Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:08, 13 July 2011

Discussions prior to 2010

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Patria.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Patria.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Harovbomb33jy.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Harovbomb33jy.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist terrorist group?

Hello Zero0000, I am glad you contribute so much to wikipedia, but don't you think refering to the Lehi as a Zionist terrorist group is a little radical? I am well aware of the Lehi's history and actions, but terrorist group sounds a tad far-fetched to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.125.101 (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:PeelReport291.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:PeelReport291.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC) --Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Stern-stamp.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Stern-stamp.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 02:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PeelReport291.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:PeelReport291.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Back

Great to see your footprints around here again. Especially since the recent Judea-Samaria arbcom indefinitely topic-banned many knowledgeable people.John Z (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! Happy to see you here ! Ceedjee (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back; I was afraid we'd lost you for good. Looking forward to working with you ro improve many articles. RolandR 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see a familiar name returning. Jd2718 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Not sure how long I'll last, I have less free time than ever. Zero^talk 00:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you around again! pedrito - talk - 07:39 15.06.2009

removed source

You removed a source here [[1]]. could you explain your edit summary? it's not my unsourced opinion. -Yosef.Raziel (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[2] here's the source, here's http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/res181.asp a primary source using the historical term for the approximate region of the west bank in U. N. general assembly resolution 181. Yosef.Raziel (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note on Talk:West Bank. Regarding res 181, nobody denies that "Judea" and "Samaria" are valid geographic names, but "West Bank" is a political name. Res 181 did not use "Judea and Samaria" as the name of a political division because there was no such political division at the time. Please read all the argument on this subject recorded around Wikipedia, you will find that everything that can be said on the subject has been said multiple times already. Zero^talk 12:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hütteroth, Wolf-Deiter

Oopsh, thanks. I will correct it as I come across it. Regards, Huldra (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Zero0000! I hope you don't mind me asking, but I saw what you posted at Huldra's talk page about owning the Hutteroth book. May I ask that whenever you have the time, could you provide the 1596 populations for Gaza, Bethlehem, and Bani Zeid (the latter is a much newer locality that includes Deir Ghassaneh and Beit Rima) like you did for Nablus? It would be well appreciated. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! It was very helpful and I might ask for more info in the near future ;) --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irgun attacks

Added references, exact page numbers will have to wait (too busy), but anyone with access to the book should be able to find the relevant information easily because the entries in the book appear in a chronological order. One attack is still missing citation, it was added by you originally, perhaps your edit summary can give a hint as to where to find an Irgun acknowledgment.--Doron (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convoy of 35

Hi Zero! Sry, no insult intended, but I reverted your repeated posting of that sentence in Convoy of 35. Like I wrote several times now, it makes no sense to the uninformed reader. Would you pls rephrase it in a way that readers who haven't read the source understand what you want to say? See the discussion page of the article! Thank you.Gray62 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! MUCH better now! This is clear and informative. Thank you!Gray62 (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: 98.204.183.125

Done You may want to check to see that I've done this correctly. I would have made it an indef., but was afraid that being an IP vs. a registered user - that might be extreme, especially as there was a clean block log. Cheers, and have a good day. ;) — Ched : ? 12:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Zero^talk 01:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Zero0000_reported_by_User:LoverOfTheRussianQueen_.28Result:_.29 nableezy - 16:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 24h for a prima facie 3RR violation. You are well aware of the rules, so I do hope you have good reason for this. I looked over the edits carefully before deciding to block. If I were in the same position I would have stopped and started using talk pages or the dispute resolution mechanism rather than edit war. I realise the other party isn't completely blameless, but the fact that you're an admin and didn't stop early and use talk pages (today and in the past) was determinative for me. I hope after the block that you will be able to sort out the dispute properly. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your back

Hey Zero just saw you started editing again. I don't edit much now but its still good to know some of the other old guys are. On a side not I was sure you had died or something since your last edit two years ago mentioned that you were going overseas for a few days.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For dealing with that so quickly. I'm not even going to bother responding, since I have a feeling the whole exercise is just a way of diluting energies and trying to get a rise of people. Long ago, I might have taken the bait. But I have learned a lot over the past couple of years here. Anyway, thanks for being on the ball. Tiamut^talk 12:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I mark resolved

Hi Zero - can I mark Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Warm_as_ice_request_admin_action as resolved for now - in the knowledge that a final warning has been delivered?--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 12:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks for your help. Zero^talk 12:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers and thanks back Zero.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Shusha

Hi, I´m sort of trying to clean up the depop-1948-villages. I see that you have edited the Abu Shusha-article. Now, there were at least two Abu Shusha-villages; in the Districts of Ramlah and in the District of Haifa (plus there was a "Ghuwayr Abu Shusha" in District of Tiberias).

Presently, it looks as if some of the stuff now in the Abu Shusha (Ramleh)..should be in a -not yet written- Abu Shusha (Haifa)-article. Would you care to take a look? Thanks, Huldra (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The material sourced to Flapan is clearly referring to Abu Shusha (Haifa). Is there anything else you suspect? I have something on the destruction of Abu Shusha (Ramle); it was in 1965. Zero^talk 08:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, the Benvenisti, 1996, quote is to "the village of Abu Shusha, midway between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem"...so I assume that is the District of Ramleh-village. It actually looks as if there was some sort of massacre at both villages? Huldra (talk)

No, it looks to me that all the text about a massacre is for the Ramle village. That includes Morris Revisited, which I just checked. Zero^talk 10:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it seems as if the Abu Shusha (Haifa) was depopulated quite early, during Battle of Mishmar HaEmek, while Abu Shusha (Ramleh) was depopulated in Operation Barak. Also during the socalled Battle of Mishmar HaEmek there were reports of atrocities (including rape), however, apparently not at the mass-scale of Abu Shusha (Ramleh).

So, for Abu Shusha, I will just remove the Flapan-ref (and keep it for the future Abu Shusha, Haifa, article), If you could add anything on the 1965-destruction, it would be great. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed Flapan and added 1965. Next I'll add 19th century stuff from Kark. Zero^talk 10:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for excellent work on the Abu Shusha -article! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Ultra-Orthodox" in Haredi article (courtesy note)

You contributed to a past discussion about the term "Ultra-Orthodox" on the Haredi Judaism page. I removed the content in Haredi Judaism that claimed that "Ultra-Orthodox" is pejorative. I have explained my reasons on the talk page. -shirulashem^(talk) 15:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility, please

With all due respect, please try to keep comments civil. I assume it was not your intention, but I take a comment like "Neither of your (Shirulashem and Lisa) positions are good enough" to be uncivil and condescending. Please take a look at the dispute resolution policies and, in particular, the policy to keep your comments focused on content. -shirulashem^(talk) 13:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think you are too sensitive. I don't think that "not good enough" is either uncivil or condescending. It is merely my opinion stated in simple terms. Zero^talk 14:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another welcome

Though I see it was a few months ago, just noticed now as I'm not that active in Israeli-Palestine articles as before. Not sure if you're aware or not of some good news, but if not, in your absence one of the biggest thorns in many of our sides was finally kicked to the curb. Tarc (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Efraim Karsh. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! This guy really loves templating regulars. Did it to me too.

Anyway, I came here to say thanks for the link to the map and for the compliments on the work Huldra and I have been doing over at Al-Majdal, Tiberias. Petersen says that the village wasn't mentioned much in medieval or Ottoman times either because it was too small or was uninhabited then. I added that tidbit to the article from Huldra's sources page. I'm putting it up for DYK soon (as soon as I can Huldra's opinion on the hook). Thanks again for your tips and encouragement. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 11:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'll look it up and include it right away. Tiamut^talk 15:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews of Karsh's book are NOT from an "anonymous unsourced" source. The page is linked to on Karsh's university website. He is the head of the ME program at Kings College London, a prestigious university. If the reviews were not authentic, he obviously would be in massive trouble. Stop the edit war. Of course Karsh puts positive reviews on his page at his school.Tallicfan20 (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A document with no stated author is "anonymous". And one that doesn't state the source of the material it contains is "unsourced". Please learn some English. Zero^talk 04:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source is clearly stated in the document with the name of the reviewer, who he works for. And you're the one throwing personal insults as me. And you're threatening ME on this siteTallicfan20 (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A source means a precise location of where the original of something can be found. Like a publication date for a newspaper or volume and page numbers for a journal. Sources have to be verifiable, that's why we need to know where something comes from. Zero^talk 06:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karsh's link clearly shows the source. If you think he's lying, why don't you email him or ask him somehow. If he were lying or making it up, he'd have been in trouble right now or sued for putting a name to something that didn't happen. Professors at top universities don't make up reviews and there is no proof Karsh did. Also, the book did come out many years ago before articles were more routine on the internet.Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of source is "Shabtai Teveth, Sefarim", for example? That's partial information at best. Can I ask my library to get me the full text on the basis of that? And, yes, Karsh does invent praise. I'll put an example on his Talk page shortly. Zero^talk 06:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? His source is clearly "Yoram Bronowski, Ha-aretz." You're throwing accusations because you have a clear political agenda and are trying to push a POV to delete anything good said about someone who isn't pro-Palestinian, even tho you cannot prove Karsh just made the praise up! This is non-sense! All the praise is on the page he links to on his college website. You've just made up an accusation, libelous against Efraim Karsh! Shabtai Teveth is the official Ben Gurion biographer. People who you don't agree with praise pro-palestinian authors all the time. I fail to see any point you make. Remember, not everything ever written, published, etc. is on the internet.Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Yoram Bronowski, Ha-aretz" is not a source. It is only a rough indication of a source. Please read WP:CITE#HOW for what a citation should include. Zero^talk 07:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zero you full know that sourcing on Wikipedia has obviously different standards than in a simple paper with reviews Karsh puts up, which DOES cite the people who said it and where they did, given that Karsh, employed by a top university in the UK, can be assumed to not be making up quotes or he'd be accused, fired, or sued given that perhaps someone in that paper would see their name and say something.Tallicfan20 (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karsh did distort quotes, was accused, and was not fired. But what I think of him is not relevant. We have to follow the Wikipedia rules about self-published sources. Zero^talk 08:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Benny Morris quote was to make a point, as you can find Karsh further responded to Morris' response. And in that site thats on Karsh's wikipedia page, the quotes on the praise part are acceptable and completely in context, as you can read them. His site is an acceptable secondary source. Sources that use them are on wikipedia all the time. Why should Karsh be the exception. If the quotes were fake, he'd have been in trouble with his college he works at. I don't see you complaining wikipedia pages about anti-Israel people where sources are secondary sources or use them. That is why I do believe you have an agenda. I doubt you'd be doing this if the situation were reversed, say about Edward Said.Tallicfan20 (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeirYassinWiki.jpg

As I guess according to your name at 'DeirYassinWiki.jpg' map what I've found here there was such Wiki's file. Can you please add details about what happened with it? Thanks, - Igorp_lj (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The file is still there at the link you give. I don't understand your question, sorry. Zero^talk 00:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't available at that moment. There was some kind of error message, but I already do not remember it. - Igorp_lj (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh please

no, you're not gonna get me banned. I don't push POV. If you actually read what morris said in the article, he refers to Plan D, which is what Ramla and Lydda were all about, which as you know, the purpose of which was to secure the route. Ok I should have quoted more carefully but this reason for the expulsions as given is well known. I am not POV pushing. You are the one who does that deleting anything you don't like, deleting sourced material and calling it "lies" like you did on the causes of exodus page and with the Palestine Studies citation even when you cannot prove it is wrong. Not everything cited in Peters is a "lie." Unless of course then others can delete things cited in pappe, who is more "discredited." You cannot prove I didn't consult the source from JPS I cited either. But then again, I could easily accuse you of citing things that you haven't read. This is a two-way street tho. And you delete things like you did with the Issa quote because you don't want to see them. You're also the one who kept deleting sourced and quoted material from Efraim Karsh's page. Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your contribution and involvement in

Editing the article Fatah subsection on 6th Fatah Assembly

Censorship of "Little Eichmann's" Sub-Section

The section on the reference to "Little Eichmann's" adds value to the Eichmann article and is entirely pertinent to scholastic research of the analysis of Eichmann's life; although details of Ward Churchill's story are a digression and not pertinent. Churchill's reference has not only become a modern colloquialism, it is based on Arendt's analysis of Eichmann's life. ZERO0000's basis to remove this sub-section as "not pertinent in its entirety" is censorship which expresses his/her POV. Removing extraneous information about Churchill's story should not be considered censorship, neither should demoting the sub-section to another paragraph in the Analysis section (i.e. removing the header). In conclusion, just because an editor doesn't like Ward Churchill's reference doesn't mean everybody reading about the analysis of Eichmann's life should be deprived of this valuable cross-reference. Tenna (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Tenna[reply]

The Ward Churchill story absolutely does not belong there. It is an article about Eichmann, not about random uses of Eichmann's name. Zero^talk 09:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I prefer not to use the word "absolutely". Ward Churchill's reference is not random. As I asserted before, it's based on Arendt's analysis itself. It also provides valuable scholastic cross-reference to anybody looking at what his life means to the definition of "banality of evil".

Tenna (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Tenna[reply]

Zero you should provide what "every random reference to Eichmann's name" means when you execute your Dranconian edits. In fact this likely the only reference to his name used in modern speeches, and was provided by a professor who was citing Arendt's analysis in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenna (talk • contribs) 10:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zero - we can agree to compromise if you insist on demoting this sub-section by either folding it into the Analysis section or adding a link in the More section.--Tenna (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it belongs at all. But this is the wrong place to discuss it. State your case on Talk:Adolf Eichmann then if you get enough support from other editors something can be inserted. Zero^talk 10:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach is lacks any explanation, is uninterested in compromise, censuring, and untenable. Neither you nor your other editor friends own this page, nor any others on the wiki. I am going to apply the compromise I stated and re-state my case on the talk page. Have a nice day.--67.176.81.220 (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Please review WP:BLP; properly sourced criticism is NOT a BLP violation, and there has been discussion on the talk page at Talk:Rashid_Khalidi#Plagiarism_claim about how to best handle this, and these TWO SENTENCES were considered appropriate by all editors. Please respect wikipedia's policies. Using BLP to improperly remove properly sourced edits is a form of disruptive editing. -- Avi (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect, Zero. We cannot take Khalidi's defense as fact any more than we can take the initial attribution as fact. The facts are that 1) For years it was attributed to Khalidi and 2) after this was made public, the attribution was changed and explained as an error. Guess what, that is ALL the article says, just facts, no opinions, and no making one interpretation of the facts any more "true" than any other. Our job is to bring the facts, let the reader decide the interpretation, Zero. -- Avi (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish, you can't hint that a well-known scholar is a liar without any evidence, and the evidence in this case is pathetic. Zero^talk 03:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is hinting anything, Zero. We bring what is there, and let individuals decide. I know I don't know enough to decide one way or the other; but that does not mean that we can just summarily ignore it. HHN is not blogspot, Zero, and if it was serious enough for Khalidi to respond to, we should mention it; not make it its own section, not glorify it, but mention it, as plagiarism IS a notable claim against an academic: just look at Alan Dershowitz :) . -- Avi (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh phooey. You don't like him and you want to publicise accusations against him no matter how stupid they are. Simple as that. Zero^talk 03:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is not true; I don't know him at all, and neither like nor dislike him, Zero. What I /do/ dislike is inappropriate hagiographic or denigratory editing. Your above statement is unfortunately indicative of editing that is not in accord with wikipedia policies and guidelines; besides for needing to focus on content and not editors (WP:CIVIL is just as strong a policy as WP:BLP), outside of your own opinions, you have no basis in fact to base your statements. I suggest you contact User:Nishidani, User:Tiamut, User:G-Dett, or User:NSH001, and ask them about how I handle I/P articles. Perhaps you are guilty of psychological projection, perhaps you are just overly frustrated. Regardless, I am going to neither ask for nor expect an apology from you for your unfounded personal accusation. However, I will remind you that such edits do indicate from whence you approach these topics, and you should take a few steps back and strongly consider if your methods are appropriate for wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I may very well be wrong, which is why we have talk pages, WT:BLP, and RfC's just to name a few methods. This has been discussed on the talk page, and is being done again there. Let us see if a new consensus emerges. -- Avi (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Deleting bogus articles

Thanks Zero0000. I'm not exactly sure I understand you though. Do you have the ability to delete articles? Or do you mean you'll nominate them for speedy deletion? --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Wow, do I feel ignorant. I haven't had enough contact with you and didn't see one of those wiki-globes on your user page to know if you were an admin, let alone a veteran. Anyway, I own the Khalidi and Abu-Sitta books so I have a good index to refer to also. I hope that was the only bogus village present. We should continue work on the 1948 villages very soon; if Huldra is really leaving, that means we have to take on an additional work load. Happy editing Zero0000, Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, WP:HOAXes are generally not speedies. See WP:CSD#G1 and Wikipedia:HOAX#Dealing_with_hoaxes. Most of the time they must go through AfD, as frustrating as that is. -- Avi (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn... so do we have to restore the article and nominate it again? I need to get more involved with the admin tasks to familiarize with them. Thanks for pointing that out Avi. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so in this case; but in general, it's good to be aware, as some hoaxes are'nt, and regardless, the last thing any admin wants is to be dragged to DRV/ANI with the accusation of "abuse of privilege". -- Avi (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Thanks for your help. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. -- Avi (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avi is right, though I'd class this particular example as vandalism. WP:CSD includes "blatant hoaxes" and "obvious misinformation" as vandalism for CSD purposes. But we need to consider any cases that come up on their merits, and proceed cautiously. Zero^talk 05:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah somebody added it to the infobox and it went undetected before. Scary really. Lucky I found it! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:PP26Jul1938.jpg)

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:PP26Jul1938.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

I don't suppose I'm denied the right to comment on the etymology of Jerusalem?

I'm glad you noted that this is pathetically ill-informed.

I have several times, in the archives, suggested an improvement to the etymology section, which is both ignorant and POV. I laid out a provisory draft before my perma-ban. It ain't much chop, since it simplifies a complex issue, but it does fulfil the minimal requirements, which the section at the moment does not, for writing to encyclopedic levels. A corresponding edit is required to fix Names of Jerusalem, which is organized on a false and misleading chronology that prioritizes later infra-hebraic etymologies over the historically earlier, more broadly semitic hypotheses related to the Egyptian evidence, and comparative cultic theonyms in Ugaritic and Akkadian.

You can find my last suggestion here. I think you yourself did something similar back in 2006?

Regards Nishidani (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall with precision when I read your suggestion. I do recall trying to find it while composing my own final suggestion, without success. I have a vague recall of coming across it after I'd made extensive notes, and thinking: 'Pointless to press on. Zero's already done it.'

I don't think I am allowed to actually edit, or even discuss these technical problems in the I/P area. I undertook not to edit the Jerusalem page before my perma-ban, and since this article is subject to high-wire tensions, obviously even a simple offer to set out the details (short for the Jerusalem page, lengthier for the 'Names of Jerusalem' page) can be taken as a provocation on my part, or an attempt to sneak back in.

The material's there, in any case. The sourcing is of high quality, and you're in good stead here. So I look forward to seeing, in a month or two, a marked improvement on that section. The best structuring is one undertaken on the strictest historical lines, in chronological sequence. (1) Egyptian, (2)Amarna letters, and the roughly contemporary Assyrian and Hebrew 7th cent. refs, followed by a second para. dealing with the assimilation to 'shalom', and the folk etymologies which then proliferated. Best Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Rachel Corrie

I have again reverted your edit; per WP:BRD we now discuss this matter until consensus is changed or reaffirmed. Reverting past the first time, and knowingly against consensus, is a violation of WP:Edit war and may attract warnings and possibly sanctions. Of course I shall not be the party to do either, and this is only a notice that I suggest the matter is discussed with other editors before another revert takes place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a discussion at Talk:Rachel Corrie where it noted that none of the sources now note both the bombing and the Rachel Corrie memorial - so if you wish to remove the content would you please note this in your edit summary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Hello Zero0000. A concern has been raised at the BLP noticeboard about talk page comments you have made regarding living persons, specifically this.

The subject is indeed a living person and you use a term that is an unsubstantiated slur. As admins, with significant editing experience, its very important we strictly adhere to WP:BLP, which is perhaps our most important policy. Could I recommend you review Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article space and refactor that comment? I think you could make the same point without resorting to potentially libelous language. Thanks (and feel free to remove this note after consideration). Rockpocket 06:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thought you might like to know this was started by a banned user's sockpuppet (NoCal100). See here. nableezy - 02:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I just noticed, thanks. Usually I don't pay attention to things like that, I just want to edit articles. Zero^talk 02:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah me too, but I have been calling that user a sock from his first 100 edits so I was a bit anxious to be proven right. nableezy - 02:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Request for Citation

There is some new info from the State Department Digest of International Law on my talk page [here] harlan (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

I think certain currents of Islam have developed strong antisemitic doctrines, and think that should be documented in an article 'The rise of antisemitism in modern Islam. I note that the intensity of wiki pages dealing with this simply has no parallel in the Christianity and antisemitism articles. A lengthy list of vitriolic antisemitism spewing out from the lips of, to name but one Christian denomination, Catholic priests or eminent Catholics (or Anglo-Catholics like T.S. Eliot, vide Christopher Ricks' book and the ensuing polemics) could be, in MEMRI fashion, run up and pasted into a wiki page, and that this is not done because making such pages would be considered politically counterproductive for one nation's interests. Thus, to name just a scant few candidates.

Tadeusz Rydzyk
Radio Maria
Richard Williamson
Charles Coughlin
Dennis Fahey
G K Chesterton cf. Adam Gopnik's article in NYRB (2008)
Bishop Ottokár Prohászka
Ante Bakovic Croatian priest and editor of Narod, (1997)
Lech Walesa's personal confessor, Father Henryk Jankowski (1995), the bloke who defended Mel Gibson
Father Gerard Burns (New Zealand)
Josef Tiso
Bishop Ivan Šarić of Sarajevo
Bishop Aksamovic of Djakovic
Bishop Brisgys
Cardinal Adolf Bertram
Cardinal Frings of Cologne
Robert Sungenis (2002)
Rev. Lawrence Lucas 1987
Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann

You could, in a hour's reading, run up a similar list of statement of West Bank rabbis (Reuven Firestone speaks of 200) who have publicly come out, on various occasions, with violent abuse about Palestines as Amalekites, in halakhic law, people to be exterminated. (In fact I have one, but I wouldn't make a wiki article out of it) This is why such articles require intelligent non-partisan care. They are framed egregiously to press a political point, and only underscore how, in that area, systemic bias is operating. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auschwitz bombing article

I almost daren't look at it. I think it may have started with material that was moved from elsewhere, and then I got fed up with it. Feel free (at least as far as I'm concerned) to put anything useful something else and redirect it, if you think it best. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus from Lydda and Ramla

Hi Zero0000! A couple things:

1. I left a reply for your specifically on the Lydda/Ramla page, but since it's a personal discussion unrelated to the topic, I'd like to continue it on user talk:

About the comparison to Lorch; whatever you may think of the "traditional view" (which has not been discredited), you can't deny the immense contributions that Lorch and the people who followed him in the IDF history department, made for the understanding of the conflict. Not only did they write the first histories, demarcate when the wars started and ended, etc., but they also created the IDF archive, which was later the main source of the writings for Kadish, Morris, Tal, and other later historians. Mordechai Bar-On, also head of the department in the past, wrote a book about their work for the department, it's quite fascinating how much they did. These people, and only them, had the unique chance of full access to all the documents, as well as credible eyewitness testimonies from the same years of the events. I don't understand why anyone would discredit their work, and indeed, it has not been discredited as you say.

2. You are fluent in Hebrew, correct? If you want to help with the article, please take the time to read the original materials manually typed by me at User:SlimVirgin/Lydda2. You might find interesting stuff that I missed. In general, I believe the article to be in bad shape in terms of balance, but SlimVirgin stated that she would cut down on the quotes from Arab eyewitnesses, which would help quite a bit. I would especially like to insert something from Yitzhak Tishler's book, which is a most fascinating Israeli eyewitness account.

Cheers, —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I know only the most basic Hebrew and cannot read anything serious like a newspaper or book. Unfortunately. And I haven't looked at that article for a long time on purpose: I know I would be sucked in and I just don't have time for the next few weeks. Regarding Lorch, regardless of his contributions he was a central figure in spreading the sanitised view of the conflict that only started to come unstuck when people like Benny Morris got involved. Just because Lorch had access to the archives doesn't mean that he reported (or was necessarily allowed to report) everything he saw there; as Morris demonstrated many times over. This was especially so in regard to the refugees. To quote Ian Lustig:

These authors knew how prominent a role was played by various forms of 'ethnic cleansing' and they employed a variety of strategies to avoid having to share this knowledge with their readers. Some simply did not mention the fate of the Arab inhabitants of the country or the causes for their displacement. In Lorch's nine-page index, for example, there is no listing for 'refugees' or 'Arab refugees'. Indeed, the matter is not discussed anywhere in his 450-page book, The Edge of the Sword: Israel's War of Independence, 1947-1949 (G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1961)."

Incidentally, Lustig also wrote this: "Just before his death in June 1997, Lorch publicly admitted that he left his post as head of the Israeli Army's History Division after the 1948 war because politically motivated censorship made good professional history writing impossible". (Both quotes from a 1997 review of Karsh's book.) Zero^talk 14:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph you posted is interesting, because as far as I know, Lorch did extensive research for the army at least until 1959. Maybe he quit then? Anyway, there is no doubt that these historians mostly omitted talk of refugees—indeed, Oren stated in his book that "this is not the book to talk about Arab refugees", it's plainly stated. However, this does not mean that they lied about key details in their books. Apparently, Morris agrees with me, as all of his military history of 1948 is cited from historians who were at some point working for the IDF in that field, including Elhanan Oren, Avi Ayalon, Avi Cohen, Mordechai Bar-On, Jeuda Wallach, etc. In fact, looking right now at the bibliography section for Making Israel, I am seeing that it's littered with books that I own written by "traditional" historians. It's also very important to understand that in the years we're talking about (60s and 70s), the only way to succeed in any field in Israel was to work in the field in the IDF—indeed, all of Israel's top singers and stage performers in that period were from IDF troupes.

If you say you aren't able to read history books in Hebrew, maybe this is what gives you a perception that the "traditional" accounts are full of lies (my apologies to you if you didn't imply this)—in fact, all of the basic facts given there are the same as "new" historians (the difference is how they interpret them), and also in fact, the "traditional" historians never engaged in polemic or gave their personal opinions, except possibly in the foreword sections of their books. This is a key difference with "new" historians, who are 90% polemic and 10% history (except Morris, who did a significant amount of research). There is a published interview with Yoav Gelber where he basically says this in criticism of the "new" historians (again, he singles out Morris as an exception). Interestingly about Morris however, his writings vary significantly between the English and Hebrew versions—something that Karsh touched upon in his book of criticism of "new" historians. Interestingly, the extreme pro-Palestinian group Zochrot recommends almost entirely "traditional" historiography (plus Morris), and practically no "new" history. Even they realize the vast differences in quality.

You also cannot confuse "traditional" historians with the traditional Israeli "mythos" of the 1948 war; I read most of the books on my user page, and nowhere did I find a "traditional" historian say that "we were few against many", or something to that effect (although this is a very interesting debate which I have quite a bit of knowledge about and if you are interested, could discuss it with you :) ). The traditional Israeli accounts are often quite different from what the "traditional" historians say in their books, which most Israelis of course don't have time/ability to read. By the way, Mordechai Bar-On wrote an entire book on the historiography of the 1948 war.

I am interested in discussing this stuff with you if you have time, just because there are no other editors I know (except Ceedjee and Nudve) who have vast knowledge of the war (apologies for anyone who is reading this if you have this knowledge!). We can move this to e-mail if you don't believe it's relevant to Wikipedia articles (indeed, it's not relevant to most of them...). Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, Yn, is that you want to rely on the primary sources directly. If modern historians make use of Oren (or any of the others), we can cite the modern historians citing them, so that we rely on what historians regard as worth taking from the earlier work. There is no need to use Oren directly, and doing so could lead to errors, UNDUE, and original research. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SV, I find it amazing that you call Oren a "primary source" having no idea who he was. But this discussion was moved here for a reason, it's because it's unrelated to Lydda/Ramla, and is a discussion of the historiography of the war in general. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus from Lydda and Ramla

Like an idiot, I left the following for you yesterday on the wrong talk page. [3] Then when you left a comment on the article talk page, I though that meant you were responding to my post, which I then couldn't find when I looked for it this morning. I briefly thought I was going mad, then realized the mistake I'd made. :) So, anyway, here is the request again (and feel free to ignore it completely if you're too busy):

Hi Zero, if you have time (and there's no rush), would you mind taking a look at the above? I am thinking about trying to get it to FA status, which would mean a rewrite to shorten and tighten it, and make it MoS compliant. It would be quite a lot of work and I don't want to start it if, in fact, the article's not ready. Ynhockey is saying on the talk page that it omits key Israeli military sources that he regards as essential reading—but they are in Hebrew, so I wouldn't be able to do that. Would you mind casting an eye over the article to see whether, in your view, it is comprehensive enough as it stands, or whether anything (or any source) jumps out at you as missing, or as being unjustifiably overused? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP request

Heyo Zero,
I was serious when I asked you to refactor your comment on Levy and asking you yo tone it down (e.g. descriptives like "wild fanatic"[4] are innapproriate). Please respond to this request.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I hope we're in general agreement now about the issue in discussion.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content, not the editor

Someone who has been here as long as you should know that, you plank. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yorshalim?

Don't know it myself, and two people I've asked don't know it either. Its a weird transliteration - neither the right Hebrew one, nor the Hebraized Arabic into English one (which would be Urshalim). Sorry I can't be of more help. Tiamut^talk 18:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey of Western Palestine

Hi Zero0000! I noticed that you added this as a source, which implies that you have access to the surveys. Since they are public domain, would it be too much to ask of you to scan or otherwise publish it? These materials are fairly hard to come by these days, but offer amazing insight into Ottoman Palestine, especially in terms of maps. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please send me email by the "e-mail this user" link. Zero^talk 12:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine origin of Name

Please discuss the issue and raise your points on the article talk page before you delete my edits in that section. Thanks John Hyams (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are more theories, then you can add them. I fail to understand your logic since giving the meaning of the word in Hebrew is in context and even if considering the baseless assumption that wasn't the "original" meaning the word, the current and known meaning of the word in Hebrew should be mentioned. Hebrew is a very old language, older than English, and there is no evidence to support your claim they the meaning of that word might have been different, since it's more or less the same language - back then (when the Hebrew bible was written) and today. The grammar may have changed, but the meaning of words has not. Therefore your point is not convincing, and you should start a discussion on the talk page and see what other people think. There is no point in trying to convince me further on this. John Hyams (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Bureik

Hi, I just started Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Sheikh Bureik..just for collecting information. That the land was owned by the Sursuk-family in 1881 probably explains why the village is not mentioned later in the Mandate-period; I assume the land was sold (with the rest of the Sursuk-land) to the Zionist-organisation, like in the Jezreel Valley, and the Arab tenants had to leave.

If you could add any 1596-data, it would be great. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I´m not sure I understand the question? I worked kind of backwards....starting with the Sharon (2004)-text (I have the actual text; later I found that it was also available through google-books, as I have linked on the page.) Now, Sharon gives the SWP-refs, see p.xxxviii, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SWP, 1881, p. 273:"small village, on a hill, with a conspicuous Makam (Sanctuary) to the south."...So; the village was situated somewhere to the north of the shrine,..that´s how I read it.

But the whole thing about Beit She'arim just being discovered in 1936; it is a lot of rubbish, methinks. The SWP-notes shows that the place was known for decades before (though not the full extent of it). cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also; I found the SWP, 1881, p. 273 reference in Sharon, 2004, p.xxxviii, cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SWP, 1881, p. 348: "two more tombs were found a little later, west of the village"

SWP, 1881, p. 349: "the great caves are west of the village, on the side of the northern hill, and are entered by a door on the south-east. They were discovered by women digging for chalk" ---Huldra (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On another note; I´m no good at fixing photos, but I think that most of the surroundings should be cut out of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sheikh_Abreik_Grave_in_Kiryat_Tiv'on,_Israel.jpg .....all those gray bushes aren´t really *that* interesting, methinks. And the other picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zaid12.JPG) gives a better/larger view of the surroundings...so I think we should keep that as it is. What do you think? --Huldra (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was delighted to find those Sharon-pages on the net. It has been a bit confusing as to which parts/books of Sharon are available on the net; there seem to be multippel references, som with no preview, others with. I have tried to collect the different web-sites here: User:Huldra/Sandbox#Moshe_Sharon_CIAP-books.2C_links:...and I agree; the whole poem (+ more of the Canaan-stuff) should go into the article. I have asked Tiamut to help: hope she "bites"! ;)

And it would be a *great* help to have the 1922 and 1931 censuses online! cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About categories: I guess at the moment we could use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Villages_depopulated_prior_to_the_1948_Arab–Israeli_War; I see that the villages depopulated in 1967, like Imwas and Yalo, use the "Villages depopulated after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War"-category. Eventually, I guess we should/could have a special category/template for these very early depopulated villages; but just now I´m not jumping up and down with enthusiasm at the prospect. (I´m still frantically trying to get my head above the water on the 1948-villages......)

Also; Thanks for the map; I haven´t looked much, but I wasn´t able to find Sheikh Bureik?

Also; the Beit She'arim National Park-article is not very good, at present, to put it mildly. Just to start with the article it refers to, from 2005, The Jewish Magazine: Bet Shearim:

It starts by proclaiming "Bet Shearim, recently chosen as protected site by the UN" What rubbish! Israel put it on UNESCO´s *tentative* list in 2002...now, there is a heck of a difference between beeing put on that list and actually be chosen as a UNESCO site.....

And even the article-writer has "some" problems with turning this into a wholly Jewish site, writing: "Some of the names are not very Jewish: there are Kyrilla and Arethas, the children of Hannibal; there's also Kyrilos son of Ampilas." Lol! And then there is a sarcophagus with Nike goddess engraved.. In the article you have a picture of "Two lions facing each other – A Greek mythological scene decoration on sarcophagus"...And over at commons you have http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lada_and_the_Sean-Beit_Shearin.jpg. And the "explanation" that rabbis used these "pagan symbols" for "purely decoration"? So, if we find, say, a "Hannibal", in a sarcophagus decorated with scenes from Leda and the Swan-myth, the conclusion is ..... he´s Jewish?! Hmmm. If looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, I´m rather sceptical to people who tell me it is anything *but* a duck. (....But I have not read the archaeological reports.) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think it is about time to finish Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Sheikh Bureik, and move it into main-space? (At least before we start *the other* "Sheik Abreik"!) You said you could fix the top picture, and take away the gray? And perhaps we could try to make it a DYK? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Your editing of Al-Haram, Jaffa made the article much brighter (That's something I can't say about other useres who erased all the information that wasn't suitable for their agenda). All the best, --Etai han (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Villages depopulated 1880-1930´s

I have just started collecting them here[5], whenever I come across one. It is not easy to find information on them, (say, Jida is basically just a redir.) Cheers, Huldra (talk)

Please see the talk page for a workshop. Zero^talk 05:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:PP14Dec1947.png

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:PP14Dec1947.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:PP1Oct1939.png)

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:PP1Oct1939.png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello, Zero0000. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PSM - "Between History and Fiction" by Michael Hagemeister

It's important to keep up with the latest scholarship. The article by the above world-class PSM scholar is available online and can be downloaded as a PDF file from this link: Hagemeister, Michael: "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: PSM - Hagemeister 35 (1103)". Retrieved 2009-09-27. It questions the novelty of the finding reported in the French press. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I already read it. Zero^talk 01:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian people

Hi, i totally agree with what you did in the article, but i don't understand as to why you feel that Tsvi Misinai is unqualified to be quoted as an expert in this field. Even though he lacks academic credentials, he is still a reputed researcher. He is a notable person. His notability is derived from his research on this subject. There are plenty of reputed media sources mentioning him and his work. Even David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben Zvi lacked academic credentials and they are still quoted. So, if their views can be mentioned, then Misinai's views on this subject should be mentioned, as an assertion, not as a fact. Santiago Matamoros 12:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply here. Santiago Matamoros 12:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew this theory for a long time and find it very credible, so I'm not opposed to it being mentioned in the article. As for Misinai, he is someone who has an interest in a subject outside his area of formal expertise and he has written a book on it. From what I have read it is a very interesting book and I might even buy it. But the fact remains that it is a book written by a dedicated amateur and there are thousands of such books. Press coverage can make him and his book notable enough to get their own article (as I see there is), but it doesn't imply that the book is any good. It only implies that it is newsworthy (even the most crackpot books get newspaper coverage). When we choose sources for a key article like Palestinian people we are choosing from a very large field and can afford to stick to the most impeccable ones. I would prefer to wait until the book has favorable reviews from recognised experts. Zero^talk 13:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, i agree with you. Let's just wait and see. Santiago Matamoros 14:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning TO an Administrator: PLAGIARISM

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/al-Bassa/index.html

Al-Bassa

Is THIS how "things are done" in Wikipedia?

Find a blatantly Anti-Zionist, Anti-Semitic site and just Copy & paste?

If THIS is how "things are done" in Wikipedia, please ban me. I wish to have no part in this. AbdulHornochsmannn (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article entitled Muslim invasions, yet if you switch the case of the letter i from the lower to the upper, no article on Muslim Invasions appears to exist. Is this another aspect of the way "things are done" at Wikipedia? ADMINS THEMSELVES commiting acts of blatant vandalism?

Please refrain from such acts of blatant vandalism. AbdulHornochsmannn (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't access it

It says I need an account to access the inside. I will sign up and let you now if I have better luck then. Thanks for everything by the way. Tiamut^talk 13:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Pleasure! Amazon allows limited reading of lots of books that Google does not. But it imposes a max number of pages per book so you need to be careful not to browse too much. Zero^talk 13:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... I seem to have forgotten the password for my old Amazon account and because I don't remember my old visa number, they will not send it to me. I then set up a new account and was given the message that I could not browse without having made a prior purchase. Oh well. Perhaps I will buy something from Amazon soon anyway (maybe the Petersen book itself) as a Christmas gift to me and then I'll be able to browse more freely in the future. For now, I'm afraid I can't be of much help with this particular issue. Thans for letting me now about this though Zero and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 14:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I told Tiamut; if you want anything checked from the Petersen, 2002-book: just ask me. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your geographical expertise is required

I am trying to figure out if Jubbata is one and the same place as Jubata ez-Zeit. I've left some links on the talk page that may be of help in ascertaining their locations. Unfortunately, its all Greek to me. I've never been very good at coordinates and the like. Could you take a look and offer your opinion on the matter? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 08:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, where did you find "Jubbata"? The one on p14 of Robinson (1843) seems to be the same as Jubata ez-Zeit, since it is in the right part of the country and there is a Birket directly to the north of it (matching Robinson's description). Did you find another Jubbata? Jubata ez-Zeit, also Joubbata ez-Zaite, Jubata al-Zayt, Djoubata el-Zeit, is correctly marked on this map near Majdal Chams. I have it on a 1943 military map. Zero^talk 11:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page 14 of the 1843 book by Robinson mentions Jubbâta, on pages 58 ad 59 of the Bibliotheca Sacra, it is mentioned as Jūbbâta, and Robinson mentions Jubbâta again in his later work on pages 402, 404, ad 405. Tiamut^talk 16:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are all the same, though I can't identify all the nearby place names mentioned in these sources. Unfortunately the PEF map doesn't reach this far. Also notice there is another Jubata on this map: this map, namely Jubata Kashab in the dark zone. However it isn't on the way from Banias to Damas or on the way to the summit of Hermon, so I don't think it is the one in the sources. Zero^talk 00:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morris & Khalidi

Hello, since the Morris-stuff keeps growing; I´ve moved everything about Morris &/or Khalidi to : Huldra/Morris & Khalidi. You are very much welcome with your comments there. (I´m trying to map the relationship between the villages given in Morris &/or Khalidi... eventually also in the: Esber, Rosemarie M. (2008), Under the Cover of War, The Zionist Expulsions of the Palestinians. Arabicus Books & Media. ISBN 0981513174, 9780981513171. -book. ----although the Esber -book I have at the moment has some absolutely horrible printing-errors. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the system there. What does bold mean? Zero^talk 10:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, bold generally means "I don´t have a clue here......anybody, please help me..." (oh, and I have also "bolded" the big cities, like Tiberias, Beisan etc.) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah; it´s a bit stupid, having to list all the villages twice. However, at present, I don´t know how to avoid it. Huldra (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RSN thread

Have you noticed Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Arutz Sheva? Thought I saw you say some (negative) things about it somewhere and so might want to add an informed comment.John Z (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Military Assault and Jewish Expulsion: One cause or two?

Very well, no harm in discussing it.

Can someone please explain to me how a "Miltary Assault" is an entirely separate cause for the depopulation than an outright "Expulsion"? The population was there, and then they left. Why did they leave? According to one source it was because they were expelled by Jews. Fine. How did these Jews manage to gain sufficient control of the village to carry through this expulsion? Military Assault. You can't expell people from a place if you don't control that place. All we're talking about here are two separate stages of one alleged cause.

Q: What was the cause of the Holocaust? A: There was no single cause. Indeed there were seventeen:

Cause 1) The rise of National Socialism in Germany; Cause 2) Adolph Hitler's election to Chancellor in 1933; Cause 3) Adolph Hitler's possession of racial theories classifying Jews as subhuman; Cause 4) The implementation of Adolph Hitler's racial theories classifying Jews as subhuman; Cause 5) The construction of Death Camps. Cause 6) The construction of Gas Chambers. Cause 7) The herding of Jews into those Gas Chambers; Cause 8) The introction of the deadly gas "Zyklon B" into those Gas Cambers; Cause 9) The deadly reaction of the Jews to the introduction of Zyklon B into Gas Chambers they happened to have been located in. Cause 10) The cremation of those Jews killed by Zyklon B. Cause 12) Hyper-inflation. Cause 13) The harshness of the Treaty of Versailles. Cause 14) German bitterness over the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles. Cause 15) Mohammad Amin al-Husayni's alliance with Hitler. Cause 16) Al-Husayani's extreme inhospitality in that he refused to so much as allow Jews the most temporary of assylums in Palestine, even if only to save another human's life and kick him out once the war is over. Cause 17) The German need for soap.

But there aren't 17 causes. There is but one: Jew-Hatred.

What would actually be of some USE would be to offer ALTERNATIVE explanations, such as those of Eminent Historian Cecil Roth:

"At the outset the Arab authorities had made it known that any person remaining in the areas controlled by the Jews would be regarded as acquiescing in their political pretentions and would have to answer for it. Thus, with the outbreak of hostilities there took place a wholesale evacuation in preparation for a triumphant return." 70.25.46.99 (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some left at the start of the military assault and some were expelled later. Two immediate causes. Read the book, p253, and read WP:OR. Zero^talk 01:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, according to Roth, a great many left before any attack took place at all. Can I cite Roth and include "Arab Leaders who threatened the inhabitants to leave lest their be dire consequences" as a third cause? I tried, but you deleted that as well. 70.25.46.99 (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no such thing as WP: Double Jeopardy.

Apparently I did a crime, but I did my time. Yet you've just blocked my acount once again, from alleged transgressions that had occurred PRIOR to my first block.

Look, I did my time. You can't block me again unless I've either recidivised, or warranted a new block for new reasons. You can't punish me from the same crime more than once. That's double jeopardy. 70.25.46.99 (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I didn't block anyone in the past week. Are you AbdulHornochsmannn? Zero^talk 01:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm Abdul. Thought it was too obvious. But that account got unblocked.

Unfortunately: 05:37, 10 November 2009 Zero0000 (talk | contribs) changed block settings for AbdulHornochsmannn (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Uses talk page to make offensive insults. Removing talk page privs,)

I was unblocked,then you blocked it again. That's why I'm writing at a Cafe. Because you reblocked my IP. How long will you continue with your bald-faced lies? (An attack has to be false or at the very least gratuitous to qualify as a transgression of WP:NPA. Perhaps I may be personally attacking you in an incidental fashion, but a fact is a fact. You blocked me, and now you deny it. Being lied to straight to my face qualifies as a pretty serious personal attack in and of itself. 70.25.46.99 (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your block log. You were never unblocked. The administrator who blocked you on Nov 4 left you with the ability to post on your own talk page, but you abused that privilege by posting gratuitous insults and threats against Wikipedia. So I removed that privilege too. Now you are violating your ban by posting from a different IP. Your ban is indefinite, richly deserved, and you are not welcome here. Kindly go away. Zero^talk 07:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine

Hi, I agree with you; the present template should be improved. Personally I´m absolutely no good in fixing such technical things, though. Anyway, I have started a discussion over at Template_talk:Infobox_former_Arab_villages_in_Palestine#Improvements_to_the_template, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Thanks. Btw, I had absolutely *no* idea that "I" had my own article on wp, when I registered under that nick..and I was quite horrified when I read the article here... The Huldra-article here has hardly anything to do with the Asbjørnsen and Moe I grew up with! Oh well. Cheers! Huldra (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

thank you for add source that help prove israelis destroy villages. we must not let pro israel editors water down article title so that it more pleasing to them! the truth be truth. Ani medjool (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have a look?

Hi Zero!

Since you're one of the few good editors left, could you have a look at West Bank? Seems like a bunch of anti-occupationalists have been having a go at it.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 17:59 22.11.2009

Google fault

I'm not trying to interfere, but look again at List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus - the Google book displays incorrectly, it's actually showing p.177 and not p.76-77. I know because I have the book and couldn't find it, but the error in Google is obvious if you open the page at the hyper-link in the article. 86.160.21.92 (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll look. Zero^talk 21:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Zero, we aren't going anywhere. We're here to stay.

We regret to inform you that we have no intention of "kindly go[ing] away", and allowing you, and those like you, to continue to deliberately distort history. Our friend "Abdul" has created an OFF-Wikipedia group growing in number day by day. Our group may be a mere 145 strong, but our numbers are growing daily. To-date, only three of us have spoken. One, our founder, from an IP address in Canada, a second from the US, and a third, from, of all places, Saudi Arabia, a mere hour after the second made his post. This is not sockpuppetry. There exists no means of transportation that can transport the same individual from The United States to Saudi Arabia within one hour's time. Within the next several days, please expect to hear from a fourth member, in this instance a certain gentleman writing from an IP address in England, voicing his own personal objection to your deliberate distortion of history. No. We will certainly not "kindly go away". We are here to stay. We are here to fix Wikipedia. No doubt you will delete this post too due to its flagrant violation of WP:CEUWGAPH. Yet we will continue. Unless and until Wikipedia is fixed, we will never "kindly go away". 174.89.234.46 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Jaffa1953B.jpg

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Jaffa1953B.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions in 2010

Follow-up on Recognition

The article in volume II of of the State Department Digest of International Law ended on the following page with the conclusion of the speech from the British House of Commons.

During a conversation between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Abdel Monem Rifai, a Counselor of the Jordan Legation on June 5, 1950 Mr. Rifai asked when the US was going to recognize the union of Arab Palestine and Jordan. Mr. Rockwell explained the Department's position, stating that it was not the custom of the United States to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area. The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. Mr. Rifai said he had not realized this and that he was very pleased to learn that the US did in fact recognize the union. Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume V (1950), Page 921 [6] There is an editors note on the same page about a $27M appropriation to assist Palestinian refugees and fund the projects the Clapp Mission had recommended. harlan (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Zero0000! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 940 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Yehoshua Porath - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo

I can't say that your edit summary was clear enough towards your concerns with the content changes on Avi Shlaim. RolandR and CJCurrie made a couple of irrelevant/false claims towards the standings of the newspaper and I've tried to explain their errors to them. Your concern however, if I understand correctly, are that the criticism "doesn't read like a criticism". Since to me at least is does, I figure you might want to elaborate on the talkpage. Maybe make a rephrase suggestion or some other collaborative suggestion that you would find satisfying. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Dan Margalit is worth quoting. But what criticism did he make? Shlaim says A was the the worst decision, Margalit says B was the worst decision. Why is that a criticism? You say tacos are best, I say enchiladas are better; who cares? If Margalit directly accuses Shlaim of going soft on B, that would be criticism. But does he? As far as the proposed text goes, it could be that Shlaim and Margalit both rank A and B as the worst two decisions with not much to call between them. Zero^talk 01:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for this edit. I'd been wanting to do so as well. Debresser (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: UN links

Hi Zero0000! Thanks for the heads up. While I didn't have much time when making that edit, I will definitely keep this in mind for the future. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, excuse me...

...that is not a content dispute going on at George Harrison. The user is changing the well cited cause of Harrison's death, then using citations that say that Harrison died of exactly the cause that the user keeps changing. One look at the refs he's inserted will tell you that. I don't know why is is perceived as a content dispute. Radiopathy •talk• 03:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something you should know,

The user above is on a 1rr restriction, seen here.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 03:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Harrison

Should the page be unprotected now that the 2 users involved in the edit-war have been blocked ? That will allow other uninvolved editors to continue regular editing. Abecedare (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Zero^talk 04:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Reset 1rr restriction for user Radiopathy. Thank you.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 09:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bassa

Responded on my talk page. -- Avi (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Thanks very much for the link and clarification. I'll be sure to correct the wording accordingly where it is encountered in our articles. Cheers and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 10:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, and thanks for the welcome back. The UN-link is very useful, and should be included in the -48-village-articles. Perhaps we could figure out a "standard" way of presenting the info? I would like to include both links in each article, both to the UN-page and to the 1970-copy.

Also; I would love to see a commons-cat with each of the 48-villages; we could start with a subset of the maps. I'm trying to get Ashley to do the job....(he can edits on commons).

And, I would love to expand Dayr al-Shaykh; on commons there are now two pictures of the maqam of Sultan Badr:-) It is ancient; apparently from Baybars days, and Petersen writes a lot about it (p.136-139). Also mentioned in Tawfiq Canaan, (1927). That article really deserves to be expanded. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zero. Thanks for adding info on 1931 census to Sharafat, East Jerusalem. Do you hve any info on the 1943 British census in Palestine? I believe it ws an animal census (though I'm not sure) as I can see a bit about it in this source. I'm trying to draw up a section on agricultural and pastoral prctices in the village and I think that source might be helpful. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 14:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were some taxes on animals and this required a count to be kept. See this for example (I dont' see what year is being referred to). Also here (1927). The Department of Agriculture conducted regular animal censuses. However I doubt that it will be possible to get data on a particular village; most probably the census reports only contained statistical summaries. I will see if I can find such a report, but at the moment I don't have high hopes. Zero^talk 02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it. Sorry by the way about the error in dating the Mehola junction bombing. I thought Anthoy Cordesmann would be reliable source for something like that, but if you are saying that nespaper reports plce in at 1993, then it seems there is a problem. I'll look into the issue further. But what do to when multiple reliable sources characterize the Afula Bus bombing as the first one? Is everyone wrong? Or are we missing something? Tiamut^talk 10:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect someone described it as the first suicide bombing in Israel, then other people repeated it without realising the qualification is important. Once a myth like that gets started, there is no stopping it. Zero^talk 10:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your assessment is your correct. I've added a note to Talk:Cave of the Patriarchs massacre drawing on material from Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad by Matthew Levitt, Dennis Ross. It states clearly that the Mehola bombing was the first car bomb suicide attack, but the Afula Bus bombing was the first succcessful car bomb suicide attack inside Israel proper. I suspect that because the Mehola bombing didn't result in Israeli fatalies, it is often overlooked. And the qualifier "in Israel" is important to describing as Afula as the first as well. Tiamut^talk 11:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Eichmann

In case you're not aware of it, there's a discussion on the Eichmann talk page concerning Ward Churchill. A comment there about your edit would be helpful if you have second or two. freshacconci talktalk 23:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Patria.jpg

Hi,

If the file is indeed in the public use now, maybe it should be uploaded to the Commons? In the Russian version of the article they use the same image with arrows and it was uploaded under fair-use conditions which is apparently wrong. So can you upload it to the Commons so that all language sectors can use it as a public domain image? Thank you. --Deinocheirus (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

palestinefact.org

I wrote an article about palestinefacts.org here on wp several years ago..after a year or so it was nuked without me being notified ;-( I thought I would ask an admin to recover it for me, and have it moved into my user-space (like Tiamut has done with User:Tiamut/Hafrada.) I just never have gotten around to it. It had all the contact-info, etc, which was later hidden away in archives. I cannot remember the exact name; Palestinefact.org or Palestinefact. Zero: if you can look at my deleted user-page, there was a (red!) link there. May I ask you to recover the article, and move it to my user-space? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it. Maybe I didn't manage to guess the right name; can you find it in your contribs? Zero^talk 02:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It´t gone from my contribution-list, methinks. But go to the User:Huldra-page (which was deleted in August last year); undelete that, and you will in the history find that I listed the articles that I had started. Palestinefact was among them. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try PalestineFacts..that is how it was referred to here. -Huldra (talk)

See User:Huldra/PalestineFacts. I gave you two versions. Since there are now two {{Reflist}} templates, things might be confused on there. Zero^talk 03:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, thanks, Huldra (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zero. It's best to tag userfyed articles as {{Userspace draft}} when userfying them. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know of that template. Zero^talk 03:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of this website as a source

While I agree that the website doesn't meet WP:RS, I am concerned by the undiscussed removal of all references to it on Wikipedia, especially for non-controversial facts. Why is the same not being done for other non-WP:RS websites, such as palestineremembered.com, which features prominently in dozens of articles? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just some notes on palestineremembered.com: I don´t think any of the "regular" contributors here use that site as a source any more -it might have been a case 4-5 years ago, but not today. Personally I use the site for two purposes: linking to the 1945-census, (which there is a copy of on the site)..and under the "External links"-section. Now; the reason why I link under the external link-sections is...the pictures. The site hosts some great pictures which people have uploaded. Under Al-Nabi Yusha', to take an example, the site hosts the best pictures online (AFAIK) of what is probably the most important Shia site in present Israel. I haven´t seen as good pictures anywhere else (except in books). Palestineremembered.com also lists their sources (a big plus!) --but I have seen that they have mixed up the material at some of the villages. So I agree: they should not be used as a source, at least not for any controversial material. But I will continue to link to it under "external links"-section, unless that is explicitly forbidden. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that many of the citations were for non-controversial facts, but they should be easy to cite to sources meeting the rules. I only deleted content in the case of one or two extreme claims. Regarding palestineremembered.com, most citations are to its hosted scans of British and UN documents (which is allowed by the rules, see WP:Citing sources#Convenience links). Claims of fact which originate with palestineremembered.com or come via palestineremembered.com from unreliable/unverifiable places should not be allowed. These are not the only two web sites that should be used more sparingly, but one thing at a time. Zero^talk 02:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I undid one of your changes, because you seem to have been deleting references to this website everywhere. This seems like a bad thing to do, because you have not touched any of the material for which this website was a reference. WP:RS is not an absolute measure, anyway; it is OK to cite unreliable sources, or even opinion, if it is made clear in the article where the information came from. cojoco (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at WP:RSN. Regarding your last statement, I don't agree. As far as I see it, policy is to not use unreliable sources even for completely uncontested information. Citation of such a source for an opinion could be ok if the attribution of the opinion is reliable (eg the web site of a political party can be cited for the opinion of that party). In the case of this web site, we cannot even use it in the form "According to X, ..." since the web site does not identify any person or organization as responsible for its content. Zero^talk 07:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree with you, sorry if I caused any trouble. cojoco (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble at all; we need to discuss these things sometimes. Zero^talk 03:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's notice board

Hi, I notice that you have been removing a large number of references. I think this is quite damaging, so I've added a note here at the Administrator's Notice Board. cojoco (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place to discuss this communally is at WP:RSN, not WP:ANI. Zero^talk 04:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note now to WP:RS/N. Maybe I shouldn't have brought your name into it, but to me it seems that there are a lot of unreferenced statements lying around in these articles now without any supporting references, which might take a while to clear up. cojoco (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Sheikh Jarrah

See my talk page. Tiamut^talk 14:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For info on Rachel's Tomb nd the Bilal ibn Rabah mosque and tomb, see my talk page. Tiamut^talk 13:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zero0000, thanks for the offer, but Nbleezy already sent it to me. I just finished reading it (it's very interesting). Hope to begin a draft in user space tomorrow. Just have to do decide how to transliterate his name. :) Anyway, thanks again. Tiamut^talk 22:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off the record.

loomislewis@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.69.185 (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Figured I'd Here From You

Look, all the history and the text is not lost from my edits. The non cited material has been there for a long while. I have even left up some old and "citeless" portions of the article. I just think its time that this article becomes sane. If there is text that I have deleted because of a lack of citations you need only to find the cite and return it to the original position. Onefinalstep (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jstor

Hey, do you have access to Jstor? If I ask you for some articles, can you send them to me? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but ask in email since I'll need to send them that way anyway. (Click my "E-mail this user" link.) Zero^talk 00:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the documents, I sent you one more link after, did you see it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huldra/Morris-list

I am starting to see the end of my User:Huldra/Morris-list, finally! I have now put in the Morris village # in all the villages that I have found. The ones that I have yet not found are *mostly* redlinked. I supect/assume many of them are Beduin.

There are a couple of things I would love some help figuring out:

Majdal Yaba is it village #202 or #388??

I can't find any map evidence of two Majdal Yabas close together as Morris marks them. SWP has only one, census 1931 only has one, similarly Village stats 1945. I rather suspect Morris made a mistake. Zero^talk 10:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Majdal Yaba belonged the vast lands stretching from Petah Tikva to the west, Deir Ballut to the east, Kafr Qasim to the north and Al-Muzayri'a to the south. With a total area of 26.63 Sq. Km, [7] all those lands, castles, springs, mills, rivers, quarries, vineyards, citrus grooves etc which are within that boundry belonged to Majdal Yaba. Please have in mind that it was the headquarters of all govenments which had ruled the place all over history, and a lordship during the crusaders. Ras Al Ain was the regional administrative and military headquarters, while and Mirabel was the regional watch tower and lord's residence, they are inseparable. Ras Al Ain was only deserted in recent history after it's british occupation in Sept 12. 1918, who built a big camp over it's lands calling it Camp Ras El Ain (120 Maintenance Unit) [8]. Parts of Al-Mirr also goes under Majdal Yaba lands, it was dominated by a christian family who said to have sold it in 1931 to the Keren Kayemet who built Kibbutz Einat at this land in 1952, hope this clears things up regarding the Morris' two Majdal Yabas [9] , Ras Al Ain [10], Antipatirs [11], and al-Mirr [12] refered in Morris-Khalidi lists Kessale (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Village #201, Ras al Ein?

We have no article. It is marked as a location on PEF (11, Mn) and Mandate maps. Midway between Petach Tiqva and Kafr Qasim. SWP II,150 says "Ras el 'Ain.—An abundant perennial supply of cold clear water forming a pool even in August, from which a stream is conducted in a small channel to gardens below. The water issues from a masonry structure which has in it a small recess, as at 'Ain es Sultan." Same source p210 says "Ras el 'Ain (Mn).—A wall of small masonry and rubble, with a niche pointing south behind the spring ; two aqueducts, partly rock-cut, partly of small masonry, the upper one only in use. The work looks like the Roman work of the Kan at el Kufar (Sheet XVII.), and that at 'Ain es Sultan (Sheet XVIII.)." (no mention as a village, rather as a spring). 1939 map shows it as a stop on the railway line and there is a pumping station there. Can't see it is 1931 census or 1945 village stats. Khalidi (end of p396) says "former village...deserted since the 1920s". Zero^talk 09:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Antipatris, (another article which should really be vastly expanded..), I put a link to it in the dab Ras al-Ayn, --Huldra (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Village #223 Jindas?

We have no article. Tiny village 1.5km NNE of Lydda. SWP II,251 says "A very small hamlet of mud" (not much for an article!). Khalidi in preface (p. xix) says that it was not included as it was "largely vacated before the commencement of hostilities". Village stats 1945 shows population 0. Zero^talk 10:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only other "Jindas" I know is Jisr Jindas, though if it is on the road between Lydda and Ramleh, then I assume it is *south* of Lydda. -Huldra (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Village #268 Huraniya?

This is Al-Masmiyya al-Saghira. Zero^talk 10:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes?...but, what then is village #274 Masmiya al Saghira?? --Huldra (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! My guess was based on the fact that Huraniya does not appear on maps, or census 1931 or stats 1945, and Khalidi's index says "al-Huraniyya, see al-Masmiyya al-Saghira [Gaza]". Then in the article on al-Masmiyya al-Saghira (p126) he gives alternative names Masmyyat al-Hurani and al-Huraniyya. Another Morris mistake? Zero^talk 00:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And then we have:

village #371 Khirbet Sarona?

It is the old site of Sarona, bought out during the mandate period, see Sharona. The location was about 1km SE of modern Sharona. I don't know its 1948 story. Zero^talk 08:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

village #377 Shu'ut?

This one is very mysterious. Morris describes it as a village and quotes an IDF communique about "at least 20 houses". But I haven't yet found a single mention of it anywhere else. I'm guessing bedouin encampment. Zero^talk 05:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but would they use the word "houses" talking about a bedouin encampment? Have they done that elsewhere? Huldra (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. But I found the location. "Esh shut" appears on a 1925 map of Southern Palestine as a ruin. The address is 31:14N, 34:29E, about 2km NE of Gevulot. I'll look at a more recent topographic map next time I'm in the library. Uri Milstein (Vol II, p289) refers to "Shu'ot" near Gevulot as an inhabited village. Zero^talk 08:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

village #385 Khirbet Lid al Awadin?

Appears in 1931 census. It is Lid, Khirbat. Zero^talk 14:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, it is now included, Huldra (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done all the easy ones...I thought I would leave the tricky/impossible ones to you ;)! Cheers, Huldra (talk)

Ok, now I think I have got as far as I can with the Morris-list. I have been looking and looking for

#190 Birket Ramadan and

I have it on maps as a swamp! No other information. Zero^talk 09:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#376 Arab al Nusseirat, both in Tulkarm..but cannot find any "candidates".

Note Morris' index says "Arab al Nusseirat tribe". In the 1931 census the population of Arab el Nuseirat is included with that of Kafr Zibad, which is in the West Bank. Zero^talk 09:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was also wondering if #142 Khirbet Ras Ali could be another name for Khirbat Sa'sa'? It is in about the same place.

No, they are different. I see both on the same map. Zero^talk 09:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, feel free to comment on the User:Huldra/Morris-list-page (I moved some of your older comments there), Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR report about Israel, Palestine and the United Nations

Hello Zero0000. You are mentioned in WP:AN3#User:Zero0000 reported by User:Emmanuelm (Result: ). It appears that the inclusion of this material is a question of WP:Undue weight that normally requires consensus to decide. Since there have not been four reverts in 24 hours the only remedy the noticeboard could apply would be protection. This could be avoided if someone had a plan for resolving the issue. Do you have any suggestions for how this dispute might be submitted to a wider audience for feedback, for instance a WP:Request for comment? EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

access

You wouldn't happen to have access to the full text of this would you? nableezy - 08:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But of course ;). Send me email and it shall be yours. Zero^talk 08:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sent, thanks. nableezy - 08:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Hi Zero0000,

Regrading your edit to Israel - when placing a reference, please use the proper templates (like Template:Cite web). I've spent quite enough time formatting sources, and don't enjoy having extra work of this kind on my hands.

Thanks, okedem (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks for fixing it. Zero^talk 14:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :-) okedem (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qabu.

Would you care to take a look at Al-Qabu? I especially need the co-ords-- and anything else you could find, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See that talk page. Incidentally, Google's translation of one of the pop-ups at amudanan.co.il is "Females very dark and a bit of trouble." Zero^talk 23:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I never took French; the only language (besides the Scandinavian ones and English), I can sort off read, is German. If you want to see what books I have access to, then you can search here. We have the Abel-books, but not the others. I have also found that my local library is *very* forthcoming in ordering whatever books that I want...in English, just as long as they are on sale through Amazon. (There is *some* advantage in living in a filthy rich country ;) ) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints about POV

Thank you for your concern about my alleged abuse of POV. I find it very curious that you should complain about others' supposed abuse of POV, when it is clear from my own short experience, and from the comments of many others on this talk page, that it is your repeated practice to wantonly revert edits, including many which were legitimate and compliant with WP policies, simply because they did not accord with your own POV. I see you're an admin though, and may ban me, or delete this post, or do whatever you wish. So, congratulations, and good for you. But bad for Wikipedia. And bad for the truth. Objectiff (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Emerson

I know you complained about Epeefleches edits to this article several months ago on the talk page, I thought you would be interested to know that the article has become essentially a puff piece. It goes out of it's way to support his views and downplays any criticism of him. I been involved in some nasty edit wars recently which has discouraged me from taking on controversial articles at this moment. I just thought I'd bring the matter to your attention. annoynmous 04:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, puff piece indeed. I don't have the time or energy to work on it right now, though. Zero^talk 02:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Danun

Hi, do you have the refs. for the 1931-data? Huldra (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sheikh Bureik, Lajjun

On April 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sheikh Bureik, Lajjun, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 08:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UN and Time zones

The Security Council operates under "provisional" rules of procedure that do not address that particular issue.[13] The Introduction and Chapter 1 of the Security Council repertoire explain that the Council has refused to adopt any permanent rules that might limit its flexibility to respond to unique situations.

I can tell you from personal experience that US Central Command counted down using local time in the theater of operations, and that there were no air tasking orders from USCENTAF until the 17th. The Security Council didn't even meet to take up the matter of the expiration of the 15 January deadline until the 28th day of the war, on 13th February 1991. There was a heated discussion about the need for rules of procedure "in order to assure prompt and effective action" under article 24 of the Charter at that time. See pages 16 and 41 [14] Subsequent resolutions that supplemented the original SC Res 661 sanctions did specify the Eastern Standard Time zone, e.g. [15]

In any event, Security Council resolution 660 contained a demand that Iraq withdraw all of its forces "to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990." By implication, the wording of 678 permitted the Iraqis the latitude to get that task accomplished "on or before" 0001 hrs on 16 January (GMT+3) Iraq/Kuwait time. The Secretary General's remarks after the vote indicate that the wording was open to interpretation, i.e. "even on the most stringent reading, the resolution just adopted envisages at least 45 days of earnest effort to achieve a peaceful solution of the crisis." See page 86 of the pdf. [16]

At the time this was a sui generis case where the Council was actually delegating away its authority to the Government of Kuwait and some (but not all) cooperating member states "to use all necessary means" & etc. The forces in the theater of operations were not under the operational control of the Security Council, and there was a vigorous debate about the authority for such a thing under the terms of the Charter. There is a discussion about the evolving practice of the Security Council on that topic here: [17] harlan (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References to foreign-language books

Could you take a look at Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl#Books and advise how to link to an online copy of a foreign-language book? It took me ages to track this book down, as it's been out-of-print for ages, despite being highly influential. Thanks for the help! --Nmagedman (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Mazar, Jenin

Thanks for helping out. I created the stub, but couldn't really go any further since I'm not familiar with the subject. -Reconsider! 06:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sheikh Danun

On May 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sheikh Danun, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request ...

I've started Bayt Nuba here. Please freely add anything you think might help. Warm regards, Tiamut^talk 20:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Al-Qabu

On May 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Al-Qabu, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guerin's books at archive.org

The search function at archive.org is sensitive to diacriticals. So "Guerin" and "Guérin" don't get the same results. Also, some of these books are poorly scanned, so searching inside the book can entirely miss the content. Using the index can help.

Galilée, Tome I: [18] [19] Tome II: [20] [21]
Samarie, Tome I: [22] [23] Tome II: [24]
Judée, Tome I: [25] [26] Tome II: [27] Tome III: [28]

Zero^talk 03:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You. are. awesome. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 08:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero; this is a wonderful, wonderful find. The Guerin-stuff at archive.org is actually "stored" under different names; both author= "Guérin, Victor, 1821-1891", and author="Guérin, Honoré Victor"...and I had only found the last one! It will go into Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Books at once; Thanks again! Huldra (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Curator Barnstar
		For your consistent provision of links to and copies of historical works, maps, and other resource gems which have improved countless articles. Thank you. Tiamut^talk 15:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

)

Hi

Hi. I tried to pull up "7 appears in "After bombings, America faces up to prejudice" Charles M. Sennott, 21 June 1995, The Boston Globe.", but it appears to be behind a paywall. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by email. Zero^talk 08:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Tx much.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society

This society published a large number of early accounts of Palestine. Volumes available at archive.org:

[29] [30] Procopius of Caesarea. 560AD
[31] Itinerary from Bordeaux to Jerusalem. 333AD.
[32] Letter of Paula and Eustochium to Marcella. 386AD.
[33] The Pilgrimage of the Holy Paula.
[34] The Epitome of S. Eucherius about certain Holy Places. 440AD.
[35] Theodosius. 550AD.
[36] Antoninus Martyr. 510-550AD.
[37] Vol 3. Pilgrimage of Arculfus, Hodoeporicon of St. Willibald, Description of Syria and Palestine by Mukaddasi, Itinerary of Bernard the Wise.
[38] The Hodoeporicon of Saint Willibald. 754AD.
[39] Description of Syria and Palestine by Mukaddasi. 985AD.
[40] The Itinerary of Bernard the Wise. 1090AD.
[41] Vol 4. Journey through Syria and Palestine by Nasir-i-Khusrau, Pilgrimage of Saewulf to Jerusalem, Pilgrimage of the Russian Abbot Daniel.
[42] Saewulf. 1102-1103AD.
[43] Description of the Holy Land by John of Würzburg. 1160-1170AD.
[44] The Pilgrimage of Joannes Phocas in the Holy Land. 1185AD.
[45] Guide-Book to Palestine. 1350AD.
[46] John Poloner's Description of the Holy Land. 1421AD.
[47] [48] Extracts from Aristeas, Hecataeus, Origen, and other early writers.
[49] Vol 6. Anonymous Pilgrims, City of Jerusalem and Ernoul's account of Palestine, Guide Book to Palestine, Description of the Holy Land by John Poloner.
[50] The History of Jerusalem by Jacques de Vitry. 1180AD.
[51] Theoderich's Description of the Holy Places. 1172AD.
[52] Pilgrimage of S. Silva of Aquitana to the Holy Places. 385AD.
[53] [54] General Index
[55] Churches of Constantine at Jerusalem
[56] The Pilgrimage of Arculfus in the Holy Land. 670AD.
[57] Fetellus. 1130AD.
[58] Anonymous Pilgrims I-VIII
[59] Felix Fabri. Vol I. Part I. 1480-1483AD.
[60] Felix Fabri. Vol I. Part II. 1480-1483AD.
[61] Felix Fabri. Vol II. Part I. 1480-1483AD.
[62] Felix Fabri. Vol II. Part II. 1480-1483AD.
[63] The Life of Saladin by Beha Ed-Din. 1137-1193AD.
[64] The Epitome of S. Eucherius about certain Holy Places. 440AD. Breviary or Short Description of Jerusalem. 530AD.

Any more??

According to the index, there are also the following titles (or chapters):

Burchard of Mount Sion
A Crusader's Letter
Ludolph von Suchem
Marino Sanuto

The index is definitely the easiest way to find something. Zero^talk 13:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at User:Adam Bishop/library, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Mazra´a, Khirbat al-"?

Hi, Do you know what/where "Mazra´a, Khirbat al-", mentioned in Pringle, 1997, p. 70 is? Cheers, Huldra (talk)

It is 1km from the coast, 2km south of Tantura. SWP II, 4&33 (el Mezrah). No population in modern times as far as I can tell, including now. Zero^talk 02:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Also, do you have the pop. numbers for 1931 for Mazra'a? At the moment, the article has no info for the period between 1880s and 1948. Any info would be much appreciated. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your email. Zero^talk 04:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta be kidding

There is no original research in my edit. The statement is on the web and any hebrew reader can see that I'm right. here is the link: http://www.jabotinsky.org/jabo_multimedia/multimedia/documents/linked/%D7%9B4%20-10_1.PDF 79.178.35.155 (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic instance of original research. You refer us to a typewritten document which you claim to have found in an archive. Even if the document is there, it is a primary source, and cannot be used as a reliable source. Your interpretation of this document is certainly original research. RolandR (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the sentence in question (as written in the article) is "Statement of Yehuda Lapidot [Irgun], file 1/10 4-K, Jabotinsky Archives, Tel Aviv". this is the link to Jabotinsky Archives. this is file 1/10 4-K that is on the archive web page and indeed it includes Lapidot's testimony. There is no original research here. Someone added a false sentence that supposedly has a reference. I checked the ref and found out that there is nothing in Lapidot's testimony that supports the sentence. There is no interpretation here what so ever. the sentence that is in the article is not supported by the source period. What was wrong with my actions? 79.178.35.155 (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the file was not sanitized for publication? There must have been quite a lot of consternation when Koteret Rashit first published the file. Also there are other sources. Milstein in his recent book "Blood Libel - The true story of the massacre at Deir Yassin" writes "Later on Yehuda Lapidot related that when they discussed the question of how to deal with the inhabitants that would not flee, there were Lehi men that proposed killing them, in order to frighten the Arabs in the whole country and to raise the morale of the Jews of Jerusalem, but he and his comrades, the Etzel commanders, had reservations about their proposal, claiming that this matter belongs in the political field, and they said that they would bring the proposal to their headquarters." He also gives another similar testimony: "Ben Zion Cohen (an Etzel man) later related that there were disagreements also on the question of what to do with prisoners, and that most of the ones present in the meeting said that the adults should be killed, and also those among the elderly, women and children that will fight, while he and Lapidot claimed that civilians should not be harmed." Milstein cites the Jabotinsky Archives directly (but without a file number). Silver cites the publication in Koteret Rashit, also without giving a file number. Zero^talk 01:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Invitation

I would like to invite you to join a centralized discussion at WP:IPCOLL to contribute any thoughts you might have regarding Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Multiple articles - the founding myths of Israel harlan (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portion of West Bank showing Qalqilya and Hableh enclaves

This is very nice. I'm curious how you did it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just drew it by hand with Photoshop, using the CIA map as a template. Zero^talk 06:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the old tracing paper way. It worked very well. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted

No, I'm afraid not. And I can't easily get to a library that has it! I do have the books by my wife's grandfather, Moshe Svorai, which may cover the same material. What is it that you want? email me if you would rather; you know my address. RolandR (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought of looking on Google Books in Hebrew? I'll give it a go later. RolandR (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third holy

You said jerusalem being the third holiest islamic site is a mainstream islamic viewpoint, but this is clearly false. Shias consider Najaf the third holiest place. Salafis disassociate from any shrines. Destruction of sacred sites in Hijaz by the Saudis, initiated by Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab continues even today, to prevent, what some consider to be the practices of grave-worshipping and revering the deads and ask favors of the dead buried there. So there is no way any Salafi scholar calls Al Aqsa 'holy' considering islamic prophets are buried there. Plus, Quranists do not accept hadith so Quranists wouldn't accept Bukhari interpretations of Jerusalem being holy either since Jerusalem is not mentioned by name in the Quran as al-Quds.

I think i have demonstrated that Jerusalem being the third holiest site is far from a mainstream view by 3 major denominations of Islam. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't. All the groups you mention add up to about 15% of Muslims in the world, so their view is a minority view. Twelver Shia's usually list Jerusalem as the fourth holiest site, but I don't see this mentioned on Wikipedia (it should be). Inserting "some" into a sentence makes it useless for readers, it could mean the opinion is held by 3 people. Zero^talk 02:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem

You are failing to assume good faith and are gaming the system by failing to enforce a Neutral point of view which i explained to you previously. Either way, i will try to gain a consensus.Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hableh

On May 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hableh, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for this one Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Khulda

On May 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Khulda, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the missing SWP pages Zero0000. Been busy in real life as of late, but looking forward to continuing to edit with you in the future. Did you see the 5,700 hits for Khulda (which I listed at WP:DYKSTATS)? Great work and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 08:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Majdal Yaba Timeline

I'll be glade if you may review the following article [65] and add your comments accordingly Kessale (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some literature related to 1799 French invasion. A breif description of Gen. Damas encounter with the peasants is at pages 69. at pages 75 and 76, footnotes 1 and 6 there is a mention of nahar-el-ougeh, I believe this is the farthest the frensh were able to go closer to Majdal Yaba, and I believe the peasents who attacked the french and the mountains inhabited by the Naplousians mentioned here are those of Majdal Yaba, and it seams to me this is the reason why even the name of the village was not mentioned at this literature and it was name Megdeh at the map [66] Kessale (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The same story appears here however the General's name here is Lannes who this time pursued a troop of mountaineers into passes of Naplouse it mentions the Turks firing from behind rocks and down precipices. From the narration, and the techniques used against the Franks, this supports my theory that the inhabitants on Majdel Yaba at that time were not villagers but trained Turkish soldiers [67] page 175

Kessale (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sulam

On May 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sulam, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mazra'a

On May 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mazra'a, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Al Mazar, Jenin

On May 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Al Mazar, Jenin, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Al-Mirr

On May 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Al-Mirr, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Deir Yassin massacre

Please don't edit war. Also, review WP:3RR because you have made three reverts within the past 24 hours. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reiterate the above, and also point out this. Enigma^msg 22:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note

...but I'm actually not a sock, nor a shoe. I'm a person of separate body and identity with one Wikipedia account. It is downright offensive and rude to cast aspersions on my legitimacy-- and because I uphold a contrary viewpoint, having accounted for the plethora of verifiable sources and my own research on the truth of the massacre. You have made it all the more apparent that you are purporting a slanted, intolerant perspective that is to your interest. --HumanitarianHeart (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Socks, or meatpuppets would be my guess. RomaC (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

spi

was already started here. nableezy - 12:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Zero^talk 14:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uzi Leibner

Sorry, I completely forgot your queston about the Uzi Leibner-book: [68]

No, no library in my country has it (search here [69]..to find all books available to me). My "local" library is *very* generous in buying new books, whenever I ask, for the most esoteric subjects. However, they have one absolute rule for buying from abroad: it *must* be through amazon.com. (This is a rule made "at the top-level", to make fraud impossible/difficult, apparently..) And, at the present, there are no copies available at amazon :( And I don´t feel like buying more books myself, from abebooks, before I have "mined" the ones I already have... I´ll keep it in mind, though! Cheers, and thanks for the tip!, Huldra (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is available from Amazon in the UK [70]. Does that help? Zero^talk 00:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked them; we´ll see how it works out, cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ar'ara

On May 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ar'ara, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Lebanon

Technically you are correct, i shall not argue whether "arab identity" and "arab ethnicity" are same or not.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Greyshark09 (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'48 massacres

FYI : [71]. 81.244.167.24 (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism

Hmm, do you prefer the term Palestine? I'm sorry but this is an open encyclopedia and it's completely inappropriate for anyone to treat an article as their own personal property. You've reverted a good faith edit that I have made to the article Zionism without a comment in the talk page - which is custom. I consider this edit warring WP:EW. Your explanation is nonsensical because Zionism is a movement not a time period - a movement to establish a jewish homeland ... where? I added a note to MW who apparently also "doesn't make sense" [72]. I understand now why this article is tagged as biased. --Hutcher (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is to the writing, not to the content. Zionism focussed its attention on the place (call it what you like) where Israel standards now, but they didn't focus it on "modern Israel". The latter is an entity that came into existence in 1948 and the earlier Zionists were not fortune tellers. Btw, you don't seem to know what edit-warring is. Zero^talk 03:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for chiming in. I understand why I was blocked but as you noted there were some issues that may have been overlooked by the involved editors. I would like a review to possibly clear my block log, do you have any suggestions? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NPOV tag at Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations

I would be interested in your comments regarding the talk page section Harlan Wilkerson edits - subsection Relevance of martial law, permanent UN responsibility for Palestine, & etc. harlan (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have a safe trip and comment if you find the time when you get home. harlan (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I was googling for a cite to the old John Quigley article regarding the martial law measures Israel had adopted, and mistakenly found a source which mentioned martial law and a different Quigley pages 49-50. The journal name simply didn't register. I've gotten the citation corrected now, thanks for the heads-up. I think your earlier comment about NPOV was correct. The article might also be tagged either {{overcoverage|region=Israel|part=Article}} or {{Systemic bias|bias=Israeli POV}} harlan (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:JerusalemSouth1943.jpg

I am finding File:JerusalemSouth1943.jpg that you uploaded very useful; thanks. Do you access to similar UK made maps to the East or North of Jerusalem? If not, can you tell me how else I might find them? ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 20:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a photograph of a paper map. I have a access to several full sets but in a library across town. If you have requests regarding specific places, let me know and I'll add them to my next trip. I can't promise it will be soon, though. Zero^talk 05:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The maps of East, North, and Northeast of Jerusalem in 1943 would be great; thanks again. It is the elevation contour lines that I am most interested in. I will just watch your talk page until you get around to it. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 06:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Meanwhile, you will probably like this 1925 map. Zero^talk 08:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is great. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 03:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am all good with what I have. You can skip getting more from across town. thanks again. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 10:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

journal article

Hello Zero, do you have access to this article? nableezy - 23:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, check your email after 10 minutes. Zero^talk 03:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all the databases I have access to dont have the full text for the last year. nableezy - 03:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more if you would be so kind: [73]. Thanks, nableezy - 05:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Jerusalem

Dear Zero, I am hoping to add some more to this article. e.g. public discontent to the ration system and conscription. But having done quite a bit of work here I am not confident working under the POV banner. Can you suggest which areas need work to get it removed? Also I have to say that your feet are in better shape than mine. Long may they stay that way. Regards. Padres Hana (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture in file from Jstor

Hey, a while back you sent me some files from Jstor.

In the "Marking Religious and Ethnic Boundaries: Cases from the Ancient Golan Heights" there is an image on p 526 from the village of Al AL (EL Al), do you know if I'm allowed to copy it and upload it to Wikipedia or wikimedia? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the journal have credits? Take a look. Upload it if it meets the conditions of Template:PD-Syria. Chesdovi (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is not ok without permission. You can try asking the author [74]. Zero^talk 01:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of criminy

Archive your talk page! You made me forget what I was going to say.... -- Kendrick7^talk 03:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-British Boundary Agreement 1920

Hello, since you started the Franco-British Boundary Agreement 1920 article you probably know a lot about this subject.

At the Golan Heights article there has been texts added about that Golan heights was part of the British Palestine Mandate and ceded to the French Mandate of Syria for oil in Iraq.

I might be wrong about this but I vaguely remember reading something last year about that the triangle in northern Golan became part of the french mandate in exchange for that the British mandate got the entire Sea of Galilee. I read this in "The boundaries of modern Palestine, 1840-1947" p130, 145, 150 or around those pages, these pages are now unviewable for me. Do you have access to this book?

Do you know the details of the 1920 Franco-British Boundary Agreement and details about what happened in the temporary border changes and why they changed? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zero, you said on the GH talkpage that you were away from home but you had sources about that the zionist movement pressured the mandate negotiators for land, water, sea of Galilee, for the triangle. When do you think you will be able to bring sources supporting this?

Was the Franco-British Boundary Agreement 1920 a suggested border or a real border?

Also is the claim that the french also got oil for the triangle correct?

Could you please send me that map that you were talking about at the GH talkpage, the original British map that was published by Toye? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garfinkle, Adam(1998) 'History and Peace: Revisiting two Zionist myths', Israel Affairs, 5: 1, 126 — 148. I need a day or two. Zero^talk 06:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Allied agreement on boundaries

If the British ceded anything to the French in December of 1920 it was territory that had been allocated to the Arab State in the Sykes-Picot agreement and at Versailles. The first formal attempt to establish interim boundaries was an "Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919" It divided the territory between the British, French, and Arab administered OETAs. It was premised upon the "principles of the Sykes-Picot agreement"; "the Sykes-Picot line"; and mentions "the Arab State" that the British and French governments had committed to support in Zones A and B under the terms of Sykes-Picot. The memo is available in the FRUS, but J. C. Hurewitz has it with the editor's notes from the Documents on British Foreign Policy series [75] All of the plans involving OETA North, South, and East had to be changed after August of 1920, when the French overthrew Faisal's Syrian Kingdom. FYI, the staff at the UK National Archives have always advised me that no official maps delineating the boundaries between the three OETA's were ever produced.

Balfour dispatched his infamous memo from the Paris Peace Conference in the same month as the Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation. It was included in the Documents on British Foreign Policy series, and is the one in which he said "in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, & etc." I suspect most authors have never read it in its entirety. Balfour recommended that Palestine be "extended" to both sides of Jordan, but not however, to include the Hedjaz Railway. That recommendation suggests that in the minds of the British government officials, who were in the position to decide, "Palestine" was [already] a territory laying entirely to the west of the Jordan river. Balfour also said that Hussein was supposed to delineate the borders under the terms of the 1915 agreement.[76]

I've never seen a copy of the April 1920 draft Palestine mandate. The FRUS quotes a relevant portion of the San Remo resolution which mentions it, and provides the National Archives and Records Administration document number for the San Remo process verbal. The text of the Mandate may be included in those holdings. The text of the draft, as of August 1920, with references to the Treaty of Sevres; British "sovereignty"; and no mention of the territory east of the Jordan river is contained in the 1920 Yearbook of the League of nations, Volume 1 [77]

Most of the British Cabinet Papers from 1915-1979 that are of any historical interest have been digitized. They are available for free from the UK National Archives website as ocr'd pdfs.[78] The overwhelming majority are only available through a shopping cart system and have no static links. That means the server they are located on is not indexed by any of the main search engines, so you are stuck with the one supplied by the Archives website. Here are some I've collected that are must reads:

The Settlement of Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula, Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office, 21 November 1918, CAB 24/72 (formerly GT 6506). [79]
British Commitments to King Husein, Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office, November 1918, CAB 24/68 (formerly GT 6185) [80]
Palestine, James H Thomas, 19 February 1924, CAB 24/165 (CP 121 (24) * mentions on-going treaty negotiations with Hussein re: "Mandated States of Iraq, Palestine and Trans-Jordan." [81] harlan (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zero, can you send me this book? [82]. Have you managed to get that Toye map? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biger said there were only internal British discussions regarding the borders before Samuel assumed his post as High Commissioner and that the British side in allied boundary discussions did not view Palestine as a single unit. See the discussion on this and the following pages. [83] Biger also wrote a chapter about the early river and lake boundaries in Israel with maps in IBRUs Middle East and North Africa See pages 99-107 [84] harlan (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Return of AbdulHornochsmannn

See here. I cant revert the users edits as I am currently topic-banned, but this seems fairly obvious. Also vandalizing the category and templates and removing the cause of depopulation from a few articles. nableezy - 15:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Zionist editing"

Thought you might find this of interest:

Since the earliest days of the worldwide web, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has seen its rhetorical counterpart fought out on the talkboards and chatrooms of the internet.
Now two Israeli groups seeking to gain the upper hand in the online debate have launched a course in "Zionist editing" for Wikipedia, the online reference site.
Yesha Council, representing the Jewish settler movement, and the rightwing Israel Sheli (My I srael) movement, ran their first workshop this week in Jerusalem, teaching participants how to rewrite and revise some of the most hotly disputed pages of the online reference site.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups

Nothing new of course. For various reasons, I haven't been active here for awhile now. Hope this finds you well.

Viajero | Talk 19:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you are well too. Here is the Haaretz version of the story: [85] Cheers, Zero^talk 05:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circassians in Israel

What you erased from this article is a well known fact, albeit seldom reported for political reasons. Obviously police reports cannot be attached for privacy reasons. Your lack of knowledge and understanding proves that you indeed have no connection to the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.57.153 (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't cite it, you can't use it. See WP:V and WP:RS. Zero^talk 07:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Describing living people with derogatory labels in edit summaries

I have asked for input on your recent actions here. The consensus of opinion from uninvolved editors there is that what you are doing is inappropriate, and that I should ask you politely to stop, which is what I am doing here. HupHollandHup (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Azzam Pacha

Hi Zero0000,

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades"

The debate that you initiated around this sentence is very exciting even it is not in the scope of wikipedia (100% wp:ti).

I agree with your last comment : an Arab would not have used such a comparison. Why to refer to Mongolian massacres [of Arabs] and Crusades massacre [of Arabs]. The second one could be understood as a revenge but the first one ?

I don't agree with your theory that he would have spoken of the massacres of Palestinian by Jews. On the days before the invasion, the reports indicate that the Arab leaders, particularly the Egyptians, were very excited and sure of their victory.

Another interesting point of comparison is the "official Arab League" communique for the "invasion" of Palestine :

The Governments of the Arab States emphasise (...) that (...) [Palestine] inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed. ( [86] )

I think he never said that, and that Stone is the original source of the affirmation. He had enough reknown to be quoted by Schetchman later and all the zionist historiography whereas the others didn't mind...

Noisetier (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zero0000. Azzam Pacha has certainly stated that Arab League had to intervene in Palestine to prevent the massacres of Palestinians Arabs by Jews. I fully agree.

I agree too that he may have compared zionist jews to "crusaders" and, but that would be more strange to Mongols.

The most probable is I think that Stone just lied. Did he just speak Arab ? Noisetier (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found several sources stating that the reference is Ahkbar Al-Yom, October 11, 1947 ... and one of them adds : "as quoted in Jewish Agency for Palestine, Memorandum 1948" [87]. Noisetier (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC) And in fact to be precise : Jewish Agency for Palestine 1948, Memorandum on Acts of Arab Aggression to alter by force the settlement of the future government of Palestine approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations, submitted to the United Nations Palestine Commission by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, Lake Success, New York: Jewish Agency dated march 1948 [88] Noisetier (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

That is wonderful that you found 2 references of this document in *UNO archives* ! We move forward.

In his book of 1953, State in the making, p.233, David Horowitz (edit: this one is not the "wikipedian" one), Jewish Agency representative (again...) reports a meeting with Azzam Pasha dating September 16 where Azzam would already have made a reference to the Crusaders (again) but here in a more logical way.

On the web, this reference is reported on the Jewish Virtual Library : see Myth : "The Arabs were prepared to compromise to avoid bloodshed.".

Noisetier (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)... I don't have access to the full text BUT in these quotes, that seem quite complete, there is no reference to the crusaders any more... Noisetier (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The JVL version seems to match the small scraps I can read at books.google.com (note there are multiple editions). Meanwhile, perhaps you can find a library near you with a microfilm archive of akhbar el-yom. I am trying.. Zero^talk 10:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zero0000. Great job. Would you mind e-mailing me the scan ? Many thanks. Noisetier (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I don't have it yet. It is coming by international snail. Zero^talk 21:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks ! Let's wait for this ! Noisetier (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on Talk:British Mandate for Palestine#Transjordan was not an integral part of Palestine

I understand that you participated in the creation of the image BritishMandatePalestine1920.png. I would like to hear your opinion on this issue. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fyi

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Curvesall. Sorry it took me a bit, been lazy as hell these last few weeks. nableezy - 14:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit sec

Hi Zero0000. I sent you an email. Noisetier (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map help

You think you could help figure out what the boundaries are for the portion of this map that is zoomed in on the Golan? I just need the N,S,E,W endpoints for the right half. nableezy - 18:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll do it in the next 24 hours. Zero^talk 00:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've managed to figure out the boundaries? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away, but I'll do it today. Zero^talk 22:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get: West=35.4975 East=36.1015 South=32.6252 North=33.4520. Give or take an inch. Zero^talk 08:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. nableezy - 14:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you resend?

I'm having trouble going through old emails because my inbox is so full. If you can resend, that would be great. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 07:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

: Sent. Zero^talk 10:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Zero0000. You have new messages at WookieInHeat's talk page.
Message added 11:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Re: Yamit

I replied on the talk page. Actually it doesn't seem suspicious to me in any way. If I ever have time, I'll look for a person who has lived in Yamit or traveled there and ask if the setting looks familiar, because I believe that's the only real indication. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Icon of Evil

I see you have good knowledge of the sources used at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. Icon of Evil has been now used as a source at Nazism to state some facts about al-Husayni. For now, I've just attributed them. Note that the editor who introduced the book as source at Nazism, User:WookieInHeat, is currently blocked for an unrelated incident (but still in the same IP area), so he cannot respond until tomorrow or so. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia#Democracy and human rights

Maybe you can comment on that section too. I did what seemed best to improve it, but User:Aquib american muslim was apparently offended, and tagged it for POV without much in the way of precise explanation. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Azzam's quote

Hi Zero0000, what do you have in mind as a next step for this ? Noisetier (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query

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

My library has it on paper, but I'm about 10,000km from home until the end of next week. I can send you a scan after that. Zero^talk 13:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can wait. Thanks and enjoy your travels. Tiamut^talk 13:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remind me. Meanwhile I sent you something else I just found. Zero^talk 16:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ... that will make for some fascinating reading and could perhaps be useful to improving our articles on the subject. Tiamut^talk 17:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally managed to see what you last sent (my email is wonky these days ... can't send anything from there and it takes hours to load old pages ... I'm sure I've missed some important mails altogether). Thanks for sending it. Can't understand why it was paraphrased the way it was (or I can, but its better left unsaid). I was wondering if I could trouble you to send a few pages of the article I asked for above. Just one or two before the excerpt in question (if you think it would suffice to give it context, or perhaps the one or two pages after it? use your judgement, which has repeatedly shown to be superb). Fully agree with what you said at the Lydda page too by the way ... and would add that I tried to broach the subject earlier, which no success (see here and check out the linked article). Tiamut^talk 16:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it isn't the article you suspected, but I sent both. Please check your email. Zero^talk 10:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Tiamut^talk 17:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Zero0000 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 00:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent

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

Schechtman

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

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

Some history resurfacing

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

Administrator review of Quds Day and Ramot

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

Thanks. It took longer than 24 minutes for me to write my post. Btw, is there any big technical reason for archiving rather than collapsing? Zero^talk 06:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think even if things are collapsed, the page will still need to load all of the messages - the collapsing action only occurs after it has all loaded? That meant that for users who were/are stuck on dialup/slow connection speeds for whatever reason, it would take unreasonably long to access the user talk page they are trying to view or post to. When the content is moved to another page, there is no extra content to load. Mind you, I'm no techie; this is just what I found when I was stuck on slow speeds a couple of years back. I don't know if 100+ messages has the same effect as it did back then (for all I know, maybe we could get away with 300 before it started causing problems for the faster connection speeds), but I guess it's better to draw the line somewhere to be on the safe side. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zero: At your first convenience, please see my recent comment to you at AE. Regards, AGK [•] 20:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bayt Nuba

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

Wow. Thanks for your input there. I'll get to workingon incorporating all that ASAP. Question though: what is the best way to proceed regarding NW's ridiculous bloc of Nableezy? Should there be an WP:AN post on this? Tiamut^talk 14:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN will be appropriate if nobody is willing to step in. Zero^talk 14:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Sandstein is declining to do anything and advising Nableezy to plead his case with NW himself, pledging not to repeat the conduct that got him blocked (?!?) which was .... well, nobody understands exactly. Shall I go ahead? Or do you want to do it? Tiamut^talk 20:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be resolved now? Zero^talk 01:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. I'm deeply unsatisfied by the way Nableezy has been treated, but I don't see what other recourse there is for now. Thanks for your prompt responses to this and my questions about Bayt Nuba and its environs. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 10:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pokepoke

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

I sent you en email. Could you please answer this ? Thx. Noisetier (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that User talk:Foo Bar Buzz Netz's concern is likely to be valid and by a good-faith user. I need to look up some material to confirm I've got it rightm and get clear in my mind where to go from here, then I'll fill you in further and consult. Can you unblock him as a first step, while we sort the rest out? Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been appraised of another view of this issue, and I oppose unblocking, because we should not free a user to cast aspersions where a breach of policy has not been publicly demonstrated. I don't know what FT2's interest in this is, but he should not be providing sensitive off-wiki information to new users -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose unblocking, and would encourage more investigation into the details of the Foo Bar account. I'd also like to see an address to the larger problem that drive-by/short-term accounts in the I/P area who are obviously experienced users pose for the Wiki. We've seen a tremendous upsurge in such accounts in the last three months or so; they come in, make these rapid fire POV reverts, and are gone, evidently on to the next account.

Because they usually operate only for a few days of actual editing, they usually don't leave enough behavioral evidence behind to tie them to any other account. They appear to be sophisticated enough to defeat checkuser tools, and they cause editors who uphold the rights of the Palestinian people (they nearly always seem to edit from a stridently pro-Israeli orientation) to have to "burn" a 1rr edit to restore balance to an article, with established pro-Israeli editors then free to do whatever they like with the article. We really need a comprehensive solution to this problem. It seriously compromises the integrity of our editorial process. – OhioStandard (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appreciated, thanks - I got your email, but it's 01:07am here and I need some zzzzzzzzzz - will get back to you tomorrow -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at User talk:Foo Bar Buzz Netz -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPTALK and Caroline Glick

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

That's a bit dubious, since placing someone on the left-right spectrum is obviously just a subjective opinion and is too vague to be taken as a claim of a fact about a person. But poking around led me to Btselem's reply to Glick's charges. Makes hot reading. More on the other page. Zero^talk 12:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but to be on the safe side and for future reference I've started a discussion at WP:BLPN.—Biosketch (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem excessive, undue and unnecessary to compare one of our living subjects, a journalist, to someone from history whose campaigns often resulted in the wholesale massacres of civilian populations, and I would also request you strike it. Please be a bit more cautious in comparisons you make in regard to living people in future. Off2riorob (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at WP:BLPN. Maybe you are not familiar with the expression? Zero^talk 07:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The so called expression is undue, unnecessary and excessive. Two people are here now opining as such and asking you simply strike that small piece. Doing so will remove nothing by way of understanding from your comment. Off2riorob (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azzam Pasha and Momentous Massacres

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

Send me email using the "E-mail this user" button on this page and I will send it to you. Zero^talk 01:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i can't find this button... can you direct link me to the button or give me direction on where it is ? thanks. -never mind, found it. (i'm new here :) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrZaf (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try this. You need to have set up your own email address (in your preferences) before it will work. Zero^talk 04:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Mufti

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

An honest critique

Hi Zero,

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

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

Jaffa massacre

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

You are right, I'll move it. But tomorrow, really I shouldn't be doing Wikipedia at all. Zero^talk 12:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Have you been permanently banned? Chesdovi (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dream on :). No, I have urgent work to do in real life. Zero^talk 13:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Bil'in

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

I have every locality in Palestine/Israel on my watchlist (unless I missed some), so I'm likely to notice any edits made to those articles. Btw, I have a lot of reliable sources supporting what I said about A7 and you can see for yourself that it is nonsense by checking the distance of Bilin from the airport. Zero^talk 07:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm to understand that your edit at the article was on account of it being on your watchlist and not on account of routinely monitoring my edit history. Ok. About Arutz Sheva, I'm not contesting your removal of the source, although my guess is that it would pass WP:NPOVN scrutiny if I were to insist on it. We don't disqualify Human Rights Watch reports even though they're consistently biased against the settlements and their inhabitants and are completely open about whom they're out to get, so unless Arutz Sheva has a history of unreliable reports it shouldn't be a problem either. It's a moot point in this case, though, because there was the Haaretz reference and you didn't challenge the content of my edit. My query was strictly behavior-related.—Biosketch (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A closer analogy would be Ma'an News Agency. In my opinion, all of these polemic sources, including HRW, can be used as sources of opinion but should be identified as the source and the opinion should be something worth reporting (not just vague predictable statements). I would not source something to HRW without something like "According to Human Rights Watch, ....". Zero^talk 07:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena

I have posted a complaint at [[89]]. Should I just leave they write as they wish? Could you recommend us anyboby in WP able to stop this? I have noticed you wrote in A A-V page and are interested in Jewish (Middle East) affaires. Thank you for your patience (9 years is too much).

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

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

On Symbio04 (Arnaiz-Villena) user page

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

I left a warning on his talk page. Beyond that, I am at the A-V article as an administrator and will steadfastly ignore any dispute on that page that might be remotely connected to the areas I edit in. I only intend to address the Basque matter, which I am totally uninvolved in. Zero^talk 14:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I hope you can understand I (and some other editors) am tired of the behaviour of those "users" and their aggressive manners. Maybe, instead of wasting your time looking at the precedent of that bunch of puppets, you could ask to any administrator who had been involved in this nasty question (since the times he pretended he had the right to add a page on his alleged discoveries.....), because this is the never ending story. Every some months he comes back with the same accusstaion and complaining, he contact with a "new" admin who does not know the previous cases, and the same story has to be repeated.... it is a mockery Dumu Eduba (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Hey! I'm looking to de-redlink this template and I wonder if you could assist me with your valued opinion and shared knowledge on these questions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#1985_PLO_ships_bombing Shoplifter (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland?

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

Palestine Post article on Mamilla Cemetery

Hi Zero0000,

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

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

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

Hope your travels are going well. Tiamut^talk 20:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can search the entire PP at http://jpress.nli.org.il/publications/PPost-en.asp . July 22 1945 was a Sunday. I don't see anything offhand but I won't have time to search properly until tomorrow. Let me know if you find anything meanwhile. Incidentally, the OCR is woeful so often words are not recognised; it means you have to search in multiple ways to find things. Zero^talk 21:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Integrity

Mr. Zero, you misrepresented me on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=433013519#Lutrinae. You made two erroneous statements to try to paint me as a racist.

1. You said I called "Palestinian" a "ridiculous phrase." A phrase is several words. I called the phrase "The first widespread use of "Palestinian" as an endonym by the Arabs of Palestine began prior to the outbreak of World War I" ridiculous because it is ridiculous. Most of the Arabs of Palestine at that time didn't speak English, so whatever endonym they used it wasn't an English word. But there are some biased knuckleheads on the Palestinian People article who wanted to push their agenda. So they quoted the above ridiculous phrase from another wiki (a biased source). I tried to change it, but it was reverted by people who like the pro-nationalistic tone of the Pally people article.

2. I made up the "Pally" abbreviation as a shortening of a longer word. Just like "X-mas" doesn't offend Jesus, I don't know how you got it in your head that "pally" is a slur. But you were so sure of yourself, that you made this accusation on the arbitration request that I used "the word "Pally" that is popular on racist web pages." Where?

I tried to find these racist webpages, but couldn't find them. I don't think you've seen them either. I think you were just slurring me. I also think you twisted my words around to paint me a bigot.

I hope you see the harm in your reckless actions, and will avoid muddling with arbitration procedures in the future. Lutrinae (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,341: / Line 1,341: @@
 : You can search the entire PP at http://jpress.nli.org.il/publications/PPost-en.asp .  July 22 1945 was a Sunday.  I don't see anything offhand but I won't have time to search properly until tomorrow.  Let me know if you find anything meanwhile.  Incidentally, the OCR is woeful so often words are not recognised; it means you have to search in multiple ways to find things.  [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 21:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
+== Integrity ==
+Mr. Zero, you misrepresented me on [[this|http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=433013519#Lutrinae]]. You made two erroneous statements to try to paint me as a racist.
+. You said I called "Palestinian" a "ridiculous phrase." A phrase is several words. I called the phrase
+''"The first widespread use of "Palestinian" as an endonym by the Arabs of Palestine began prior to the outbreak of World War I"''
+ridiculous because it is ridiculous. Most of the Arabs of Palestine at that time didn't speak English, so whatever endonym they used it wasn't an English word. But there are some biased knuckleheads on the [[Palestinian People]] article who wanted to push their agenda. So they quoted the above ridiculous phrase from another wiki (a biased source). I tried to change it, but it was reverted by people who like the pro-nationalistic tone of the Pally people article.
+. I made up the "Pally" abbreviation as a shortening of a longer word. Just like "X-mas" doesn't offend Jesus, I don't know how you got it in your head that "pally" is a slur. But you were so sure of yourself, that you made this accusation on the arbitration request that I used "the word "Pally" that is popular on racist web pages." Where?
+I tried to find these racist webpages, but couldn't find them. I don't think you've seen them either. I think you were just slurring me. I also think you twisted my words around to paint me a bigot.
+I hope you see the harm in your reckless actions, and will avoid muddling with arbitration procedures in the future. [[User:Lutrinae|Lutrinae]] ([[User talk:Lutrinae|talk]]) 21:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)