerotalk 21:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal[edit]

I am appealing the topic ban that WG issued on November 30th and thought you might want to comment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Responding to concerns about the need for further evidence and explanation there are now two sections under the headings "Clarification on distortions" and "On efforts at consensus" at my appeal detailing extensively my objection to the topic ban. It does contain a considerable amount of information, but all of it is relevant to the questions raised about my editing behavior and the reasons given for the topic ban. I do not think the situation can be really understood with a single paragraph or two of comments with half a dozen diffs provided without any context in a complicated case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


can you explain exactly what and why you were Talking to me? -DePiep (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dude[edit]

Hi Zero. I'm outta here. Appreciate your work. Apologies for any abrasiveness on my part in the heat of discussion. Keep up the good work

Happy New Year

... talknic (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Azzam Pasha quotation for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Azzam Pasha quotation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azzam Pasha quotation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem[edit]

Hi, I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here ( and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talkcontribs)

Proposed deletion of Azzam Pasha quotation[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Azzam Pasha quotation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Same material appears in Azzam Pasha article

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Geewhiz (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


Hi Zero, i'm not sure if you were the original creator of File:BritishMandatePalestine1920.png but i wanted to discuss something with you.

As you can see here Talk:Transjordan, I believe this image is very misleading. It propagates confusion and misunderstanding which has been used by some elements to suggest that the Balfour declaration was originally applicable to TransJordan. You may fine that absurd, but I have seen it used both in wikipedia discussions and outside (e.g. a popular video on youtube called "Debunking the Palestine lie").

With respect to the image, this picture never existed in reality:

  • The area which the Mandate document referred to was never governed as a single entity. All de facto aspects of the governance of British controlled area was through two separate governments right from the start, when Abdullah I of Jordan was made Emir in 1921 following the end of the Franco-Syrian War. Britain never militarily controlled Transjordan, as is clear from Hansard discussions in 1921 - the Arab legion was employed by the Emir.
  • The Mandate as a legal document was drawn up as one document for the whole British area, irrespective of the number of territories it was to be divided in to. The same approach was used for the French mandate to the North, which was also intended to be governed in two or more pieces. It is likely that the only reason that the mandate title didn't include the words "Palestine and TransJordan" (mirroring Syria and Lebanon) is because the word TransJordan hadn't been formalised yet as it had not yet been agreed exactly where the Eastern border of Palestine would be (e.g. apparently Herbert Samuel was still trying to get Aqaba in to Palestine, despite his speech at Es-Salt in Aug 1920).
  • In addition to never being governed as a single entity, as Article 25 shows and supported by copious records of the discussions at the time, it was also the clear intention and understanding of all that the Mandate area was to be governed in two territories going forward.
  • As you know, the Mandate did not become legally binding until 1923, after TransJordan had already been split, so the picture suggests a formality which was not in fact the case
  • The South of the country (Aqaba and Ma'an) were part of the Kingdom of Hijaz until 1925, and the Eastern border with Saudi Arabia had not been agreed at this time, as article 25 also makes clear. (see also [4]. So the picture is anachronistic

The map showing both countries suggests some kind of Federal setup, with the whole being called "British Mandate for Palestine". This is the most important misleading aspect, as there was never a "country or territory" with this makeup, only a "document".

In summary, I think the picture should be deleted, and all references to this confusion between the name of the territory(ies) and the name of the document should be clarified throughout wikipedia. What do you think? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a terrible map, especially the lack of a boundary between the two parts. I'm yet to see a good map that shows actual boundaries as they appeared at different times. Zerotalk 11:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I found two very interesting things - (1) Yitzhak Shamir wrote an article in 1982 which included the claim that Jordan was 77% of Palestine - you can see from google books how this spurious statement has multiplied and evolved ever since; (2) I found a couple of maps which show clearly which borders were agreed and which were not during the critical period 1920-22. The sources are shown here Talk:British Mandate for Palestine. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Josef Mengele and other articles[edit]

Hi Zero0000, I've run into an issue with User:Mystichumwipe at Josef Mengele and a couple of other articles. I think my assessments of the issues and situation are reasonable, but he has accused me of bias and is asking for outside eyes to look at it. I know we often disagree on issues, but I believe you to be honest and fair; would you mind taking a look? Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. Jayjg (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Could I ask you to read my response.
What we now have is that a sentence has been included of which a part of has been deleted purely because it contains a positive assessment from eye witnesses. MANY twins DID give interviews in which they described Mengele only as "a gentle and affable man" who befriended them, etc. This is a statement of fact, do you agree so far? To include a sentence that then goes on to explain that positive assessment but then to delete the positive opinion itself, how is that NOT censorship? How is the reader allowed to be informed and decide for themself with this deletion?
Here is the original source: Many recalled his friendly manner towards them, his gifts of chocolates and they described him as a gentle, affable man who befriended them and became a sort of father figure to them. The older ones "recognized his kindness as a deception - yet another of his perverse experiments to test (our) mental endurance.
Here is the current article version: Many recalled his friendly manner towards them, and his gifts of chocolates. The older ones "recognized his kindness as a deception--yet another of his perverse experiments to test (our) mental endurance."
He himself claimed "I personally have not killed, injured or caused bodily harm to anyone." And here are eye witness accounts (plural) that on the face of it support that, which are being deleted. By all means include the 2ndary sources explanation for that anomoly. But surely we have to also include that anomoly itself!? As I see it, to not do so goes against Wiki presenting information neutrally and without bias.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview[edit]

Dear Zero0000,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.


Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Safed Plunder[edit]

Hello Zero, I just wanted to know if you're claiming the Safed Plunder and other massacres carried out upon the indigenous pre-Zionist Jews of Israel or theOld Yishuv by the Muslim Arabs who take over the area did not happen? Also, if you do not have an agenda why can other genocide or massacres be mentioned within any other nation's history but not so-called Palestine's. DionysosElysees talk 09:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Reuters articles on Bernadotte assassination[edit]

I could be totally wrong, and this is a long shot anyhow, but I believe some eight years ago you added citations to the Folke Bernadotte article, both 1995 articles sourced to Reuters. They were "Israel belatedly condemns U.N. negotiator's murder" and "Israel tries to ease tensions with Sweden". I'm currently writing a research paper on the Bernadotte assassination and its consequences, and those two articles would be extremely helpful if I could just find a primary or secondary source that isn't Wikipedia. This is a big favor, but if you still have a source location on hand, could you let me know? Or if you can maybe just steer me in the right direction? Thanks. GallowsMaker (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Send me email and I'll send them to you. Zerotalk 10:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. GallowsMaker (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited East Jerusalem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Evans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ... what's next?[edit]

Hi, Zero. Thanks for your comment on [[5]]. Now that user:Uishaki's edits have been established as incorrect, can i simply go back and revert the vandalized pages? that wouldn't be construed as an "edit war", would it? Cheers, Kamran the Great (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

1834 Safed pogrom[edit]

Hello Zero0000. in this comment you mention reverting yourself because it was not yet 24 hours. Is it your impression that this article falls under the ARBPIA 1RR? This question is of interest because there is a current AE request which complains about editing of 1834 Safed pogrom by someone who is under a topic ban from ARBPIA. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There was no ARBPIA banner on that page, but it seemed to me that there was at least a good chance it would be included so I reverted myself on the "better safe than sorry" principle. On reflection, articles about Arab-Jewish violence in the past few centuries should be included in ARBPIA because many current protagonists in that conflict regard it as an episode in the same story. Also, more or less the same set of Wikipedia editors will be involved so the need for the 1RR dampener is there. On the other hand, I don't think the inclusion of 1834 Safed pogrom in ARBPIA is so obvious that someone couldn't have an honest disagreement on it. Rachel's tomb, however, is obviously included. Zerotalk 00:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Defence (Emergency) Regulations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lehi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


Has it been established that JCPA is an unreliable source? I'd be very surprised if that were the case.—Biosketch (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A diatribe by a political opponent comes nowhere near the requirements of WP:BLP. Besides that, the quote it gives from Haaretz is ambiguous on whether Tibi or the crowd said the alleged words while the report in the article was not ambiguous. Zerotalk 14:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Jewish tribes of Arabia[edit]


It would be nice if you could give your participation on the above article.

As you can see at Talk:Jewish tribes of Arabia, an user keeps reverting and inserting

(1) claims that some Arabian Jewish tribes were Sadducces, while the received scholarship is that Sadducceism died out after the fall of Jerusalem;
(2) A prophetic, hence teleological interpretation of history cannot be falsifiable, therefore it is unscientific and non-historical.

I've resquested a Third Opinion, and it would be nice if you could mediate that.

Thanks --Francatrippa (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Librarian of the Week[edit]

Circulation counter--------.gif Librarian of the Week
Many thanks for responding to my Resource Exchange request. FormerIP (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png I got your email with the attached pdf, thank you very much: the article I was working up is live now (All Saints' Church, Shuart), and I've already added the journal article as a source for some very useful info with refs! Very pleased, it was very kind of you! Cheers.
Nortonius (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Yummy! Thanks. Zerotalk 11:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Land without for people without[edit]

I accept that my addition is, strictly speaking, a violation of Wikipedia's ban on original research, but you surely agree that it is trivially obvious the British view of South Africa was identical: "'unpopulated', so we can move there". Anyway, I won't add it back unless I ever find an acceptable source that makes the point. Best etc. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Kfar Kama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crusader (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Zero0000. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Al Husseini's birth[edit]

Could you possibly check Mattar over the next few months, to see what he has to say about the ex-Mufti's year of birth? I note, while correcting the lead, that there is a question mark as to the pages in Mattar dealing with this. In anticipation, thanks Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

(I didn't even need to get out of my chair...) Mattar on p6 writes 1895, but in the endnote on p156 he says that it can't be pinned down. In 1921 and 1923 Amin wrote 1896 on visa applications, and between 1926 and 1934 he wrote 1895 on passport applications. Mattar suggests that the difference might be due to the fact that the Islamic year 1313 A.H. spans both 1895 and 1896 (starting June 24, 1895) so Amin might have been correcting a mistake in calendar conversion when he changed from 1896 to 1895. Mattar also notes two other years (1893 used by some biographers, and 1897 used by Amin later in life) but says he couldn't find any documentary evidence for them. Zerotalk 02:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready![edit]

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Jewish Legion[edit]

Hi Zero0000! Thank you for working on the article. It's something I've always wanted to do but didn't dare because of lack of time and not so good knowledge (as opposed to topics like the War of Independence). I agree that the Zion Mule Corps could have its own article—it would make sense to separate that from the rifle units. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Shaw report[edit]

Hi Zero, was wondering if you had any idea where I could get a copy of the Shaw report for the 1929 Palestine riot article. I would have thought it would be available somewhere as it is a government document, but I haven't been able to find it. Even google books will not let me look at the a preview. Any ideas appreciated. Dlv999 (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Check your email after about 30 mins. Zerotalk 22:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, much appreciated. Dlv999 (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

1929 Palestine riots[edit]

I make no attempts at concealing that I am interested in presenting the Israeli view in this article. That being said, I try to operate in accordance with Wiki policy, and I have reverted my edits, and will continue to do so, where I infringe upon this. I simply do not understand your concerns regarding the "Bregman 6+110" and politely request that you expand upon it. I sourced the figures to three different sources, in response to your "isolated tertiary source" claim. I have accepted altering the language to accommodate the Shaw report "inconsistencies" which says 7 and not 6. Can you please elaborate on the contradictions, which you feel have been ignored, and I assure you I will not neglect your POV.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zero, there is a discussion at WP:RSN you may well be interested in. Dlv999 (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Stern, Stamp, Morton[edit]

Hi Zero, I've commented on the talk page. I can't shed any real light on this, as my wife's grandmother had already been taken out of the flat when Stern was shot, so is not in a position to assess who is telling the truth here. I can find the Black article online, but Guardian articles before 1999 are archived behind a paywall so I cannot access it.RolandR (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


Would you mind taking a look at this section of WP:RS? Its been without a response for a pretty long time. Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

1929 Palestine riots is being discussed at AE[edit]

Hello Zero0000. I notice that you were part of the discussion on this article. Currently it's at AE, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Oncenawhile. Though the AE has not mentioned you at all, if you choose to do so, it would be helpful if you would add your own comment just to explain what this whole dispute is about. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"I do not have a personal connection, either by family, descent, or religion, with the people and places I write about in Wikipedia."[edit]

I believe you; thousands wouldn't. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

1847 in Jurasalem[edit]

I actually found that there was case of blood libel in 1847 [6] here is more descriptive account [7] do you have this book?It maybe included in blood libel article.--Shrike (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of maps[edit]

Hi Zero0000,

You made a few comments regarding Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in wikipedia articles. I have added some new material and would appreciate yopur comments. Martinvl (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Given your objection[edit]

Given your objection of 13:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC) to a particular editor who's decorating his user page with a selective quotation from one of your comments, perhaps you might like to search AN/I for "19:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)" where the same editor is again citing the same passage. His choice to again use your comment as some kind testimonial or blanket refutation of bias seems very poor practice, given that you'd already objected to such use. The more so, still, since the comments you made are largely about his misuse of sources to push a POV, which is precisely the same thing he stands accused of in the AN/I thread. --OhioStandard (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)  page temporarily watchlisted


Could please explain why it not reliable.Routlege is academic press house as far as I know.--Shrike (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a popular tertiary source that can't be relied on for details. The information it provides is severely constrained by the format (only room for a few sentences on each topic) so it is simplified way too much for our purposes. You can see it yourself in this page where it says the Arabs were killed by the police, but in every detailed account you will find that both the police and military were responsible (there is no dispute over that at all). This encyclopedia wrote "police" instead of "police and military" because it was simpler and took up less space. We should be basing Wikipedia articles on sources that are more detailed than our own article, not on sources that are simplified to a level well below our article. Zerotalk 15:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


No need to apologize and I apologize to you for casting dispersion over your research methods.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Zero0000. You have new messages at AnkhMorpork's talk page.
Message added 10:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ankh.Morpork 10:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And another.Ankh.Morpork 23:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)




Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Zero0000. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Time_magazine_article_of_1941.
Message added 12:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


Hello Zero. I'm trying to do things properly here, though I'm a novice at Wiki. However, I have the information someone has asked for about the slope of the hill at Nazareth. The allegation is that the information is fabricated. Please see talk pages of Guy Macon and Sean Hoyland. I'll send the scan to whoever wants to see it. Thank youRenejs (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Zero0000. You have new messages at Al Ameer son's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Could you send me Israeli rights group blasts army over boy's death. Reuters News, 14:38, 14 November 2001.? Also see User:Nableezy/sandbox. Ive re-written most of it, pretty much everything before the "According to B'tselem's report" in the B'tselem section is new. nableezy - 16:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In your mailbox. Zerotalk 02:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


I have wanted to update User:Huldra/HA with the Syrian places, alas, I have a problem in that I don´t have any good maps over the area. Do you know of any (online)? More specifically, now, the place Najran, it the one mentioned on p.218? An alternative is to find my way to the Department of Geography here (still don´t know where it is, but there is one!), and hopefully they have some good maps. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Check your mail. Cheers. Zerotalk 10:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Not as good as Palestine/Israel1942-59 -maps, but fine enough to identify the HA-places. Which is all I need, Cheers, and thanks again! Huldra (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello Zero, is it possible to email the Hutteroth map to me as well? Thanks a lot! Yazan (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but I need your email address. If you send me mail using the link on the left, I'll reply with the map. Zerotalk 08:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am in some doubt about Al-Hirak, Syria, I wonder if it is a case like Beit Sahour; that the modern town encompass two old villages. In this case al-Harak al-Garbi and Harak as-Sarqi, that is: mz46 and mz51, both on p. 213 in HA. I am using maps Souida200K and ni-37-13-as_suwayda-syria-jordan. Care to take a look? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the grid references (Levant grid) given by HA place Harak as-Sarqi at the center of modern al-Hirak, and al-Harak al-Garbi 2km to the west. Don't Garbi and Sarqi mean West and East? I forget. I don't know if the modern city is large enough to include the al-Harak al-Garbi site; maybe Google Earth will tell. I just found that I have access to two editions of the 1:50,000 Levant map that HA refer to, but only on paper. I'll take a look next week if I can. Meanwhile, I think it is fine to report that HA list those two villages, without stating anything explicit about how they are related to the modern city. Zerotalk 07:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks!
Just for comparison: Baqa al-Gharbiyye is the western (inside -48) while Baqa ash-Sharqiyya is the "eastern" (inside -67). I leave it until you have had a chance to check about Al-Hirak. Both al-Harak al-Garbi and Harak as-Sarqi are 7+-places. If you are going to check; could you also take a look at Al-Harra, Syria (≈mz1, p. 207) and Tell Shihab? They both give me a head-ache....
Also, eventually, I think we should also do the Jordan-1596-villages; when you look at an article like Huwwarah (=likely a 1596-village), one can see it is needed. Alsas, for that we need the Jordan-maps...Hint, hint. (No hurry: it is not exactly as if I am running out of work!) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I have the Jordan 250K maps used by HA. Busy downloading and joining... I'll be sending you a new map collection in a few days. Zerotalk 09:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I got distracted, but how is the map-project going? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, there seems to be a mixup between Tuqu' and Tekoa (ancient town). Should not the 1596-data go into Tuqu'? And I´m not sure it should be 2 articles, Kh. Tuqu is clearly part of Tuqu'? Huldra (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


I am not sure what is going on but I don't think its improvement.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your latest removal in list of Jewish villiages depopulated[edit]

Huaran was an area that had been depopulated (including 8 villages) Naharaim and Tal Or miss the info on the English wikipedia but have that info in the hebrew wikipedia (and I add reliable source in the comment).

Huaran have that info in the page itself. (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your English is so bad that your edits are almost incomprehensible. You should desist. Zerotalk 18:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
As you suggested I stop for a while (also reverted allmy work here in order not to trouble the other editors). (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Rs in Huaran page[edit]

I checked with the RS from Golan page and it stated the same "n 1921–1930, during the French Mandate, the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PICA) obtained the deeds to the Rothschild estate and continued to manage it, collecting rents from the Arab peasants living there.[57] In 1944, the Syrian Land Settlement Campaign refused to recognize the foreign owned PICA as the legal owners of the land and the Syrian government confiscated it without compensation on the grounds that "it was contrary to Syrian policy to allow Jews to own land in Syria."[57] The JNF still lays claim to the land.[57]" , in the edit you have reverted that but why ? (the book stated in 1944 and not between 1944 and 1948) (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't even give the same page number, so why does that make your edit valid? In any case the Golan page misquotes Fishbach as well and I'll fix it. Zerotalk 18:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)[edit]

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


Hi Zero0000,

Regarding this, it is indeed what they claim but in no case, it should be in that article and they don't make the link. I don't know if you read this book but the authors don't make any comment on the fact it was a 12-people unit. That is not much to claim the intent of perpetrating a genocide. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Zero0000. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 01:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Possible error[edit]

Hey Zero!

I was wondering whether you meant to make this edit. Your edit summary says "rm cat, no support for this in the article," but as far as I could tell, you did not remove a category. Instead, you added information to the "part of." While I don't object to the edit, I'm wondering whether you meant to make this, or something else. Thanks. --Jethro B 23:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted now, but then reverted that, writing that something strange is going on. What's happening? In my window, it appears that you reverted after I notified you about this, and then self-reverted that b/c of something strange. Is there a bug maybe with your editing window? I've been having some Wiki problems as well. --Jethro B 02:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Just got your message on my talk page, I'll respond there. --Jethro B 02:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


I know man; it is my way of attracting attention to some mistakes... Thank and best wishes. --E4024 (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: image[edit]

A wikimedia administrator will remove the image if the source isn't reliable. Until then, the image stays.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012[edit]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ankh.Morpork 14:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification of impending report[edit]

Did you read the policy pages WP:BURDEN and WP:Consensus that I referred you to? I suggest you also read WP:PERSONAL, since I see at Talk:League of Nations mandate a large number of personal insults directed at other editors. In my opinion as a Wikipedia administrator for many years, you have broken the rules beyond the point where action should be taken to prevent you from continuing. I very much dislike filing reports against other editors, but that's what I'm going to do if you don't start obeying the rules. Zerotalk 22:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but I know these rules. Futhermore, I didn't insult anyone in the talk. But, if you realy read this talk, you will see other editors say that I was "racist", "arabophob", "extremist", just because I was not agree with they... We can not have serious discussion with people like you. And now you threaten me because you think that I "insult" somebody? Well, where? Maybe because I'm not agree with you? I hope you're jocking...
Whatever, this discussion doesn't interest me. I prefer to speak in the Talk:League of Nations mandate --FireJeff (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
"You obsession to invent a right for Arabs reveals your malicious purpose" and similar remarks are personal attacks. You can criticise an argument that someone makes, or a source that they bring, but you cannot charge someone with malicious purposes. Meanwhile, since you think David Singer should be cited and the ICJ not cited, you should also read WP:NPOV, which is one of the core policies of Wikipedia that you are severely violating. Zerotalk 09:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, don't you read Gotip's speech? It was clearly antisemitic, speaking about "zionism conspiracy" (like "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion"). He said that my opinion was "absurd" and "extremist", that my sources were "extremists", "racists, "obsessed with Arabs", "an genocidal mania", and "an absurdum narrative", making me pass to arabophobe (or islamophobe).
So, don't try to be the "devil's advocate". I just answer to Gotip's attacks, which are forbidden by wikipedia rules! Gotip's purpose is clear : he want to remove the Jewish right to create a Jewish State in Palestine, and gives this right to the Arabs (named today "Palestinians"), by using Arab propaganda close to Hamas and Hezbollah. This means the destruction of Israel. How can you believe people like this?
Futhermore, if you read the article, you will see that the ICJ is quoted (Paragraph 70 in the ICJ Advisory Opinion, July 9, 2004).
Regards --FireJeff (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Gotip crossed the line too, that much I agree with. Many editors don't know how to handle serious rule violators and start misbehaving themselves. Oh, and read WP:OWN too. It is really quite impossible that your fringe version of this matter can stick in the article. Sooner or later it will reflect the mainstream view in accordance with the rules. If someone (like me) files a report against you, you don't have a chance. This is my honest opinion based on more than 10 years of experience. You should give up. Zerotalk 11:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I saw that you remove the original article to yours. But if you can't accept a wiki's article with only the Eli Hertz's analysis, I can't accept an article with only you're opinion. You said before that you will rewrite the article to add my sources, but you change nothing!!! Your modification didn't say that somes sources prove Palestine was not a Class A mandate, which is a "sui generis" mandate (in comparison with Syria, Libanon, Mesopotamia), where paragraph 4 of Article 22 was not applied... Futhermore, you don't respect wiki's rules, because you threaten me to impose your biase opinion. Well, it's not working. And I will never accept your biased article, with only the anti-israeli opinion. Because of this, the neutrality of the article is still disputed, and I will add my sources soon as possible. --FireJeff (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Workshop on Wikipedia and the Middle East[edit]

Hi Zero0000, I noticed that you edit a lot of articles about the Middle East and I'm organising a workshop for a group of researchers from the University of Oxford and the American University of Sharjah, about representation of the Middle East and North Africa region on Wikipedia. We held a workshop in Cairo for Wikipedians in October 2012 to discuss barriers to participation on Arabic Wikipedia. Our next workshop will be taking place in Amman, Jordan on the 26th-27th January 2013. We have funds to pay for participants' travel, accommodation and food. This workshop will concentrate more specifically on the representation of parts of the MENA region on Wikipedia and the ability of local editors to contribute to those representations. We are therefore looking for participants who edit articles about the MENA region (can be places, local historical or current events, local people etc.) We wanted to invite you because we noticed you have been involved in editing about contentious topics in the region and would really value your input. If you want to know more about this workshop, please contact me on Many thanks, Clarence (Project Manager)--OIIOxford (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mandatory Palestine[edit]

Please comment on that. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


hi, I always press on the signature icon after I write. Maybe it doesn't always work. I think I saw your comment on the Yevusi/Jebusite. would you like to discuss that?--Michal 23:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zahav511 (talkcontribs)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Masada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parthian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Relaible source noticeboard[edit]

Discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue which may interest you -- (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Nation source[edit]

Does it possible that you will send me the source?Thank you--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the source very interesting read.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hans Kohn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brit Shalom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi Zero0000,

While it doesn't say the exact year anywhere I looked, it is certainly either 2009 or 2010.

Hope that helps. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 01:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the road that you pointed to on Google Maps also exists in Amudanan, but maybe I didn't understand correctly? Is the Google Maps pointer you provided the exact road, or just the area? Anyway, it's possible that parts of the map are not from the same date, but judging by major infrastructure projects in the country that appear on the map, it's somewhere between February 2009 (Road 431) and December 1, 2010 (Carmel Tunnels). Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 13:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok I see. Do you know when that road was built? I think the explanation might be that there is a larger delay for small changes. I guess someone with knowledge of how the Israel Mapping Center operates might know more. In Jerusalem specifically, the map is from at least from May 2007 because it includes Jerusalem Road 9. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 13:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's the right way to check, because the road is clearly very minor and might not be marked on maps. I have print maps of Jerusalem at 1:11,000 from all the recent years, and this road was first marked in a 2008 map, even though it was clearly there before (it's there in Google's 2003 satellite photos, for example). If it's really important, I think a good solution is to send a query to the Jerusalem municipality. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 14:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Might you consider closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Whittleman?[edit]

As it happens, this is the very last AfD Discussion that still open that started before the ball dropped for the New Year!

More importantly, there seems to be a rough consensus, and it's kind of obvious if you take a look at the Article under discussion. It is precisely because you never commented in the Discussion that you are an appropriate candidate for Closing Admin. So, could you close this debate? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Needs more time after relisting. Zerotalk 07:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, so a full week after that last Relisting will be Tuesday, 15 January 2013. Somehow, I doubt it will be Relisted a 4th time, but waiting until Tuesday is indeed appropriate. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Another Admin closed it as "No consensus," so this is now a moot point. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:MountOlives2maps.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:MountOlives2maps.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

1596 info request[edit]

Hey Zero, just started an article on the village of Tasil in the Hauran. Was wondering if you had the Hutteroth and Abdulfattah book. If so could you add the 1596 village info to the article? I think it's spelled "Tsil" in the Ottoman records. If you don't have the book, thanks anyway. Normally I would ask Huldra, but it looks like she's on a wikibreak. Regards, --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

p211, I'll add it. The name is shown as "Burd (dir nazd Tasil)". Do you know what that means? Zerotalk 01:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't know what that phrasing means, unfortunately. Try checking page page 198 mz13 for Tsil part of Nahia Jawlan Sharqi. I found the page number off Huldra's listing here. Thanks again. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zero000, whenever you have time, could you add the 1596 info to Qarfa? It looks to be part of Nahia Bani Malik al-Asraf, mz1 page 212. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:MtOlives1968.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:MtOlives1968.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough[edit]

At the arbitration enforcement page concerning Rich Farmbrough, you (and others) wrote things like " There is no ban on "writing something offline for copying into Wikipedia". Sorry, it just doesn't say that." While there is obvious disagreement about that, the thing is that this isn't even the issue here. Rich Farmbrough has claimed that he just used Excel to sort a few things, but this is patently untrue. He used a script (macro, bot, whatever) to make this long table, inserting multiple otherwise unexplainable errors in it (his "empty lines in the csv" claim makes no sense at all, that doesn't cause Excel sorting to introduce wrong reference indications or makes it loose every sub-item). He didn't simply use excel for sorting, he used automation bug time on this edit, and screwed it up big time as well. Fram (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one[edit]

Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved and ready[edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

    • Then go to
    • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
    • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
    • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
  • If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at and, second, email along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email failure: Will resend codes[edit]

Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two[edit]

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email success: Codes resent[edit]

Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasi t | c 21:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

elHuseeni connection to the plan to mass murder the jews in palesinte[edit]

could you answer in the talk page of Haj Amin el-Husseini please ? I do think that information adds to the article as it referenced in several sources and have information that is missing in that page in English (this information does exists in the he Wikipedia) Ao5318 (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two question[edit]

Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could place the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Judges[edit]

Could you give me your mind about this ? Many thanks.Pluto2012 (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Your incredible hypocrisy viz. personal attacks[edit]

So after accusing me of personal attacks, you then launch several against me claiming that I can't read, and posting phony edit summaries, and that I should take a vacation. Unfortunately for you, I won't take a hike, while your hypocrisy speaks for itself. As does your failure to engage in conversations regarding the edits that you disagree with.

If you want to engage in dialogue and justify your opinions, here is the place.Wikieditorpro (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Request Your POV Concerning Your Conduct Recently[edit]

Is it appropriate to state that a user does not "know how to read?"

Is it appropriate to state that a user has "behavioral problems?"

Is is appropriate to tell a Wikipedia editor that they are "ruining their reputation" or that they should "take a break?"

Is there any preference for using sources with actual quotes?

If it is your own personal preference do you acknowledge that your edit was based on WP:DONTLIKEIT?

Is it acceptable to repeatedly defend your edit by placing the onus on the other person despite you yourself not having provided any reason for it except WP:DONTLIKEIT (thus violating WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY)?

Is it appropriate to use the most liberal translation available when dealing with biographical pages as per WP:BLP?

Is it appropriate to prefer out of context quote when dealing with a WP:BLP?

Is it appropriate to quote a paragraph verbatim but to change four words so to give it a different meaning?

Is it appropriate to retain the (distorted) text once it has been pointed out?

Does a consensus between two (clearly partisan) editors allow one to avoid having to give reasons for edits, or in and of itself avoid having to change distorted text?

Do you accept that those actions could be construed as using Wikipedia to promote certain ideological points of view?

Is it acceptable to continually threaten a user?

Is it acceptable to assume that a user is citing a source in order to promote extremist propaganda?

Is is acceptable to use all the above tactics to create a hostile environment on Wikipedia?

Do you agree that reasonable interpretation of those words and actions over the last few days is that you as a administrator were attempting to bully and intimidate an amateur and infrequent editor whose views you disagree with to leave Wikipedia?

This is an attempt at dispute resolution and I look forward to discussing this further with you. Wikieditorpro (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[edit]

You probably right that the user should have been blocked but you are WP:INVOLVED in the area.The best course of action IMO is rise the issue at WP:AN/I--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No one ever posts this kind of message on ClueBot NG's page. With 2,068,543 edits it must be one of the most involved users here by now. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Shrike is technically correct, although I didn't edit any of those articles in the past 3 years. However, since both "sides" were reverting it (Soosim as well as Sean) and there is no way any reasonable person would consider that that type of disruption was a normal content dispute, I chose to not waste another administrator's time with a no-brainer. Call me lazy, but the result would have been the same if I took the long route. There was also an overriding WP:BLP concern, eg this. Zerotalk 22:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests[edit]

Hi, I'm contacting you because you have recently contributed as a reviewing administrator to WP:AE. I've made a suggestion relating to the management of that page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Structural improvements to AE threads, and would appreciate your input. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zero, Thanks for your comments about my edit of the Zangwill page. I have changed the reference to reflect a better source for the quotation as follows: "This passage is quoted on page 131 of Theodore Roosevelt and the Idea of Race by Thomas G.Dyer 1980 Louisiana State University Press (Paperback edition 1992). A footnote shows the letter to have been written on November 27, 1912. This letter is held in the Roosevelt Collection, Library of Congress." I hope this is better (and that this is a good place to leave this message for you)Bkesselman (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Beit Liqya[edit]

zero - i am confused by your successive reverts on this page. don't they violate the wp:1rr? Soosim (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three[edit]

Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Israelophobia for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Israelophobia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israelophobia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talkcontribs) 04:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia finds mysterious typo that created a clandestine Jewish immigrant ship[edit]

Relates to the Hebrew Wikipedia, but I thought you might find it interesting. Dlv999 (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Francium hydroxide[edit]

It may no longer be relevant, but I've just noticed elsewhere your concerns about the solubility of FrOH. Your extract says Fr remains in solution when sodium hydroxide is added, therefore FrOH must be soluble since otherwise it would precipitate (it would be astonishing if it wasn't soluble, but that is OR) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Coordinate precision[edit]

Hi Zero0000,

While I can understand where you're coming from, indeed I was aiming at a building, which would be in accordance with the guideline you mentioned. If Google Maps isn't that precise then it's another problem altogether—maybe we should be using another service which is more precise and it's easy to center on specific buildings (Amudanan's maps aren't detailed enough for that). Still, since one of the main uses for these coordinates is for people to be able to click on the link and get a location on Google Maps (or OSM, Bing Maps, etc.), I think there is room to leave it like it is.

In any case I don't think we should go around changing these coordinates unless there's a good reason to change them.

Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 11:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Request to check information[edit]

Hi Zero0000, could you please give me your mind about this information about al-Qassam ? That seems dubious to me. Thank you, Pluto2012 (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"According to Shai Lachman, between 1921 and 1935 al-Qassam often cooperated with Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. They were on good terms, and al-Qassam's various official appointments required the mufti's prior consent. He suggests their cooperation increased after the 1929 riots, in which one source claims al-Qassam's men were active. The two fell out in the mid-thirties, perhaps due to al-Qassam's independent line of activism.[1] When the Mufti rejected his plans to divert funding marked down for mosque repairs towards the purchase of weaponry, Qassam found support in the Arab Nationalist Istiqlal Party. Qassam continued his attempts to forge an alliance with the Mufti in order to attack the British. He was not successful for the Mufti, who headed the Supreme Muslim Council, was still committed to a diplomatic approach at the time. Qassam went ahead with his plans to attack the British on his own.
  1. ^ Lachman 1982, pp. 75–76.
Hi Zero,
Is there a book that you would not have ? I was not expecting that you would have the book. So, I didn't ask you to check this. The book is on googlebooks anyway. I wonder if the information is reliable. Morris (in "Victims.") doesn't mention any collaboration between al-Husseini and al-Qassam. Shai Lachman suggests the contrary. Who follows the mainstream point of view ? And who is Shai Lachman by the way ? How can we trust him ?
Many thanks,
Pluto2012 (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, good question. Shai Lachman was a PhD student at the time his article was published, and seems to have then vanished from academia. However the place of publication and the existence of a fair number of citations in serious places would make a WP:RS challenge difficult. Looking at the text, the first sentence "often cooperated" is not supported anyway; Lachman does not say that, but only what is in the following sentence. The sentence "He suggests..." is pure speculation; he actually writes "may well have increased" with no evidence whatever and then adds "this is not confirmed in other sources" which we should include if we include anything (I suggest we don't). I checked lots of sources and did not find any claim of cooperation during the 1920s. Some specific comments on Lachman:

  • "Standard Zionist accounts deny the national and radical social content of the Qassamite movement and the Arab Revolt and describe the peasant rebels as gangs of bandits, rioters, or terrorists", with reference to Lachman. Joel Beinin, Workers and Peasants in the Modern Middle East, p97.
  • (Referring to 1930s): "It was and remains controversial to what extent the Mufti supported these individuals and organizations, even if covertly." Footnote: "Lachman (1982), pp. 57- 59, postulates this without evidence". Kramer, History of Palestine. p259.
  • "Official public Zionist treatment of Qassam has remained consistently and relentlessly antagonistic. Israeli historian Shai Lachman's study of Qassam exemplifies the academic version of the party line. ... Shaykh Qassam's movement, Lachman concludes, was "the first Arab terrorist movement in Palestine". Given the West's ongoing panics about terrorism, such a designation is a potent means of disqualifying the Palestinian past." Swedenburg, Memories of Revolt, pp 11–12.

Zerotalk 13:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Zero0000. That's quite clear.
I understand now why Morris doesn't mention this in 'Victims'.
History without documents ! Yoav and Benny should not be happy ! ;-) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pluto2012 (talkcontribs) 07:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi Zero000, just curious if you know anything about the situation of Dhinnaba and Shweikah, two villages/suburbs of Tulkarm, or if you have any sources on the matter? It seems that Dhinnaba was previously its own village, but was later absorbed by Tulkarm either officially or unofficially. There are no demographic stats on the village in the PCBS censuses of '97 and '07. Same with Shuweikah. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Both were separate villages. PEF map: Shuweikeh to the north, Dennabeh to the east. 1931 census and 1940s topo: Shuweika, Dannaba. 1967 Israeli census (do you have it?) Shuweika, Dannab. Dannaba was annexed to Tulkarm in 1964, Shuweika in 1967 (under Jordanians). Village of Irtah also annexed. I'll send you a paper about it tomorrow. Shuweika at least has enough material for an article I think. Zerotalk 05:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Zero, as always you've come through ;) Yes, please send me that source. There's a decent amount of info on Dhinnaba as well, so maybe we could create an article for each of those villages, including Irtah—if we could find material about it. Of course, we would also incorporate some information about them in the Tulkarm article itself. This seems to be similar to the Jabaliya-Nazla situation. I don't have any of the pre-2005 Israeli censuses. Anyway, thanks again. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I have given some sources on Talk:Tulkarm#3_villages, could you please send me the paper, too? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Already sent.. Zerotalk 19:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Got it, thanks! (Should have checked my mail first ; ) ) Huldra (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverted text from Fatah[edit]

Hello, why did you remove the edits I made here? This isn't a matter of opinion, but facts. Yambaram (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC[edit]

A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Overprecise coordinates[edit]

I've seen you trying to make coordinates a bit more sensible over the years. Just in case you haven't seen it, there's a bot to fix overprecise coordinates now. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it is too precise: about 10 cm for degrees, 30 cm for d-m-s. The tools generally available (like Google maps) do not even provide that degree of accuracy and what sense does it make to locate a village within 30 cm? Zerotalk 01:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Street signs in article[edit]

Greetings, Zero0000. I agree that simple street signs add nothing to the article Hadassah medical convoy massacre. But these are no simple street signs. They contain biographical information (translated in the photo caption) which provides a relible source corroborating the information in the article text. ("A picture tells a thousand words" kinda thing!) I hope you will agree that these are no mere street signs. (We take our street signs very seriously, here.) I also repositioned one photo to place it nearer the relevant text in all screen sizes. Kind regards --@Efrat (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I still don't think they add much. More like trivia. Zerotalk 08:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you can argue the point of trivia with regards to the photo of the "Haim Yasky Street" sign. It merely lends photgraphic evidence to the last sentence of the article, which is, in any case, properly referenced. But the rationale for the "Ha Ayin Het Street" sign is much more meaningful. There are varying numbers of killed in different sources: Laurens, La Question de Palestine-76, Encyclopaedia Britannica-77, Hadassah Medical Center-78, The Jewish Chronical-80. Considering the years-long vetting process for naming streets in Jerusalem, I would expect the street sign to be the most well researched and the officially agreed upon number. To complicate the issue, the number 78 refers specifically to Jews as can be seen in the Hebrew writing of the memorial plaque. 78 does not include the 1 British soldier! But he is mentioned in the article text based on other sources. --@Efrat (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't agree that a road sign is a reliable source for anything except the name of the street. Who is the author of this information? Also the severe space limitation on a sign means that no subtleties or caveats can be presented. Zerotalk 11:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't give you the name of the author (actually team of authors). They were part of various committees of both the "Israel Department of Transportation" and the "Municipal Government of Jerusalem". These are not signs put up by people in the neighborhood. They were officially sanctioned after years of deliberation. If you disgree with the details which appear on the signs, then you have a healthy disdain for government, as do I! But there it is. Kind regards. --@Efrat (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Neither the Department of Transport nor the Jerusalem municipal government are authorities on historical questions. Which historians did they consult? Zerotalk 12:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

They base their decisions after consulting with well known historians such as Meron Benvenisti and Benzion Netanyahu. (Please don't ask me at this time for the specific names of people connected to the signs in question.) The committees which choose street names don't make these decisions without thorough research. The process takes several years. As of late, Justice Jacob Turkel presides over the municipality's committee. As a judge, he is in the habit of listening to all views and verifying the veracity of all claims. The street signs in the article have existed for many years and I am prepared to accept them as is. I would, in the meantime, like to back up a few steps and say that showing photos of things which commemorate the event described in the article is reason enough to justify their inclusion. Maybe they don't add much, but they do add something. Wikipedia's Manual of Style on Images states that images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal. Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: finalising drafts[edit]

Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.

So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.

Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by the end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Usurpation of identity ?[edit]


This gentleman is assumed to be editor of the Middle East Quatterly. Isn't this an usurpation of identity ? Pluto2012 (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step four[edit]

Hello everyone. We are now at step four of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, where we will decide the details of the RfC implementation. This is the home stretch - the RfC proper will begin as soon as we have finished this step. Step four is also less complicated than the previous steps, as it is mostly about procedural issues. This means it should be over with a lot more quickly than the previous steps. There are some new questions for you to answer at the discussion page, and you can see how the RfC is shaping up at the RfC draft page. Also, when I say that this step should be over with a lot quicker than the previous steps, I mean it: I have set a provisional deadline of Monday, 20th May for responses. I'm looking forward to seeing your input. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: final countdown[edit]

Hello again, everyone. I have now closed all the questions for step four, and updated the RfC draft. We are scheduled to start the Jerusalem RfC at 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC). Before then, I would like you to check the draft page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and see if there are any errors or anything that you would like to improve. If it's a small matter of copy editing, then you can edit the page directly. If it's anything that might be contentious, then please start a discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#The final countdown. I'll check through everything and then set the RfC in motion on Thursday. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC has started[edit]

Hello again everyone. We have finally made it - the RfC is now open, and a few editors have chimed in already. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I'm sure you don't actually need me to tell you this, but please go over there and leave your comments. :) You are the editors most familiar with the Jerusalem lead dispute on Wikipedia, so it would be very useful for the other participants to see what you have to say. And again, thank you for all your hard work in the discussions leading up to this. We shall reconvene after the results of the RfC have been announced, so that we can work out any next steps we need to take, if necessary. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

==Good Job!== (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


My interest is in the fairness and accuracy of the content. I believe it stems when on another thread at YouTube, I claimed that Palestinians are not in themselves to blame for the camps, that Israel is responsible for two. My adversary quoted the Wiki article to claim that is not so. I am intimately familiar with the history and the camps, and knew that wasn't correct, I have met people from there. But my personal knowledge is not good source. I have repeatedly politely posted sources after source on the talk page of Mcnary1948, who I suspect based on the sudden creation of the account, was my adversary in the aforementioned discussion on YouTube. I suspect based on the comments I have received that from the party (s)he is more interested in having my account terminated that any actual search for the "truth".

1948 Arab–Israeli War - British Diplomacy[edit]

I would like to hear your opinion , concerning the 1948_Arab–Israeli_War - British Diplomacy. During the latest editing of "Peel Commission" and "Flapan - Golda Meir" we succeeded in having objective discussion, in which I have not hesitated to apologize . So it seems strange for me the difference between us concerning the British Diplomacy issue (Exclusive of the British policy inside Palestine). BTW I wrote about yours Golani Article . Ykantor (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice[edit]

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Tendentious editing at The Exodus. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

First Intifada[edit]

I see you have a huge history here, and have been around for 11 years. Thanks for all the hard work!

I just wanted to stress the latter half of my edit comment: that an equally concise, yet more truthful comment could be placed there. But to call the entire event unarmed, would be misleading.

The article itself said that the first death of the "official" event was a young boy who was killed father throwing a petrol bomb. And I don't know if you've seen videos of the rock throwing during protests, but it wouldn't be technically considered "armed" (which would be equally misleading), and it also definitely wouldn't be considered "unarmed".

The inclusion of the "unarmed" phrase is charged, and significant in portraying context....a context that isn't upheld throughout the rest of the article.

Just as well, there were armed attacks on the civilian population of both sides using weapons. Whether they were limited or not might add value to the description, im not sure, but it could very well be a more valuable and valid replacement ("was a largely unarmed uprising"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widgety Function (talkcontribs) 10:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A little help to conclude[edit]

Hi, we need to discuss objections here or here, or conclude/vote here, thanks. --Krauss (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC: breakdown of results[edit]

Hello again everyone. Now that the Jerusalem RfC has been closed and there has been time for the dust to settle, I thought it would be a good time to start step six of the moderated discussion. If you could leave your feedback over at the discussion page, it will be most appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Operation ATLAS[edit]

Hello Zero0000,

I am not familiar with this event but the text doesn't sound neutral, focusing very much on al-Husseini. Could you have a look and give your mind about this ?

Thank you, Pluto2012 (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems ok : [8] unless Bar Zohar is the only source. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Or not : this may be the original source...
Pluto2012 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have long been doubtful about many of the alleged details of this story. Something indeed happened, but what exactly? About a year ago I asked the UK National Archives for a copy of the file, but they wanted about 250 pounds for it so I gave up. Meanwhile, this statement from no-nonsense historian Wolfgang G. Schwanitz caught my attention. It is from a revue of Dalin's book: "The claim that the mufti got "ten containers with poison" to kill a quarter of a million people via the water system of Tel Aviv in exchange for the five Palestinian paratroopers in late 1944 (61) is not substantiated in British or German sources. If the authors can now show really hard proof, this would be a discovery, since the British police report of 1944 on file is very detailed." I suspect that the poison part of the story is from Bar Zohar only, but I didn't spend much time on this. (Jewish Social Studies, Spring 2009). Zerotalk 22:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Poison is talked about here : [9] at the last page of text but it is introduced more like a "detail" than as if it was the main target. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Request that you remove talk page interruptions of my remarks[edit]

Hi, thanks for your caring enough to comment at the POV template discussion. Later I will reply, maybe, at the thread. I am writing your here because in this edit you chopped up my comment by inserting more than one response in midstream. Per WP:TALK ("If an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted and another way to deal with the issue found.") please revise your remark by simply threading it below mine like normal. For each of your points, you can easily cross reference the letter of my paragraph to which each of your rebuttals refers.

Thanks for your attention NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, that's speedy response time! Thank you for such extra prompt attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Gary North[edit]

Wellllll...... how about a comment for the RfC? – S. Rich (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Cute grey kitten.jpg

For being such a clear eyed viewer of reality during recent contretemps!

User:Carolmooredc 19:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Arab leaders, although willing to accept a last-minute American proposal and delay the invasion, had to give in to Abdullah[edit]

will it be possible for you to have a look at the reasons to delete this sentence:"The Arab leaders, although willing to accept a last-minute American proposal and delay the invasion, had to give in to Abdullah" .

This the Diff page of this sentence insertion, together with a supporting cite.

I will accept your decision without argument ( I would like to know the reasons of course). Thanks. Ykantor (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]


Official notification language:

==Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion==
This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Rujm el-Hiri: in 'Israeli-administered' or 'Israeli-occupied' Golan?.
Thank you.

Explanation: We've had a good faith discussion about the use of 'occupied' vs. 'administered' when applied to Golan, e.g. in the 'Rujm el-Hiri' article, and it's clear we're not going to reach consensus. Although we've been able to work out many other difference while working on other articles , we're not achieving anything productive by becoming adversarial on this argument over a single word. I and several other editors have expressed our case that 'occupy' used in this context is aggressively prejudicial, arguably misleading, and divisively offensive. You and several other editors have consistently rejected every aspect of that case, and have argued that it's important to retain this specific word and the article link. I'm sure we all agree that dialog and dialectic are beneficial, though 'contradiction' is only entertaining in a Monty Python sketch. Accordingly, I've created a new section on Neutral point of view/Noticeboard about this issue. Four editors have been named in the posting: you, Nableezy, Tiamut, and Supreme Deliciousness. The section may be accessed via

Of course I invite you and all others to make your own case and look forward to seeing your edits. It will be interesting to see how this gets decided.

Let's hope for a final settlement on this particular intellectual-territorial dispute soon and return to fruitful collective labor. :-)

Ronreisman (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Kfar Etzion massacre- 'after their surrender'[edit]

concerning "Kfar Etzion massacre after their surrender" ,I will appreciate it, if you decide whether the term "after their surrender" is correct. Moreover, what is your opinion concerning this discussion? thanks Ykantor (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

15 May - 30 may situation map[edit]

Hi Zero0000,

Ykantor convinced a contributor to draw this map, which is a great improvement in comparison with the former one : [10]

I see many mistakes. I think it's worth gathering all minds before asking the designer to make corrections. Would you have a few minutes for help ?

What I am sure of :

  • Ramla and Lydda were located in the territory allocated to the Arab state, not the contrary
  • Yishuv troops occupied territory along the coast up to the Lebanon (kibbutz of Anita).
  • The size of the Syrian pocket north of Tiberiade should be removed
  • Gaza should be in green
  • the continuity between the coastal plain and Jerusalem should be removed - it was blocked again end of April
  • south of Eilat should be in blue :-)

What I wonder :

  • After operation Yiftah, I don't think that ALA occupied territories allocated to the Jewish State in Galilea.
  • Same regarding the coastal plain. I think front line followed the "separation line" of the Partition plan (on 15 May)
  • Caesaria is much more at North as well as Hadera ; they are both unsignificant.
  • this map is complex : West Bank area should be removed
  • Egyptian army followed 2 parallel lines ; the didn't enter from Gaza there separated in two armies with a part driving back after Hebron (???)

Thx, Pluto2012 (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Many of your notes are correct
  • Concerning colors: The Map is actually composed of of 2 maps- as of June 1948 and the other map for the armistice period. Hence the different colors for the Gaza strip and the west bank.
  • the continuity between the coastal plain and Jerusalem: This is a rather vague point. At the 26 May the Hagana occupied 2 Arab villages, and thus a continuum was created. However, it was not worth much, since there was no road there. Within a couple of weeks The Burma Road (Israel) was built there. The main obstacle was a 2 km section of rocky and steep slope, in which porters and moles were used. Temporary water and fuel pipes were built in this section. The road became fully operational at 10 June 1948. Ykantor (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a similar map on page 184 of Morris 1948, labeled "May-June 1948". To a large extent it is very similar. One difference is that the area of Israel control on the north coast extends to the border (Kibbutz Hanita was taken in May). Also some of the dates differ, the largest discrepancy is the Iraqi incursion: the map says 15/05 but Morris' map says 22-23/5. Also Morris shows the Iraqi incursion ending north of Qalqilya, not passing through Qalqilya. Zerotalk 10:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the territory near Lebanon, the situation is rather vague. The Haganah occupied this territory during the "Ben Ami" operation, brought a 3 months supply to a couple of Kibbutz's , evacuated their children, and retreated to Naharia, in an anticipation of an imminent Lebanese invasion. Hence the zone was a no man land for a while. Ykantor (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hanita kibbutz is at a few hundred meters from the border, not to say on it. It is just North of Naharia. And it was a military center. Fosh was created there. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hanita is 9 km (driving distance) to the sea. As said, the Hagana force brought 3 months supply to the Kibbutz, evacuated their children and left in the same day. Ykantor (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

History of Jerusalem[edit]

I see you commented on someone copying material from another article into this one. Most editors probably don't know that without clear attribution via a link to the original article this is a copyright violation. Thought you'd like to know. Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it was copied from another Wikipedia article. Sorry that wasn't clear. Zerotalk 01:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

clearly contradicts the result of the discussion[edit]

Right. ;) How did you figure it out? What is so special about this archeological site comparing to other sites in the same region? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You are almost entirely alone in your opinion at WP:NPOVN. Even the original poster agreed to "Israeli-controlled". Zerotalk 08:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Right, it is in Syria ;) Tell me who your friends are, and I'll tell you who you are... Sometimes good things do grow out of Sweden. Could you respond to the point, on the talk page? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously though, the result of the discussion is location simply as "the Golan Heights" on first mention, though more details are in some cases provided further on.. So if you do not object I will change the article accordingly. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I do object, the consensus was simply not what you say. Zerotalk 01:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I see, initially it was suggested here: I believe the best solution would be to simply state "the Golan Heights" without further description., but anyway your position is clear. AgadaUrbanit (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jerusalem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beit Guvrin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Arab Liberation Army[edit]


You collaborated to the debate about this "emblem". Would you mind giving your mind and analysis on the talk page of the article regarding this topic ? Pluto2012 (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Excavations at the Temple Mount may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • who visited the site in 1998 and claims to have been prevented from meeting Israeli officials (in his own words, "Mr Avi Shoket, Israel's permanent delegate to UNESCO, had repeatedly opposed my
  • all our estimations, are from a structure in one of the outer courtyards in the [[Holy Temple]]."{{subst:cn} Archaeologist [[Zachi Zweig]] said a tractor used to dig the trench damaged the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Nuremberg Laws[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you added a historical journal article as a source. I was wondering where you found that article, if you don't mind me asking. I would like to read it if I could. Thanks. Herzlicheboy (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You can send me mail and I'll give you a copy. Zerotalk 10:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Lebanon-Golan border[edit]

Hi Zero,

It appears to me from a number of sources that it's on the Lebanese side, but it's not certain. Maybe the official straight border passes elsewhere, but I'm sure that the border fence isn't straight and depends mostly on topography.

Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 11:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

My report[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Yambaram (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Iranian Jews[edit]

Thanks for your help. I've found best possible source for this issue: article Israel ii. Jewish Persian Community from Encyclopædia Iranica, written by Jewish professor David Yeroushalmi (NOT this one) from Tel Aviv University, leading expert on that particular topic. Article is comprehensive and updated very recently (April 5, 2012). Cheers. --HistorNE (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


Greetings, Zero0000! You recently made a minor change to Latrun. You are correct - boni instead of bonu according to proper Latin grammar. As for your comment for a better source, how about - Walter Pick's entry in the Jewish Virtual Encyclopedia. While Baraq is a Jewish Agency bureaucrat, Pick is/was a respected historian. But then Pick says domus (house), instead of castellum (castle). If I change the source to Pick, I will also change the text. I have used the Baraq source in another article and will change both depending upon your response. Regards, --@Efrat (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS ?[edit]

Any idea of who could be : "Givati, Moshe (1994). In the Path of Desert and Fire. Ma'arakhot Publishing. ISBN 965-05-0719-1" ?

According to you, is this a reliable source for events regarding the '48 war ? Pluto2012 (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a book published in Hebrew by the Ministry of Defence. I know little about it except that I see it cited occasionally (e.g., Morris and Tal). Zerotalk 01:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Renaming of List of artifacts significant to the Bible[edit]

Hi, just to let you know that we're in the third and final stage of the RM discussion at Talk:List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible#Requested_move_09_November_2013. I'm sending you this message because you participated in an earlier stage of this discussion. We'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Oncenawhile (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ho Hum ...[edit]

You've been mentioned.     ←   ZScarpia   14:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: The 1948 document[edit]

I think the confusion stems from the official and the common name for the document. As far as I know, the document is called The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (ההכרזה על הקמת מדינת ישראל), but it is commonly known as The Independence Scroll (מגילת העצמאות). I have never seen the official name spoken anywhere. —Ynhockey (Talk) 12:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: WP:RX#Yechiel of Paris (2)[edit]

Hello, Zero0000. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Casement Report[edit]

Nice work on the Casement Report, Zero0000. John M Baker (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Chricho ∀ (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
To say thanks for your help with sourcing for Hulda Stumpf, which I added today, and generally to thank you for your kindness in supplying sources whenever you can. With best wishes, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Zerotalk 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions please[edit]

Hiya! Good catch on the maps thing. I read it like two or three times and then wrote it down with reservations, but this may well have been the product of sleep deprivation. On another note, can you think of anything that could be done to improve the Tel Kabri article? I want to get it to GA status and eventually FA. I just changed the referencing system to make it more exact (Harvard style with page numbers rather than just pointing at sources), and I've a few ideas like expanding Kempinski's section (I have all of his preliminary reports now), adding a table of stratigraphy, and maybe hitting up the Kibbutz at some point for their records though my Hebrew comprehension is no longer what it once was.Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 2 Tevet 5774 19:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Tel Kabri Site Map[edit]

So here's the map from Kempinski's final report (2002; 3): For the most part we've worked in Area D. There was going to be something in Area E in 2011, but it never materialised for a number of reasons. So he only area that needs extra work from what's seen there is D. Both D and F are much larger. The placement of the trench by D is absolutely correct, by the way. -- the hideous light grey pipe you see in the photo is carrying water along the original lines of the '61 Mekorot trench. (which I didn't realise until I started editing this article). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 9 Tevet 5774 00:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

1947 Aden pogrom AfD[edit]

Just curious to know why the creator of the article wasn't notified of the AfD. Coretheapple (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Zerotalk 22:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, you're very welcome. I was as surprised by the lack of notification as I was the AfD itself, to be quite frank. Coretheapple (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Weird Japanese ip[edit]

Brilliantly weird indeed. I love the self-reverts with accusation of vandalism. Maybe we should make it an administrator so it will block itself.

Thanks, that made me laugh.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Resource exchange request - any luck?[edit]

Sorry, I don't mean to badger you, I was just wondering if you ever found Nahon's Inscriptions hébraïques et juives de France médiévale, which you kindly offered to get for me.

I'm in no rush since, as you can see at my draft page, I edit at snail's pace, but since I now have full access to the source that cites Nahon, I would very much like to compare it to the original.

Thank you very much, הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Check your email. Zerotalk 20:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Received, thank you very much. It was especially thoughtful of you to include the related entries 76-78, which I did not think of asking for. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps you should consider archiving part of your talk page - my browser gets into fits when editing it. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


You caught unsourced OR that had been in the Fundamentalism article since 2010 that the rest of us overlooked and thought was sourced. I still think this point ("A criticism of fundamentalism is the claim that fundamentalists are selective in what they believe.") needs to be brought out but it sourced from some critic of religion. Alatari (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:NPOV[edit]

Notifies you to update your comments on Template talk:NPOV#Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. since the debate continues. Thanks -- (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Suess 1967 paper[edit]

Hi -- I just noticed at WP:REX that you sent me the 1967 paper; I never received it, for some reason. Could you resend it? Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sent it again just now. Zerotalk 21:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Quote of 1st sources[edit]


I may have not understood what you wrote but per my understanding you say we can quote a 1st source, such as memoirs, if we precise according to whom it is claimed.

If this is what you say, I don't agree fully. From my point of view we cannot as automatically quote a 1st source because we don't know if what we read is notorious and representative of the feeling of the author.

The memoirs and speecheds of the Mufti are a good examples. We can find contradictions between them and the interpretation can be sometimes very strong. We should only quote 1st sources when it was checked by historians that :

  • the quote is relevant of the global thinking of the author, eg that he didn't say the exact contrary or nuanced this at other times ;
  • the thinking is notorious enough and it has enough due weight to be quoted, eg quoting somebody who once in his life said something whereas he is very notorious for many other things (eg Einstein on the Zionism).

We can quote 1st sources with full confidence if :

  • the notoriaty and the relevance is proven by a secondary source;

Else, we can quote them with high care if we have checked by ourselves the author didn't say the contrary or if we can fairly conclude it is notorious for him. We can, but this is obviously WP:OR given we didn't find the 2nd source confirming our own (maybe true) deduction.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Woodhead Commission may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [ Woodhead Commission report]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Amudanan[edit]

Hi Zero,

Thanks for the update! It looks indeed like a better map, even if it's already outdated. The map is from the Israel Mapping Center ("Survey of Israel").

I am quite certain that the map is from 2011.

Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 19:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding terms[edit]

Hi. You made changes related to the subdistricts of Mandatory Palestine so I want to tell you that the usage of the terms is discussed at Talk:Subdistricts of Mandatory Palestine#Regarding terms. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


A dispute resolution resolution request has been filed regarding an issue you have been involved with. Dlv999 (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- PLNR (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2014‎ (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --PLNR (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for action on WP:ANI board, was Archive 830 without being resolved.[11]. On a personal note, I'd like to note that I didn't held you as the sole or main responsible party for that incident, more like the "scapegoat" who enabled that string of tendentious editing by editors with long history on that arbitration case, intended to promote point of views by giving undue weight to sources/positions, through tangentially related subjects, with disregard to the article\section coverage as a whole. Hopefully it was a misunderstanding and we just started on the wrong foot and can continue to work together. --PLNR (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue was closed by Drmies with the statement: "No admin action will follow from this thread."     ←   ZScarpia   15:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Info on Metula[edit]

Hi! From a guide in Metula (Israel) I heard that starting around 1880, Jews from other parts of the world, as they were being persecuted and expelled, went to the United States and Israel. With money from wealthy Jewish families, like the Rothchilds, Montefiore, Hirsh and Turra, Jews PURCHASED land around Metula and established kibbutzim. This land was purchased from either the Turkish government or Arab families. Often times, the Arab did not want to sell to a Jew, so a middleman might be used. These early settlers were constantly being robbed by their Arab and Bedouin neighbors and hired other Arabs to guard their homes. How could I verify it? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni Turra 1 (talkcontribs) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Library Barnstar.png The Diligent Librarian Barnstar
For exemplary performance at the Resource Exchange, tirelessly delivering the reliable sources on which this encyclopedia depends, please accept this award. :) alt

miss working with you[edit]

and as i have passed along many messages today thought i would tell you that too. hope you are well and thank you for all your continuing quality contributions. Tiamuttalk 20:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi, you wrote: "Both Huldra and I have copies, feel free to ask."

Huldra left wp:en, didn't she ? Pluto2012 (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Chelo's itinerary[edit]

Hi. I have seen you and Nishidani remove mentions of Chelo's itinerary because it is a forgery. I see that he is linked from Western Wall and Victor Guérin. Perhaps you should remove that there too or the page about Guérin needs clarifying about this because of the way it is written. I don't know this case so I am just telling. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I came here with the opposite purpose. I saw you removed information from the Itinerary from at least two articles about Jewish sages. Even though the Itinerary is now considered a forgery, it is still a quoted source. Should we remove it at all? Perhaps it would be better to keep it and specify that it is now considered a forgery. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
That's a good question. My opinion is that we should remove it, since a forged itinerary has no value at all, or even a negative value since it is actively misleading. The only argument I can see is that it will keep coming back if there is no mention at all, but I don't think that's a good enough argument. Zerotalk 08:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. Quoting it makes no point at all. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Paulet-Newcombe Agreement[edit]

Hi Zero, hope you're well. I made some amendments to the Paulet-Newcombe Agreement today - in particular giving the article a new (and, hopefully you'll agree, improved) name.

I was just wondering if you have ever seen the maps from the various 1920, 1922 and 1923 agreements, which were appended to the documents? They would be an interesting addition to the border, particularly as it relates to the Blue Line and the Sea of Galilee.

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have a map of the 1920 agreement as interpreted by some British public servants; I think the agreement itself had no map, and you know the border was defined very roughly. The Golan part of that border shown in the map on that page was taken from that map after matching the description to standard maps of the time by myself and Doron. The 1923 map is much more detailed and I have several copies. Zerotalk 21:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Aha. I hadn't come acros Doron before, so wasn't sure. Btw the sourcing at File:GolanHistoricalBorders.svg doesn't mention the 1922/23 map, which made me question it originally.
I added this File:1949 Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement (png).png from 1949 to show the armistice around the area, but it's not in colour so it seems impossible (at least to me) to identify which line is which - particularly which is the armistice line.
Anyway, if you have those maps in electronic form and can email them to me, I would be happy to try to add them into the relevant articles.
Oncenawhile (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
PS - the map you made in 2007 seems to compare very well to e.g. this 2009 work from the US Institute of Peace. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3[edit]

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

1517 pogroms[edit]


You participated to a discussion on that article. A short mind would be welcome here. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Merger of 1517 Hebron pogrom and 1517 Safed pogrom articles[edit]

Following your remark at the talk:1660 destruction of Tiberias, you are welcome to participate in merger procedure of 1517 Hebron pogrom and 1517 Safed pogrom articles into Jewish communities during the 1517 Ottoman-Mamluk war. Discuss it at talk:1517 Safed pogrom#Rename.GreyShark (dibra) 21:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Category Deletion Request[edit]


We have never met on Wikipedia before but I just did random selection from administrators list :-)

Please can you please help delete Category:Vice-Chancellors of Ghana? I created a new one Category:Vice-Chancellors in Ghana after recognizing I can request for speedy renaming. I will be glad you delete the first one. Regards. →Enock4seth (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be gone already. Zerotalk 07:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah! Thanks. Another random admininstrator I notified did. Regards. →Enock4seth (talk)

Arutz Sheva revert[edit]

Hi, can you please explain two things:

  1. How was my edit political? I was trying to clarify the relevance of the word "occupied", which I think should either be removed from the article as irrelevant, or at least clarified as to why it is relevant. This was discussed on my talk page.
  2. How did I violate 1RR? I waited 24 hours since my previous "revert" (minus ten minutes, but I don't see why that should matter).

--- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 16:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. Claiming that the status of the occupied territories is not occupied but "controversial" is a minority political opinion. Here we state plain facts according to the majority of reliable sources.
  2. 10 minutes less than 24 hours is less than 24 hours. The rule is clear, you should obey it. Zerotalk 18:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok sorry, I didn't realize we were so strict. And I did not claim that "the status of the occupied territories is not occupied but 'controversial' ", I claimed that it is controversial and occupied (i.e. controversial because it is occupied). --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 19:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please explain your revert of my vote on a merge proposal on Talk:State of Palestine[edit]

Please explain your rationale and justification for reverting my vote (with very short explanation) on a merge proposal on Talk:State of Palestine. Please cite the WP policies you think justifiy such a revert. (Please note that I made no political comment. I was commenting on articles on WP, not states/countries/disputed territories in the real world.) Thanks. —ThorstenNY (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It was an accident that I reverted almost immediately. See the following edit. Zerotalk 05:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Cool! Somehow I only saw the original revert. Thanks. —ThorstenNY (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Linking to Oren's exact page, with word "compensation" highlighted.[edit] inauthor:michael inauthor:oren&f=false

Are you blind? It's right there in b&w: when the exact page number is cited & it's right there plainly in black&white (or whack&blite? :-) ), there can only be 1 thing blinding you and it's not your "eyes". ;-)

EDIT: fixed the link; you need to copy-paste the URL manually or else googlebooks only shows 1 page, rather than pg. 307, the page which was cited. But if you'd actually gone to googlebooks & searched for "compensation" in Oren's book, you'd see that the cited page, 307, contains it. (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yalo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crusader (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


Let's discuss it, shall we?

Evildoer187 (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


There was nothing on the talk page indicating that it was part of the Arab-Israeli conflict area. Nevertheless, I undid my revert, now you must undo yours (since you also violated the 1RR). If these conditions are not met, you are liable to be blocked.Evildoer187 (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The point of 1RR is so people will discuss on the talk page. It's not meant to encourage people to wait 24 hours and then revert again. That's why it was put there, though I did not see any such notice on that page.Evildoer187 (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi Zero, hope all is well. Just wondering whether you have ever come across the "Report of the Iraqi Commission of Inquiry on the Farhud, issued in July 1941"? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No, but there are 12 pages of it in Norman Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands in Modern Times (pages 405-417 maybe). I have that somewhere... Zerotalk 09:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Zochrot I-Nakba app[edit]

Hi, Zero. Perhaps you've already seen this, but perhaps it'll interest you: [12]. Cheers!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


You're using the word peripheral as a euphenism for subjective, when from an advertisers perception, you are experiencing the peripheral route to persuasion, or basically not thinking outside the box, allowing the box to think for you, based on your beliefs on how we should follow and administer the standards. It takes a lot of belief to understand how they are lying, but once you know, they can't lie to you know matter how hard they try. Stay thirsty my friend (for the truth, not dox equis) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:780:BE1:216:CBFF:FEBB:76C7 (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I used the word "peripheral" to mean "peripheral". Neither of the two articles contains information suggesting that they should reference either other. Neither even mentions the topic covered by the other. Zerotalk 23:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jewish land purchase in Palestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jordan Valley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Your powers of research[edit]

Hi Zero, just thought you might be interested in the question at Talk:Expulsion_of_Egyptian_Jews_(1956)#Proclamation_re_Jews_and_Zionists. It just seems very odd to me. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Putting lipstick on a pig...[edit]

Recently you participated in a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard entitled "Is a publication found in a University professor's personal website a Self-Published Source or not?" [13]

I just you might find it amusing how the initiating editor, Mercy11, is portraying the discussion:

"Excuse me? No such "determination" ever came out of that discussion. Several editors shared their opinions but there was no consensus, let alone clear consensus, which would be more in line with your "it has been determined" qualification. No offense, but to state that an isolated posting of an (alleged) original document allegedly from the FALN coming exclusively from a single source (i.e., never confirmed by anyone else, not even the US Govt) and, namely, also a sole university professor's personal webpage, a professor known for his radical ultra-right views against anything Cuban, anything socialist and anything communist can hardly be considered by any NPOV editor to be anything but questionable at best and really brings the fairness of your judgement into question. The discussion over there ended in a stalemate with multiple editors shooting in different directions and with the one radical editor that took the stubborn stance and sided with the source being reliable never retuning to debunk the much more enlightened thoughts of editors that followed him. The fact that the quote is still in the article shouldn't give you the idea that it has been accepted by the other editors here (as you can see). At Wikipedia we do not wholeheartedly and unconditionally embrace as reliable sources with such a laundry bag of stigma surrounding it, especially when, as in this case, its reliability has been brought into question by several (established) editors. When there is a decisive agreement that the source is reliable, then you can make the sort of "mission accomplished", "it has been determined", statement above. Nothing personal, its the way we do "business" at Wikipedia. Mercy11 (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)"

Not looking for any further comments from you, just thought you could use a good chuckle! Cheers! Hammersbach (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 10 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Israel West Bank Barrier[edit]

Hi. (Please forgive me if I don't get the talk protocol correct. I do not edit many articles and usually there is no need to discuss the edits.) On the IWBB, this was debated years ago with the resolution to include both / all points of view: the POV that the barrier will (speculatively) harm the economy and the actual data about the actual economy. See IWWB talk for more details. Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Zero0000. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Recent 1RR AE Case[edit]

It was incredible, and must have been very frustrating for you, that the AE admins decided that the edit in the first diff given wasn't a revert. I'm one of those editors who's thought for a long time that the inconsistency with which what a revert is is interpreted is harmful and should be removed, either by insisting that editors either stick with an interpretation adhering fairly rigidly to the current policy definition or by producing a new, less ambiguous, definition.     ←   ZScarpia   01:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, interpretations vary from "almost everything" to "almost nothing". This problem is getting worse, but changing the situation will be a challenge. People will jump in claiming that the definition is clear already. Zerotalk 05:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps part of the reason that the policy definition isn't adhered to more closely is just that editors, to varying degrees, don't want to interpret it that way. When it comes to enforcement, therefore, some arbitrators would rather say, it's not a revert, rather than it is a revert (because it fits the policy definition) but we don't want to have to treat the edit in the way that obliges us to. In the policy definition, the word which allows editors room for manouevre is 'undo'. I suppose a way to start to remove some of the inconsistency in the way that policy is applied at AE would be to tenaciously insist that admins explain how they personally define what a revert is, then to justify that definition relative to either policy or consensus, then to justify their evaluation of edits relative to definitions given.     ←   ZScarpia   11:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"Citations are not required for photographs taken by editors"[edit]

Hi, you have reverted my source request here: Please, provide:

- a proof for your reason of revert ("Citations are not required for photographs taken by editors") in the form of Wikipedia rule,

- a proof that photograph is "taken by editor" (which editor? editor of what?)

-- A man without a country (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. "Editor" means "editor of Wikipedia". The rules for photographs supplied by Wikipedia editors can be found at WP:Image_use_policy#User-created_images and WP:OI. While image captions are not permitted to express opinions or draw conclusions on the basis of what is in the image, they are permitted to state what the image shows without the need for a published source. This makes captions a bit different from other text, but we do that since otherwise few editor-supplied photographs could satisfy the requirements. You can check on the origin of the photo by clicking on it and following links. In this case you will get to the Commons page of photo-journalist Justin McIntosh, who takes responsibility for the photo and granted us a sufficient licence. We value such donation of images very much. You can challenge an image caption if you can provide a convincing argument that it is not correct (for example, if you can prove it is a photo of something else) but you can't demand proof of it without a good reason. Zerotalk 10:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I followed your link and unfortunately I haven't found in Image use policy confirmation that there is no need for confirmation of the image title (of course, if I simply missed it, I'd appreciate if you copy the exact phrase from there). Besides, if "editor" means "editor of Wikipedia", what is the link for Justin McIntosh's Wikipedia discussion page? Is he really Wikipedia editor, or just a contributor for Wikimedia (which is great, but different)?
Now I also have another question. If I understood you correctly, I can photograph myself, or for example my friend's daughter (Russian), may be even during the trip to Palestine, upload this photo to Wikimedia, and then add it to a lot of articles with a title "Palestinian boy / girl", and voila - it is totally in compliance with the rules (as you understand them), and no one can object, unless they manage to somehow find that friend's daughter (which after some years can be quite difficult, as children use to grow up) and manage to publish the thing in the media to get a reliable source? -- A man without a country (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
"Editor of Wikipedia" is anyone that edits Wikipedia articles. There are no special "editors" in the sense that a newspaper or magazine uses that word, though there are administrators (like me) and people with more power and authority. You are right that someone could trick us into using a fake photo, just as someone can forge a document or lie about the content of a source that's very hard to check. How do you know that my photograph of Danny Rubenstein is really him? The system isn't perfect, but without such allowance Wikipedia would lose tens of thousands of great images. The general principle is to assume good faith unless the opposite can be demonstrated. I see no reason to not assume good faith in the case of a photographer who has obviously been to the place where he says the photo was taken, nor does it show anything surprising or suspicious. If you want to get more opinions you can post a question on WP:NORN. Zerotalk 14:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. Well, now I see that nearly everyone can be an editor of Wikipedia, as unregistered users are elso editors (although some pages are protected against anonymous edits), so the fact we don't know one's user page here doesn't mean he is not editor. And speaking of J. MacIntosh, I found his contributions:
Now to the photograph. In fact, it is surprising. The girl portrayed in it is not a typical Palestinian face. Not only because of hair color, but also because of lack of tan. And we also see, that the photographer initially posted his photos with emotionally expressed titles, not description of the subject, and even posted a photo taken in Tel Aviv with a title of "occupation". He also is focused on photographing anti-occupation demonstrations. So it is hard to deem him as neutral. And all this together leads me to suspicions. -- A man without a country (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The hair color might be artificial (note the black eyebrows). However I'm not sure. The blogosphere says that red hair is not so unusual among Palestinians, and someone looking different from average is likely to catch the eye of a photographer. The lack of tan is commonplace: search for "Palestinian girl" at Google Images and you will find many examples of girls without tans. It probably means her parents keep her inside most of the time. Zerotalk 00:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Jeffrey Herf[edit]

Hi Zero0000,

When I read this, I am convinced that Jeffrey Hert is nor honnest nor WP:RS. Anyway he has all the credits (Prof Emiritus of History who widely published on the topic and who is quoted). What is your mind ? How to argue he would not be wp:rs in compliance with wikipedia principles ? Because, at the end, it is just because I disagree with him(*) given the way he discards facts or some sources and use others... Pluto2012 (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC) (*) Hamas is of course an integrist and terrorist group; the issue is not there. It is all the extrapolations around this and other pseudo-facts that he makes that is the concern...

Yes, Herf is like a more competent version of Daniel Pipes. His obvious status as an activist means his claims should be attributed. I don't think there is a way to exclude hi altogether. Zerotalk 23:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I arrive to the same conclusions. Many thanks. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Incredible Efraim Karsh[edit]

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Palestinian land laws and WP:AE[edit]

Hi. There is an entry on WP:AE partly about content in the Palestinian Land Laws article. You might want to comment, since you made some comments on the talk page regarding this. I do not know the details because I was not involved in the edits. Kingsindian (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Your AE statement[edit]

Hi. At WP:AE, you alleged that certain editors are "edit-warriors" to varying degrees. Per the principle described at WP:ASPERSIONS, you must not allege misconduct by others unless accompanied by actionable evidence in the proper forum. Please edit your comments accordingly, or you may face sanctions. Regards,  Sandstein  02:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that my general assessment, in the AE context, is a violation. It is reasonable to point out that an accuser has a long-term record as bad as the accused and this practice has a long history on AE and other boards. I did not assert specific instances of wrongdoing, nor did I expect action on the sole basis of my words. However, I have no time to be more specific so I struck my sentence. Zerotalk 03:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, a comment on someone's editing behavior is not a "personal attack". Zerotalk 04:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
It's been obvious for a bit that a request at WP:AE should be closed as technically a violation, but no action needed; for a while; and I admire the one who stepped forward to do it. WilyD 11:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

My appeal of my restrictions[edit]

I do not know what forum to use to appeal my restrictions, is it possible you start the thread for me and then I fill in the details? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): They are Arbcom restrictions, so you need to appeal to Arbcom to overturn them. The proper place to do that is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment - feel free to ask me if you have any problems with the templates or anything like that. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

New notification system for discretionary sanctions[edit]

Hi Zero. Your recent notice for SeattleliteTungsten is regrettably an old-style notice. Since Arbcom's motion of 3 May 2014 we are supposed to notify using {{Ds/alert}}. Details are at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts and on the template page of DS/alert. Also under the new system we are no longer supposed to log notices in WP:ARBPIA: there is an edit filter that builds its own log. I can point you to the talk threads if needed. Any old-style notices issued prior to 3 May 2014 remain effective until 3 May 2015 and people in that group don't require a new notice. Except for that all notices expire after a year. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Bassam Tibi[edit]

Hi Zero0000, Nishidani

Do you know this scholar ? What is your mind about him ? I am puzzled because in an article ([15]) that sounds well written and neutral he praizes Kuntzel's work, which decredibilizes him. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, quite prominent and frequently cited. Don't know what the deal is with him and Küntzel. Zerotalk 09:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Profoundly unimpressed. I grew up in an area where Catholics were barred by a Protestant majority on the municipal council from opening any business, except as publicans, where you were stoned and taunted on the way to elementary school as you passed Protestant schoolyards, and you heard people like Ian Paisley froth at the mouth about us being "vermin". My father was denied entrance to clubs for the same reason. As a boy I read a tract from the 18th century which, had you changed the hysteria about papists and Jesuit conspiracies for Jews, would sound like the Protocols of Zion of later date. So when I read widely in anti-Semitism I always had this sense of similitude at the forefront of my mind: I failed to see the 'uniqueness'. The Irish had suffered genocidal policies in the 17th. century - brilliant minds like Edmund Spenser could theorize our extermination. There are so many taboos developed instrumentally over this area of discourse, confusing Israel's problems with the Arab world's 'mentality' for geopolitical advantage that it will take another generation to see through it, and the Tibis and Kuentzels of this world are tendetious bores. The hadith of the gharqad tree is mentioned everywhere in public polemics, its precedent, the Birkat haMinim is hushed with silence; the King's Torah doesn't ring a bell, whereas Sayyid Qutb's bigoted nonsense is chimed and pealing in every relevant forum. Nishidani (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks !
Nishidani, even if I knew the difference, I found interesting the idea that in Arab world there was shift from Judeophobia to antisemtism in parallel to the development of Islamism. In a way, he goes in the same direction as you given he doesn't consider any hadith as antisemite but just judeophobe. But he sees clear antemitism in new publications ; even if as you said he forgot there are many publication of the same sort everywhere as there are some Jewish religious leaders who racism it totally crazy and... nobody take care on these.
Thank you Zero0000. My problem is that he has written that Kuntzel work is "brilliant". And Kuntzel is just a propagandist, even not wp:rs on wikipedia. Due to this, I am "perplexe".
Pluto2012 (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Making Bassam Tibi and the above mentionned publication WP:RS make the following ones wp:rs as well... Pluto2012 (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Ugghh...choke...vomit... Zerotalk 23:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a very complex issue. With the list of Professors collaborating with ISGAP here we have to conclude the publications are wp:rs and we could even add notorious. The wp:rs scholars -even if sometimes controversial- who collaborate with ISGAP give official reliability to all of these... Pluto2012 (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie[edit]

I have noted your edit summary here. This appears to falsely accuse me of adding unreferenced content. I did not add any content - I fact tagged some existing content that was unreferenced and which had been in the article for years in that unreferenced condition. You then deleted part of that existing tagged content. Please take much more care in your edit summaries. I also wonder why you deleted part of the unreferenced content and retained part of it, given that ALL of it was fact tagged and ALL of it had been in the article for a very long period of time. Why do you consider it more "plausible" that someone makes wild accusations of "glorifying terrorism" than someone makes wild accusations of "anti-Semitism"? I suggest you either restore the entire fact tagged content (best option) or delete the "glorifying terrorism". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies; I misread your edit. It should be all deleted if there is no source, but I'll break 1RR if I do it today. Zerotalk 15:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources on Israel/Palestine[edit]

Hi. I have a question regarding reliable sources here. I am not sure of the policy and would like someone more experienced to take a look, if you have the time. Thanks. Kingsindian (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)