User talk:Zero0000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Can't edit this page?
It is semi-protected due to frequent abuse. You can get my attention by writing a note on your own talk page and flagging it with {{ping|Zero0000}}.

Can't edit this page?
It is semi-protected due to frequent abuse. You can get my attention by writing a note on your own talk page and flagging it with {{ping|Zero0000}}.





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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your incredible hypocrisy viz. personal attacks

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Francium hydroxide

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

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

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.
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

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

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

Overprecise coordinates

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

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

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 ?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 : [1] 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 : [2] 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

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

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

A kitten for you!

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

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


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'

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

Hi Zero0000,

Ykantor convinced a contributor to draw this map, which is a great improvement in comparison with the former one : [3]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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)


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

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 ...

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

Re: The 1948 document

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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.


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.[4]. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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. 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

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

Hi, Zero. Perhaps you've already seen this, but perhaps it'll interest you: [5]. 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

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

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

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...

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?" [6]

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

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

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

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"

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

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

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

Palestinian land laws and WP:AE

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

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!

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

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

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

Hi Zero0000, Nishidani

Do you know this scholar ? What is your mind about him ? I am puzzled because in an article ([8]) 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

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

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)



I noticed at the arbitration enforcement page that you suspected additional accounts. I've left the SPI case open so that you can provide evidence for the two other accounts, should you like the checkusers to perform additional checks. Best, Mike VTalk 01:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I have watched your administrative actions against the account of User:SeattliteTungsten. It is unclear to me what you hope to achieve. If your allegations about sockpuppets are correct, it appears that you have done nothing. The edits keep a' comin'! :-) or :-( depending on your POV. A cursory review of the history of User:SeattliteTungsten's edits and the alleged sockpuppet edits indicates that he/she edits semi-profusely but does not actually engage in edit wars and rarely reverts. I do not know where you live, but from where I live you appear to be attempting to plug leaks in a fishing net. I split my time between Rome(*) and Chicago(*). The locations of Starbucks(*), Il Fornio(*), FedEx(*), McDonalds(*), in these areas are in the hundreds. There are countless internet coffee shops with free WiFi. Even Albertsons(*), Winn Dixie(*), and Whole Foods(*) now typically have open WiFi. Sapienza Università di Roma(*) and University of Texas(*) offer open Wifi over acres of space. My quick look suggests that you have probably missed one or two sockpuppet accounts (false negatives) and closed one non-sockpuppet account (false positive), which means you have not had the desired effect and have bothered other (innocent) people. Given this, what do you hope to accomplish?
(*) illustrative purposes.
Your actions are an interesting experiment. I, personally, would not waste any of my time conducting it but observing it is very interesting. I will follow the results to see whether you have had any success and controlling the content of Wikipedia through these administrative actions. Time will tell. SevenOrEleven (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Intervention

User:Zero0000, shalom! There is currently a dispute between me and fellow editor about what is considered worthy or not worthy of publishing on a WP article page because of what may or may not be perceived by others as distasteful (bad taste). The editor in question has posted a Commons photograph of Israeli singer, Dana International, a photograph which I personally feel shows bad taste and tends to "flout" the dignity and self-respect of the Yemenite Jewish people. I voiced my concerns to the editor about my feelings of repugnancy evoked by the picture on a main article page that treats on ethnicity, namely Yemenite Jews. Most Yemenite Jews will feel a sense of shame by seeing this photo of "Dana International" on the page that speaks specifically about them as a people - and who, by the way, are mostly conservative to religious. Can you please help me resolve this dispute? Perhaps you can give me some guidelines as to how it is best to resolve this issue.Davidbena (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Nominating After Saturday Comes Sunday for deletion

Hi Zero0000, As per the Talk page, I just nominated this page for deletion. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Feghali Saturday Sunday.jpg

Saw your comment - you may be right, I'm not 100% sure. Maybe just type it in as text in a quote box. Note that it's not used in any articles - some bot/person will come along and tag for deletion as WP:F5, talk pages don't count. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Overlooked sockpuppet

Hi. Just noticed that User:HonourYoMama was judged to be a sockpuppet but overlooked and not blocked (see [9]). Yours, Quis separabit? 23:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake -- it was blocked indefinitely, just not notated here. Sorry. Quis separabit? 23:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict

I see that you used to be involved in this page, if you have the patience, could you swing by? I am suggesting in the pre-1948 list, we adopt an approach that rather than simply list the villages/neighborhoods with the assertion that they were depopulated and sourced to a single, independent webpage, each village be reliably sourced. To establish that it did exist. Was depopulated. Whether it was depopulated because the land was sold or fro some other reason. And , if it is asserted that it was replaced by a specific kibbutz or Israeli town, that this be established. i am not asserting that such events did not take place. Only that events ought not to be listed as facts unless they can be reliably sourced.ShulMaven (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Feghali Saturday Sunday.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Feghali Saturday Sunday.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al-Aqsa Mosque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jewish Quarter. 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) 09:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Map of Tel Kabri and her vicinity

Heya, did you every get around to making that map of Kabri? I'm back on Wikipedia after a long hiatus, and I want to finally get that article shining. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 5 Tevet 5775 14:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! All right, so I've started a new sub-section on my page under the Kabri map section. So let's continue things here. The name is a reference to an exceptionally corny joke we tell on our digs. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 6 Tevet 5775 00:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Western wall

I see you removed my explanation about the top layers of the wall being added by Montefior. Even in it is untrue and a mere urban myth as you claim, it should still be include in the article, not as a true explanation of the top layers construction but as a widespread and notable urban myth pertaining to the wall. Additionally, if the Montefior explanation is untrue there must be some other explanation for the the construction of top layers made of smaller stone. Without any explanation the aritcle is sorely lacking. (Personally I would be very intrested to know any explanation you might be aware of; this is what led me to the Western Wall article in the first place.) Naytz (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Sources for Montefiore's contribution:

U haz a mail!

Kitten in a helmet.jpg
o hai, i brought u a mailz n ated ur cereal.
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.

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12 Tevet 5775 13:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Operation Entebbe 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:
  • UN Secretary General [[Kurt Waldheim] told the Security Council that the raid was "a serious violation of the sovereignty

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


--deleted. No longer necessary. (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Derogatory comments? by Number 57 on the Talk Page of Israeli Declaration of Independence

I have read the policy article Wikipedia:No personal attack. If the remark of Number 57 - despairing wikilawyer - on Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence were derogatory, the lead gave me the right to remove them. Whether the remark were derogatory is open to debate. At the very least, it does not help the discussion.

My concern here is that the main body of the policy article does not mention the word derogatory; rather it refers to personal attacks. It may be that the comment was derogatory, but not a personal attack. The inconsistency between the lead and the main body of the policy article need to be resolved, but not by me.

(I have left the comment on the Talk Page, if only so that a later reader can make up his/her own mind). Trahelliven (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Nrg

Hi Zero,

NRG was part of Ma'ariv, but as far as I know, it's now part of Israel Hayom, while Ma'ariv itself is part of The Jerusalem Post.

Ynhockey (Talk) 08:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

IP indef-block

I just noticed you indef-blocked IPv6 2606:6000:FD07:E900:A1A3:E8AE:9A34:9F13. IPs usually should not be indef-blocked because they might be re-assigned to other people. Would you consider shortening the block length? Huon (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It is probably an open proxy since if was used by a vandal coming from a large number of different IPs. But I don't know how to tell for ipv6 addresses, do you? I changed it to 2 weeks. I'm under attack by some little boy. Zerotalk 13:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


... for cleaning up Nableezy's page. Could you oblige also on my NSH001 talk page, please, where he's also been at work? Many thanks. --NSH002 (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


Heya, got back to you on the Kabri map project and also the Jericho article as well. I'd like to take it on (having her reports handy and having gotten to spend an hour handling a Jericho skull, which was amazing!), but I don't think I'll have the time for something that big right now.... Also, looking at your talk page history, you do seem popular—though not necessarily with the right people—lately, haha. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 7 Shevat 5775 18:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG Thanks for correcting auto-correct's idiocy.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 8 Shevat 5775 00:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi zero! I appreciate jokes as much as the next man, but what was that about sending me an email? Arminden (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Thank you for your reply! Sometimes I'm quite slow. OK, I get it now. My personal email address is quite a private thing, and I forgot that I must have given it when I registered with WP. I guess it's firewalled somehow, otherwise it would be a joke, even considering Snowden & the NSA. Btw, I just got an email from WP regarding your message, so it does work. Maybe the NSA guy just went out to the loo for a minute and set it all on hold? How do they say, you don't need to be paranoid, sometimes there is indeed somebody following you :-)

Victor Guérin

I have tried to find Victor Guérin´s "La Terre sainte" over at, but have had no success. I suspect it is there under another author-name? Cohen & Lewis refer to it on Al-Daraj, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct of User:DaoXan

You may be interested in this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi. Sorry, but I won't even try to look for primary sources. Jordan is as messy a place as you would expect, which is part of its charm. As you yourself have pointed out on the discussion page, they had officials still using the old name in 1949 and the new coins were one step from going to the mint with the "wrong" name. The constitution cannot have mattered much in formal issues, the king was and still is the only authority able to make major decisions, the parliament is just a joke where they can let off a bit of steam and the government is at the service of the Palace. The real issue for King Abdallah I was how to expand the territory AND get recognition. I guess the new name really became more of an issue once they did hold territory on both banks of the river, trans and cis. But even that might be an over-interpretation. If the formal aspect plays a role for me, it's from the international p.o.v., and EVERYBODY seems to have called them Transjordan until 1949. Same story as with the "Arab Legion", which was called this way throughout the 1948-49 war even if the official name was probably another one by then, since they weren't just a local "legion" of the Imperial British Army anymore. Btw, the article "the" in "of the Jordan" has also been abandoned, if they ever did insist on it. I guess any Jordanian other than that minister you're quoting there would mark us both for decapitation for aggravated silliness for wasting time on such matters. Even the very British Mr. Lawrence came back from that country mocking anyone who tried to nail him on using one consistent system of Arabic-English transliteration, let alone truthfulness in his war stories. OK, coffee time. Have a great day! ArmindenArminden (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That photo

Apparently it's Bar Rafaeli as a munchkin. [10] Its use doesn't add anything to the article as it shows nothing of the park, but it is likely taken in Israel however the original description is kind of silly considering Rafaeli's fame. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18 Shevat 5775 14:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan Bahat

Thanks, and well done! He's a great guy. Right now I'm preparing for an exam, I should be focusing on other things :-) , but I'll put it on my list.

West Bank

Good day!

→‎Transportation and communications: in source: "4,686 km includes Gaza Strip"

"Undid revision 646929098 by Радион (talk) so fix it, don't just delete"

  1. Listed there to the length of roads in the West Bank with the Gaza Strip. This is twice as much territory.
  2. There is not expressly stated, is that the West Bank is no unpaved roads: they probably just do not taken into account. This is not Monaco to there actually was not a single kilometer of unpaved roads, and backward country.
  3. I do not speak English enough to rewrite this sentence, and you unfortunately returned false information in the article.

Радион (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's much less than twice, but otherwise you are quite correct. Until we find a reliable source with just the WB, I changed it to match the source. Thanks! Zerotalk 19:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Mandatory Palestine

Hello Zero0000. Question: What state was the successor of the British Mandate in Palestine: All-Palestine Government or really controlled Gaza strip Kingdom of Egypt? Yours respectfully--Poti Berik (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Poti Berik: I'll take it that you are referring to the Gaza Strip, not to the British Mandate as a whole. If the All-Palestine Government had been internationally accepted, there is no doubt that it would be the successor state. However it was only recognised by a handful of governments, so nobody except those governments would regard it as the successor state and in any case it disintegrated after a few years. Without the All-Palestine Government as successor state there would be none at all until the State of Palestine came along (and there is plenty of disagreement about the present status). Egypt did not annex the Gaza Strip and military occupation does not create state succession, so there is no chance that Egypt was ever the successor state. All this is my opinion and I'm sure there is no general agreement on your question. Zerotalk 12:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Understood, thanks for your reply. Yours respectfully--Poti Berik (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Golan Arch. Museum

Hi Zero! Hope you're fine & relaxed. Please, don't make me worry :)) So if you are a tourist preparing to visit Israel (or the "Syrian Golan" for all I care), or a student somewhere in need of data, where would you look up info on the archaeology of the Golan and museums specialised on this topic? On a Damascus-based website? And if you end up planning to go visit the Katzrin museum, would you expect to find Syrian history displayed? Have you actually visited the museum? I didn't think I'd find you on the "politically correct" but unrealistic side of life. That museum is a stone-and-concrete building with a location and a content, with opening times and an entry fee, not a UN resolution. It needs not be dealt with in a PC way, but in an informative one. Call it names in the text (it's full of "Talmudic Period" and has nothing from 1300 years of Arab presence in the Golan, if I do remember it well), but to ignore it's in the N District of Israel?! Like with the Druze villages in the Golan, add "Quneitra District" or whichever Syrian admin. region it potentially belongs to, but don't fight de facto with de iure ON WIKIPEDIA! It's not the right place. Anyway, I should cut down on this WP thing, it's becoming a nuisance, too many crusaders around. Hope to find you in a more relaxed environment than that basalt-blackened Golan. Have a great time.Arminden (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden


Hi. Still around.

Zionist sources have stuck to German "Wadi-Chanin", with or w/o "Bindestrich", for a long time, until the end of WWI for all I could figure out. Just google for "Wadi Chanin" (add "Jewish" to keep out most German pages) and you'll find some 100 hits, pre-WWI or probably copying from such sources. There are also several who wrote it "Wadi al-Chanin". Still quite close. The Survey of W Pal. map doesn't have it yet - at all.

1918 American source: Kh-, not Ch-, but otherwise the same idea:

It's when German and Dutch Jews in Palestine were still having fights with the Hebrew-speakers over teaching in German at the yet-to-be-established Haifa Politechnic (Technion). I'm sure by now that it was used this way before 1918; hard for me to establish if it was for sure the most common way or not. If I'm wrong in terms of frequency... So be it.Arminden (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden


Hello. I am new in Wikipedia. I am sorry if you take my edits in a bad faith, but this is not the point here. The point is that arguments that come from single sources are to be shunned. We have to work together to find and prove or disprove these claims. It does not matter if "Armenians are Amalekites" or if "Zionists are not Palestinians", I care about the topics because of a general interest in the subject. I apologize if I was insensitive before. Greetings. --92slim (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


Re: [11] - watch it, I'm losing patience with your repeated violations of wikipedia policy I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thats cute: [12] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I found a WP:HOUNDING section added to my talk page as well, it states:
Re: [13] - watch it, I'm losing patience with your repeated violations of wikipedia policy . Next stop will be WP:AE, where I expect to bring up your obvious sock puppetry, as well. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
As I have never used a sock puppet, it should be interesting to learn how it could be "obvious" that I have. Can anything be done about this guy? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Hi CosmicEmperor (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

How does semi-protected status get requested?

Hi Zero0000, Do you know? The King David Hotel bombing article has been a target of many sockpuppets in the past, and there recently appears to be a number of accounts created solely for the purpose of editing that article (for example, User:Lockerbie's child ). I think it would benefit from protection from brand new editors. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested, Huldra (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved your section at the RFC

Hey Zero, I hope you don't mind, but I moved your section here in a way that I thought it would fit in better with the rest of the section (in my overall reordering of things on that page). If you dislike its placement though feel free to put it back wherever you please, of course. I won't feel bad or anything. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16 Adar 5775 02:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A delivery kitten for you!

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg
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.

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16 Adar 5775 04:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit War

The IP has broken 1R on the Arab Cultural Capital. See here: [14][15]. AcidSnow (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, Bkalafut and RebSmith still fail to recognize the problems with their desired version of the article. Bkalafut has even decided to make personal attacks against users including you; stating that "Your dishonesty is transparent. Shall I give up with him and let WP:BOOMERANG take its effects? AcidSnow (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi Zero. May I ask for your assistance? There is an Israeli far-right press & online hasbara professional who has a WP page to his name and is, very obviously, self-editing all criticism radically out of it. He is, maybe with some assistance from friendly helpers, but always using the same modus operandi and identical wording in the edit summaries, taking out large chunks of relevant material (usually 50% of the article) in 2 consecutive steps claiming to remove "irrelevant editorializing". Most such edits are done anonymously, under an IP identity. Now I've had enough and promised to block these "anonymous" editor(s) out, but that's an empty threat insofar that I have no clue whom to approach for that. Can you please help? Thanks!

Here some data: The edits done openly by Mr Seaman himself:

"Giladraz": [18:35, 16 September 2007‎], [11:36, 17 September 2007‎], [21:48, 17 September 2007‎], [21:52, 17 September 2007‎]

  "The attributed article is 5 years old, I do not live in Gilo, so get off it already."
  "As I said the so called reliable source is 5 years old - there is no greater a source than myself - stop vandalising I live in the city vf jerusalem and not in gilo"

"Giladraz" is possibly identical with,

Less "open" edits done under IP "identities", which I would like to see blocked - at least the latest one:

Edit summaries: "restoring factual information", "removing editorializing", "inaccurate media coverage and irrelevent to present" -- very evidently inaccurate and dishonest for a public persona.

One anonymous editor explains how it's done, by using untraceable Orange IDs "shared by some Orange cell phone subscribers in Israel" (see Arminden (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden Arminden (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Invitation to comment

Would you be able to revisit the discussion on my talkpage? I am trying to get editors to comment on the real issue, after they strayed away a little. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Request at dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

Hi. I have filed a request at WP:DRN about an issue in an article that you have been involved in. Welcome to discuss it there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this under WP:ARBPIA?

I've protected the article Islam and antisemitism. Also noticed the recent debate at Talk:Islam and antisemitism#Muslim Clerics as sources. Do you think this article is covered by WP:ARBPIA? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: In principle it is not part of ARBPIA, but in practice it is. For obvious reasons, a large fraction of the huge polemic literature on this subject comes from people whose Israel-related motivation is clearly evident. Also a lot of the "evidence" comes from an organization that, whatever they say, is an unofficial branch of the Israeli government. So I think it is justified to include the article under ARBPIA and I think we would be better off if it was. Regards. Zerotalk 02:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
What organization are you thinking of? EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: MEMRI. Zerotalk 05:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
This article should indeed be covered by ARBPIA : [16]. Islam/Antisemitism/Islamophobia are an important topic in the propaganda war in the I-P conflict. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:AE#Result concerning Calypsomusic

Ping re WP:AE#Result concerning Calypsomusic. Thanks. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

High definition maps of Palestine

Yes please! Though the map you have is 1940's - the ones I have are from a 1932 survey. Can I get access to them? Many thanks Padres Hana (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Martin Gilbert still WP:RS ?

I don't know how to manage this : [17]. He quoted Bat Ye'or and Joan Peters. He even praised the 1st here. But according to wikipedia, he is WP:RS. What is your mind ? Pluto2012 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

For decades I've been wondering how Martin Gilbert earned the esteem he has, since his history books range from terrible to appalling. It's hard to see what can be done about it, though. Zerotalk 12:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Burqin

Sunday on the wiki looks better with your contribution - Thanks Victuallers (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Admin help

An editor suggested I needed to contact an admin directly about this. Do you agree that is what I need to do and, if so, would you be an appropriate admin? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: I can't do anything myself since I'm "involved" in this subject area. The first thing to do in the case of iban violation is to bring it to the attention of the admin who imposed the iban. If you get no response, try one of the other admins who approved the iban. The names are here. Zerotalk 03:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Block of

Hi, you blocked for a month with the log entry "Vandalism-only account". I assume this was a mistake, because obviously an IP cannot be a vandalism only account. However, you also blocked account creation and disabled email and talk page access, which is rather unusual for an IP block, as opposed to a softblock with only anonymous editing disabled. Is there some reason for this that I'm missing? Thanks, Conifer (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. – I believe semi-protection of one's talk page is frowned upon, because then new and unregistered users have no way to contact you. Per WP:UP, "In rare cases, protection may be used but is considered a last resort given the importance of talk page discussions to the project." Conifer (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's been a few days now, and I think policy is very clear on these two matters. Per the blocking policy, you should not disallow talk page access by default: "This option is not checked by default, and typically should not be checked; editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page." Per the user pages guideline, you also should not protect your talk page, especially as an admin, without extreme circumstances: "In rare cases, protection may be used but is considered a last resort given the importance of talk page discussions to the project." Conifer (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yaakov Moshiach

I understand your reaction. But it just so happens that I have reliable inside information about this event. There is nothing slanderous about Yaakov Moshiach being named as the starter of these fires. This is simply a matter of fact. I don't see why you would want to censor this from the public. They have a right to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesread77 (talkcontribs) 04:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Lachman 1982, pp. 75–76.


Hi Z, feels good to be back here. I've just done a revert (not just, added source + balanced the usual way, fatalities on one side plus, not versus :), fatalities on the other side.) THEN I noticed that our friend, the not-at-all-Monochrome M., has been blocked for smth. related to this bit. I more or less stumbled upon that paragraph, saw that the Israeli 2nd Intifada casualty numbers have been deleted by "emotional" editor, while ISR as well as PAL numbers are indisputably a highly relevant issue, they've changed public opinion and official policies hugely on both sides, so however people will decide to package the facts, they deserve mention. Since the end of the 2Intif. is not clearly datable, you'll never get the same figures even from even-headed people. That leaves you? us? WP? with a nice dilemma. But ignoring essential facts of history because full consensus about the figures cannot be reached, would turn our entire enterprise here into a joke. Looking forward to hear your opinion (see your solution?). Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden


Hi, accusing me of being the arsonist in question was completely unwarranted. If you feel you have a crime to report perhaps the Israeli police would be the place to go and to go throwing unwarranted accusations on an online encyclopedia talk page. Anyway, browsing through your contributions it is plain to see that you have vested interests in matters pertaining to the Middle East. Whatever your motivations for trying to censor information about arson attacks which were clearly in protest to the Pope's visit (hardly a soapbox event, clearly one of international importance) I assure you that one way or another the information will get out there and that your attempts to censor the information only expose your bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesread77 (talkcontribs) 03:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Children in the I/P conflict



I am writing in regards to your undoing of my revision to the page 'Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict'. I removed a source from 1999 that 1) made claims that were not supported by the evidence provided and 2) is directly contradicted by recent studies, such as the one that I linked from 2012, which shows that Israeli children are not, in fact, some of the "most violent in the world", and actually display less aggressive behavior than Palestinian children.

In regards to my first point, the claim that Israeli children are among "the most violet in the world" rests on 2 (outdated) statistics provided by the author, which are: 1) 43% of Israeli children have admitted to bullying others (bullying was not defined as physical violence and there were no comparisons made to children of other nationalities) and 2) that 1/4 Israeli boys admitted to carrying a knife to school for protection.

The only way I could see these two claims beginning to help justify the argument that Israeli children are among "the most violent in the world" is if a similar study was conducted on children of other nationalities and, comparatively, Israeli children experienced higher rates of bullying and were more likely to admit to bringing a knife to school for protection. And yet still, I wouldn't find those two statistics alone to be sufficient to argue that Israeli children are abnormally violent- more accurately I would argue that they are more vulnerable to bullying, which is not, as we all know, in any way limited to physical violence.

Regardless of Professor Kaufman's questionable conclusion, the study he cites is over 15 years out of date. His commentary, made in 1999, is inaccurately presented as being applicable to Israeli children in 2015.

Moreover (and this brings me to my second point), the claims are directly contradicted by a 2012 study that I cited, which reveals that of Palestinian, Arab Israeli and Jewish Israeli children, the latter group actually demonstrates the least aggressive behavior. The claim that it is the latter two groups that are conversely among the "most violent in the world" is simply not grounded in evidence.

Sammy1857 (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine


I am writing in regards to your undoing of my revision to "United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine".

I removed text that was not sourced from the section 'Reactions' subsection 'Arabs'; the text in question is the following: "Zionists attributed Palestinian rejection of the plan to a mere intransigence. However, Palestinians and Arabs as a rule always reiterated that a partition was unfair".

The "Zionists" attitudes are not sourced, neither are those of the "Palestinians and Arabs", which are presented as having a uniform opinion and rejecting partition because it was "unfair".

These are claims that need to be sourced. This is a section dedicated to Arab reactions, and yet not a single citation in that paragraph leads me to any Arab from 1947 making any of the stated arguments. Moreover, there is evidence that directly contradicts them (such as Arab leadership rejecting Peel in 1937, despite it giving them 80% of the land, eroding the argument about rejection stemming from unfair land allocation). Until these claims are sourced, they should not be made.

Sammy1857 (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sammy1857: Please post on the article talk page so that other people can contribute. In fact, someone else already did. Zerotalk 10:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi & thanks. Buuuut... I did try with just one quote, and saw what happened? Smb. had the chutzpah to say it's unsupported, quoting... Resnick, who gives the very quote I put in additionally, and which only strengthens the case. As I was writing to King Shabazz, the only case of Jewish military valour from 614 until (more jokingly) 1821-22, the Farhi brothers' siege on Acre, that would be at least 1200 uninterrupted years of Jews being content to die with a prayer, if it weren't for Mr. Albert's chronicle. Thank you for adding Prawer, I wasn't aware of his opinion, but he's by now at least as outdated as Albert of Aachen. And even less of an eyewitness to the events. And btw, what's his theory, why would Albericus, a man of the Church, hail the Jews all of a sudden and with no good reason? Whatever, spoiling a good story, shame on him. Good night, Arminden (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden

@Arminden: Nobody knows where Albert got his information from. Presumably from people who went on the Crusade, but he never went to Palestine himself. I can't guess why he would write this story as he did, assuming that it isn't true. The idea of writing history as a factual account of what happened is a modern concept that did not exist in Albert's day anyway, which is why accounts even by eye-witnesses need to be taken with a grain of salt. The comparison with Prawer is not accurate since Prawer was a scientific scholar who clearly tried to be as accurate as possible, and this area was his specialty. He doesn't dismiss Albert's account out of hand, but he does express disquiet over the very limited evidence for it. Others disagree, of course. Zerotalk 03:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Zero. C'mon, I didn't slide from listening to good-night fairy tales straight to reading history. That's all very obvious. We both know how "specialised scientific scholars" develop theories and stick to them, come what may. Prawer is old, I just had a relatively well-established younger historian contradicting his theory about the First Crusade going up the Ascent of Beth Horon instead of Wadi Ali, which Prawer described as a fact although there isn't a shred of information about it. It's been written that Prawer and Runciman became THE specialists in their time because of literary talent, as much as for their scientific prowess. So if Prawer comments an event in a certain way, I'm absolutely happy to learn about his point of view and try to remember it along with all other dissenting ones, but nothing more. Usually, once we're in the field of speculation, plausibility is the best argument. That's why I asked the (rhetorical) question, why would a Frankish canon from Aachen/Aix start praising the Haifa Jews for "manliness" on no factual grounds? That's all. It would be interesting to know if there is anything hinting at such chronicles being read by anyone else than the Christian clergy and aristocracy, i.e. if Jewish scholars could or bothered to read them. But that's a very far shot. And even if that did sometimes happen, they certainly weren't Albert's "target reader". The other theoretical option would be that Albert followed some other immediate educational or political purposes, but which could those be? I cannot dismiss anything, but in terms of plausibility, Prawer's take on the episode doesn't go too far. Take care, Arminden (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden
@Arminden: Albert didn't have any "facts"; he had stories conveyed to him by persons unknown. Someone told him a story he liked and he wrote it up, but we have no knowledge of how much he added his own spin to it. I don't find anything strange about a Christian chronicler writing such things. If the story didn't match his stereotypes about Jews, that would have enhanced the entertainment value of the story in his eyes. Zerotalk 10:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


Would you please explain what is wrong with this edit.I don't think Palestine still exists. Is Dead Sea does not bordered Israel? ---zeeyanwiki discutez 21:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Zeeyanketu: You aren't allowed to imply that the West bank is part of Israel. Also see State of Palestine. Zerotalk 00:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Children in the I/P conflict, history

@Zero0000: A history section is meant to provide background on the topic; a single weapons display event in Efrat from 2014 does not provide background on the topic at hand. It is ephemera. Please explain your reversal of my edit. Sammy1857 (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sammy1857: You don't need to ping someone when you write on their talk page, it is automatic. I'm copying your text to the article talk page, which is where discussion of an article should take place. Zerotalk 00:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Changing article names

Hi Zero, and thanks for helping with the picture.
Could you please take a look at the talk pages of Kal'at Al Mina and Ashdod-Sea? The article names were probably Google-translated from Hebrew and don't correspond to the names commonly used in literature. It might be the same with Ashdod Light, even Google suggests Ashdod Lighthouse if you take the words one by one, but that's a modern site, no mention of it in the history books I'm used to :) and my lack of Hebrew stops me from properly checking in the Heb. article. Thank you! Arminden (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden

@Arminden: See Talk:Kal'at Al Mina. Regarding "Ashdod-Sea", I agree it looks like a crude translation only and I don't see it called that in serious books. Actually the few dozen mentions in my files all use "Ashdod-yam" or "Ashdod-Yam" and I think that might have the best case. The Hebrew name of "Ashdod Light" seems to use a word that means "lighthouse" specifically, and not just "light". I don't know this place at all and have no idea if it has an English name. To just make up a name or translate the Hebrew name, "lighthouse" would be more likely. A purist might avoid "lighthouse" since nobody lives there (the "house" part of "lighthouse") but popular usage doesn't respect that. Zerotalk 05:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Offline life has caught up with me. I'll be back and continue.Arminden (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden