I am taking a break from Wikipedia and might not check this page. If you need to contact me, try the "E-mail this user" link on the left, or send mail directly to nought_0000(at)yahoo.com. --Zero 11:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Vote: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis
Vote "NO". Opposed to SamSpade's unfriendly views in the Jew article. IZAK 09:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Herut
Zero hi. Could you please review my page Herut The National Movement? Hope you could contribute some spice for this (for example, I couldn't remember anything about Baruch Marzel's criminal history). Thanks. Gadykozma 20:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Arbcom ruling
Zero - it is my unfortunate job to inform you that per the arbcom ruling in Lance6wins, you are to be desysopped for two weeks.
On a personal note - I disagree with this, and I opposed it. In two weeks, you can ask a bureaucrat or steward to restore your sysop powers. →Raul654 03:12, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Radius of convergence
I think you're not reading carefully. Here's how you left the article:
is the nonnegative quantity r such that the series converges if
Failed to parse (syntax error): {\displaystyle \left|z-a ight|<r}
and diverges if
Failed to parse (syntax error): {\displaystyle \left|z-a ight|>r,}
provided such an r exists. If the series converges for all z, the radius of convergence is said to be "infinite".
In other words, the series converges if z is close enough to the center. The radius of convergence specifies how close is close enough.
The word "nonnegative quantity" is used where "nonnegative number" would not quite have sufficed: for some power series, the radius of convergence is ∞.
Please read the LAST paragraph above CAREFULLY, and notice where that word quantity occurs before the last paragraph. Michael Hardy 22:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sabra and Shatila
Hi Zero, I know you may be feeling iffy of Middle East articles these days - I kind of feel the same way, since dealing with POV warriors gets old fast. But things seem to have finally seriously quieted down at Sabra and Shatila massacre, and, given that you seem to be one of, if not the, most knowledgeable people on Wikipedia about the conflict, your input on the latest revisions would be valuable. Btw, thanks for supporting me for adminship! - Mustafaa 19:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah, if only Zero would come back and help edit that article... Jayjg 20:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry guys but I'm catching a plane out of the country in 7 hours and don't have time right now. Later in the year I'll have a look at it. One thing I noticed is that several times Israel's role is called "logistical" but then it mentions sealing the camps and providing illumination. I don't think either of these things are logistics. Also, I left some comments on Talk:Palestinian refugee. --Zero 12:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)
Image copyrights
Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:Oz-and-surrounding-countrie.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't
have an image copyright tag.
Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can
use {{gfdl}} if you release it under
the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you
claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know
what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images
and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, — Edwin Stearns | Talk 20:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No need now, as the Adamthwaite images have been deleted. --Ricky81682 (talk) 23:18, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
Two-state solution
Good catch on the population thing. I didn't add it, and I remember feeling uneasy about it. I should have moved it myself. Noel(talk) 13:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sequence
You wrote: Replace self-referential word "sequential" used in the definition of "sequence".
Neat! I stuggled with that, but could not figure out a fix! --Olegalexandrov 15:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I thought quite a bit on your comments. I agree with you, a sequence is more than just what one does in calculus, and the definition should reflect the general usage in math. I made changes to that page incorporating some of your suggestions. Please take a look, and let's discuss what to improve. I also moved the category from calculus to math. Now, you are a discrete person, I am a continuous person, together hopefully we will get to an article acceptable to everybody. Oleg Alexandrov 01:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Knowledge wars
I think you might be right about putting Knowledge wars up for VfD. I'll try and research the topic later tonight if I have time. If I can't find anything, and you haven't already nominated the page, I might just take your advice and nominate the page myself. --Viriditas | Talk 05:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just wanted to point to some, uh, disputes going on over at From Time Immemorial - we seem to have some competing POV warriors going at it. johnk 06:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi Zero0000, perhaps you want to take a look at my discussion page concerning the Revanchism article. I call propaganda on this one. -- Dissident (Talk) 23:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Remainder
Dear Zero, I am struggling with the remainder, modulo, and modulo operation pages. I think you should know more number theory than me. Is the remainder of division of two integers alwasy positive or not? For example, what is the remainder of dividing -7 by 3, of -7 by -3, and of -7 by -3? Do you happen to have any references for this? Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 01:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
PS See my message above about sequence.
GNU Scientific Library
Hello - I don't agree that the GSL link contains no useful information. For someone who wants
to actually calculate the gamma function or to look at the actual code algorithm which
calculates it this is a prime source, and its open source too, like wikipedia. Perhaps a
notation on the reference that it is more useful for those who want to calculate or look
at code for the gamma function is in order. I would like to put it back in, with such a
note, but I wanted to run it by you first to see if I fully understood your objection.
Mitchell Bard
Thank you for the information you obtained from the UN progress report on Palestinian refugees, which was very helpful and laid the matter to rest. I was interested to read that you have a low opinion of Mitchell Bard's research, and I was wondering if you could expand on your reasons for that if you have the time. I've tended to trust him in the past; he has a PhD in political science, has held a postdoctoral fellowship, has written for academic journals etc, so I've assumed his research was scholarly and his figures reliable, notwithstanding that he does have a POV, but he doesn't pretend otherwise. I'd be very interested to hear your views, as you seem to know your stuff. Best, SlimVirgin 18:34, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Subsequence
Feel free to alter it. It's from PlanetMath. I just noticed that the article was lacking a formal definition. CryptoDerk 02:44, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Zero0000, what is wrong with the title for Erdös number? It looks ok to me. Doesn't the "umlaut" over the "o" display for you? Paul August ☎ 15:29, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Sorry. Paul August ☎ 14:34, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
Goy
Yes, I do know that. But it seemed to me that the language itself was being indicted as intrincisally ethnocentric, which is ridiculous. I have never doubted or questioned that there are ethnocentric Jews. But I have argued that Jewish ethnocentrism is no different from any other form of ethnocentrism. Most of the debate surrounding this article is whether there is something unique about Jewish ethnocentrism. To suggest that the word "goy" is linguistic evidence that the language of the Jews is ethnocentric is wrong. What gives goy its ethnocentric meaning is how it is used. In technical terms, this is a matter of sociolinguistics (which analyzes the social uses of language), rather than ethnolinguistics (which studies the relationship between language culture, and cognition). The issue is not whether other languages have a word that translates as "goy," the question is whether people in other cultures ever use some word (no matter what it's denotation) to express ethnocentrism -- and I would argue that this happens in all societies. Slrubenstein 17:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
JFW, you must be an alien from a parallel universe. --Zero 22:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why am I an alien from a parallel universe? I am willing to hear your argumentation, but at the moment it sounds more like a personal attack than an argument in a discussion. JFW | T@lk 07:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The subject matter may have been different. I am not saying that my arguments with RK were always pleasant, but I find the 1 year ban unconstructive. I suppose we can agree to disagree, but as long as Robert behaves constructively there should be no absolute ban on editing Judaism articles. My only real hope is that he will quote more primary sources rather than simply rehashing the very speculative stuff from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. JFW | T@lk 17:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
RK
I'm interested in hearing your views on RK's appeal. Do you think the original ban was a good idea? RK says the problem articles had been delt with amicably long ago. Is this true? Do you have any evidence for or against? Please post it here if you do. Is there anyone else i need to ask to provide evidence? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nagorno-Karabakh is a region that is the object of a disputed between Azerbaijan and Armenia. They had a real war, not just an edit war. For a taste of just how hot people get over this issue, read about Ramil Safarov. The copy of the page at Republic of Nagorno-Karabahk is one of many created the other day by an anon, User:64.136.2.254, who also messed with a lot of redirects and every link to the Nagorno-Karabakh page. Theresa knott cleaned up a lot of the mess. This page is still around because a likely sockpuppet, User:Clarkefreak, reverted out the {{del}} tag and made this page ineligible for speedying. I'm working with the parties to end the dispute. If I thought that a redirect was appropriate, I could have saved myself a lot of typing. — Davenbelle 13:39, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Totally off of your usual turf...
... but could you have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Messhermit? I came into this (at Talk:Alberto Fujimori) as a neutral party. About a day in, I certified User:Viajero's RfC about personal attacks. Now I'm being subjected to comparable personal attacks myself, so I guess I can no longer play "outside party", and one is badly needed. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:01, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
As of March 4, 2005, the following (7) articles are currently listed for deletion under the POV suggestion that schools are not notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy. Whether you agree or disagree, please be aware that the following schools are actively being voted on:
I was wondering if you could have a look at my questions about references at Talk:New Historians. They seem to be mostly about material you added. I don't think anything is actively wrong, but a great deal is missing, and I'm guessing that you'd have the best chance of filling it in. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:01, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
There is an outstanding solicitation for comments on the length and relevancy of the Sasson Report section of the article, as well as the removal of the POV tag. Very few have responded. Please give us your input. Thank you.--A. S. A. 14:36, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:
In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\talk
Image question
Quick question: did you create the image IsraelBarrier.png? -- 193.78.177.1 13:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I made changes to it but I didn't create the original . This image is now obsoleted by BarrierFeb2005.png, which I created from scratch. --Zero 14:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is a standard very old picture printed in hundreds of places. I think you can use it without worrying. --Zero16:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Zero!
For the very kind words and for all your support in my RfA! When it comes to 20th Century Middle Eastern history and issues, I always breath a sigh of relief when I see you enter a discussion or make an edit, and your work in that area has been considerable and of particularly high quality. Looking forward to future collaboration, and as always, engaging discussions. Yours, El_C03:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I made my first and only edit today to Jizya[1], and was called an Islamist for it. Good/sad, inexplicable comedy, eh? Anyway, I noticed that you've edited it before, and I'm wandering whether you think I should have kept the two sentences that section consisted of at the time you were editing it. Thanks, El_C08:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There has recently been another poll about the ever changing religious demographics in Israel.
Is there a possibility that an official survey exists? I do not believe that a geocites website should serve as a final word. Perhaps it should be updated with a more recent and official source? I can't seem to find an recent one done in 2005.
Thank you for your kind offer. I would like to see the scan, assuming it's in English, even though it is irrelevant to the article. --Ian Pitchford 18:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, again. If you think it appropriate I can make the scan available for download so that at least those with knowledge of Arabic can look at the relevant section and a little of the context. --Ian Pitchford 10:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good work with the scan. Many thanks --Ian Pitchford 13:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I noticed your comments/votes. I'll write on that in greater length soon. Thanks for taking the time. And if you can still find the time to look at the articles/talk pages, I'm certain that will prove helpful, and esp. calming. They are becoming increasingly a mess. All the best, El_C 00:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, also, if you get a chance, have a look at the article I authored on A'man, which inadvertantly (I seem to be employing that term often today, inadvertantly) led me to find a picture of Eli Cohen, which I just noticed you are the author of. El_C 00:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the Ls!
That's a lot of Ls. What do I owe you? Actually, I now recall that I asked Raul a question about that here, but forgot. I see he hasn't answered. Undoubtedly he found it to idiotic to dignify with a response! Likely the dumbest question in the history of WP; my Engrish, she's no so good. ;) El_C 10:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again for the insightful and instructive comments. Please see my response with some questions I think you'd be able to clear for me. Oh, and have great trip! I hope it proves relaxing, engaging, productive, in no particular order. :) Yours, El_C 10:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Israeli terrorism
What do you think about moving Israeli terrorism to state terrorism?
I intensely dislike all of these "X terrorism" articles, but there's no reason to treat this one differently from the others. --Zero 10:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The point Mustafaa and Hoary forwarded —and I tend to agree— was that Israeli terrorism should be merged into State terrorism if and/or when it is sizable enough to be split. If the periodization for Zionist terrorism is to encompass the post-statehood era, then it, in this sense, denotes the clandestine, non-State terrorism aspect of it (i.e. versus Palestinian terrorism). Though that has some obvious problems that I'm sure you are well aware of; likely there should be some flexibility on that front to make it work; ah, but getting there... El_C 10:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Palestine
Hi Zero. In view of your longstanding interest in (and excellent edits on) Palestine-related topics, I thought I'd bring Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Palestine to your attention. It's not being used much, but I imagine it could become a useful center for bringing gaps in coverage to people's attention... - Mustafaa 00:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Zero, let me look into the convoy situation, so that I can give you a reasonable answeer. It would be good if you could help expand the non-wiki'ed massacres mentioned by Morris (or other sources). --Goodoldpolonius216:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ashkelon
I just noticed your edits here. They are relevant to a mild dispute with an anon at Gaza strip, who contends that there is no evidence of "expulsions to gaza" during the 1948 war. Knowing about the al-Majdal expulsions - or what I had always read and thought were expulsions, and still more or less sound like that on reading your text, I mentioned them as a somewhat relevant reference, while noting that Zero and others would know more on such matters than I. I thought that your input might be very helpful and enlightening in the Gaza article. --John Z12:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I reverted the changes you just made to the Israel article because they were the exact same changes just made by an anti-Semitic vandal. I am not familiar with the topic well enough to know if what you changed is correct or not, but the previous vandalism has me trigger-happy, and I'm sorry if the information is correct and I made a mistake in reverting it. Zoe 09:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Note that I call the vandal anti-Semitic because they first redirected Israel to Nazi Germany, and when that was reverted, they began making attacks on other users in their edit summaries. Zoe 09:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, let me add to that if it's not too pretentious. When you make changes on a touchy subject, especially after vandalism, it doesn't hurt to propose and discuss on the "Discussion" page to avoid unnecessary reversals. I'm sure you already know this, but it doesn't hurt to say it again. Thanks, and sorry for the intromission. --Sebastian Kessel15:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry about that, that's why I made the comments on your Talk page, to make sure you understood my reasons. Zoe 18:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Good article. In general, I think articles like this could be greatly strengthened by providing notes for each claim. General references, while valuable, don't help when someone inevitably comes along and deletes a sentence like The decision had been made by an activist faction, without consulting more moderate members according to normal procedure, and this caused serious internal divisions that persisted for many years on the grounds that it is "dubious" or "original research". Jayjg (talk)15:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Date formats
Re your edits to Struma, you may not realise that you don't need to change the format of dates by hand -- as long as the date has wiki brackets round it, it will automatically display in the style you prefer, which you can select in "preferences". Hope this helps, --mervyn21:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
West Bank Barrier map
In your West Bank Barrier map [2], I think there may be some areas that are colored wrong. I may not be able to describe it right, but there are some areas where the barrier sort of pinches off an area of the west bank. You have colored some of those areas blue. I think they should be orange (I could be wrong). One example is the pinched off area around (near?) Kalkilya. On the map linked from the Israeli West Bank barrier page [3], it shows up as part of the West Bank, on your map it shows up as blue. If you have questions, reply to this on your page, I'll watch your talk page for a little while. Oh, BTW, I'd fix it myself except (i) it would be easier to fix in the original file (assuming you did it in Illustrator or something) and (ii) I wouldn't know how to fix it anyway. Thanks. Chuck22:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right. A new version based on the B'tselem map for May is at [4]. I updated the links in all articles that point to the old version. The only difference is the color changes you noticed. There is no room at this resolution to properly show the narrow corridors or to distinguish between different approval stages. --Zero02:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The website is now www.nrg.co.il, just in case... to replace maarivintl. :)
Thanks, but that is the Hebrew site. For a while there was an English edition at maarivintl.com but now I can't find an English edition at all. --Zero13:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted a claim on the Israeli West Bank Barrier from an image, but it also appears within the article. You deleted from image caption:
"Since this section was built, incidents of Palestinian snipers from Qalqiliyia shooting at Israeli civilian cars have ceased. However, ordinary Palestinians have also lost access to their farmlands and to surrounding towns and villages."
What remains in text of article:
"Since the completion of the fence in the area of Tulkarem and Qalqiliya in June 2003, there have been no successful attacks from those areas, all attacks have been intercepted or the suicide bombers have detonated prematurely."
I wanted to bring this to your attention in case you feel they are both invalid. They are worded slightly differently, so I don't know whether one is false and the other true. --MattWright (talk) 17:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
"Extermination" or "Genocide" of the Amalekites
I've further explained the reason for the change on the Amalek page from "Extermination" to "Genocide" on the Talk:Amalek page. Please review it. I think when you read the dictionary definition of genocide, it becomes very clear that this was a genocide, and calling it anything less than genocide is to insert a POV sympathetic to the Hebrew tribes who committed the act. I welcome your thoughts. Unfocused16:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please correct the word "ARTICLE_NAME" to "Israel" on WP:PROT. I'd rather not be so bold as to correct it myself. --Hoziron 15:47, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Israel
Hi Zero, would you mind unlocking Israel please? Discussion on the talk page seems to have stopped. Many thanks, SlimVirgin(talk) 03:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Zero, I hope you are doing well. I noticed you haven't been around for a few weeks, but in case you return soon, we could really use your help with the abovetitled article. Best wishes, El_C20:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both Yuber and Guy Montag are each placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year from the date of closing this case (9th of October, 2005). Should any sysop feel that it is necessary that either of them be banned from an article where they is engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article, or any other activity which the user considers disruptive they shall place a template {{Yuber banned}} or {{Guy Montag banned}} as appropriate at the top of the talk page of the article, and notify them on their talk page. The template shall include the ending date of the ban (one year from this decision) and a link to Wikipedia:Probation. The template may be removed by any editor, including them, at the end of the ban. If they edit an article they are banned from, you will be briefly blocked from editing Wikipedia, for up to a week for repeat offenses.
Yuber is instructed to use only this account, and no anonymous IPs. What editing constitutes Yuber's is up to any sysop to decide. If Yuber violates this, any sysop is authorised to ban them for up to a week.
Guy Montag is banned from editing any article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the date of closing this case (9th of October, 2005).
or we delete the blurb about "public relations" in Ashkelon. "Public relations" is impossible to defend as disinterested. Don't you think so? (Ashkelon). --VKokielov00:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The internal discussion quoted by Morris in his article on this episode (cited in our page) makes it clear that they didn't want to just go ahead and expel the Arabs openly. They decided on a subterfuge to make it appear as if the expulsion was voluntary. The reason was that the world was watching and Israel was already in enough trouble with the UN. This is called public relations. I'm not committed to using the words "public relations" but something equivalent needs to be said. Make a suggestion. --Zero02:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you could possibly find the time to improve this article a bit. My attempt to add needed information into it has got me into a lot of hot water, including some fairly belligerent assertions about "passing Marxist analysis off as fact" and introducing extreme minority opinions. You probably have sources available to you that could add to it much better. I, in any case, if one user has his way, am likely to be effectively banned from contributing to Wikipedia as the vast bulk of the sources that are available to me here in Syria are in French and Arabic, and therefore, apparently, non-verifiable. Sorry to bother you... Palmiro | Talk23:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1948 War- Grand Mufti
I don't understand why you removed this statement- "The situation was not made easier by the fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni, closely cooperated with the Nazi Germany during the Second World War." from the 1948 Arab-Israeli War[5] On the talk page you yourself commented that the Grand Mufti's wartime collaboration with the Nazis well known. Did you find a new and more reputable source, was it an accident, or do I just misunderstand? I would very much appreciate if you respond on my Talk page to help me understand, Thanks.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk09:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please take a look at this article? Some users claim it is neutral to call Israel's presence a "presence" while calling Syria's presence an "occupation". Yuber(talk)03:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1948 Arab-Israeli conflict
I won't protect it for now since it looks like the request was for it to stay unprotected for a day or two. I'll remove the request for now from the protection page. If in a day or two, you feel like it should be protected again, leave the request again. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)07:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eichmann edit
The Hudal info comes from both direct implication by Franz Stangl, as documented in the book referenced at the bottom of his article, and the book referenced in the Hudal article. Whether that's acceptable or not, I leave to you. Just wanted to answer your question, though. Hope that helps! --Girolamo Savonarola22:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amin al-Husayni
Could you review my suggested addition at Talk:Amin al-Husayni? I believe I included all information that is made available and verified. As far as I can see, everything is both verifiable and notable. If you disagree, please let me know.
Stop adding racist material. Do you know how many messages from various groups to Israeli Jews I could add to the Israel page if I wanted to? --Zero13:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith - is this policy (like 3RR) is hard for you to follow ? I am sure you can follow policy. If you think I am the one adding racist material, file an Rfa and get me banned from wikipedia. On the other hand you can assume good faith, try to understand why things are relevant even if they don't fir your POV and you are welcome to add other parts of the complex reality to the article. I added quotes, sourced material and don't you dare to remove such material. Zeq15:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy
Zero, a controversy is "A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views", while to be controversial is "Of, producing, or marked by controversy". Definitions are from dictionary.com. Hence, both the passage itself and you removing it are controversial. That cleared out, I am waiting in excitement for you to show the proof from primary sources that you promised. --Heptortalk17:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lib
You mentionec a library in your research. WE need for verification to know what is this Lib. and how can we get hold of the tapes in this lib. You are trying to proove not that something exists but that something does not exists. This is a very hard task. I'll give you an example to find a solution to a list of equations one can proove that a solution exisst by showing that solution (it does not matter how one arrive to a solution just to put in the equations and show it is a solution to the equation set) on the other hand to proove that a solution does not exist one has to check all the possible solutions show that they do not fit or come up with clad iron proof that a solution can not be found. Usually a proof of that kind will give someone a Nobel price in math (Galua and Ferma are examples of such "proofs") so to proove that a sourced quote does not really exist you will need to come up with a very strong case. Just arguing "so and so said that it was on date X and I read the transcript of that day and did not find it" is not a proof. Maybe the date was wrong, Maybe the transcript was wrong, maybe you are wrong. We would need access to the same library to send someone to check your claim. Please identify the Library. Zeq10:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there currently a consensus for these moves (you know how controversial such a "move" would be)? You've been closely following these discussions, so you're in a better position to know. -- Dissident (Talk) 19:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinian garb
Thanks for your note and sorry about the late response. The sister is wearing a Palestinian dress (the two stripes on the skirt and the decorated sleeves and neck look like a Ramleh region dress), and Edward himself is wearing the solid white headdress and brown (I assume) Abayah usually worn by men, but I'm not sure about his vest or the dagger, which look more bedouin. It's clearly a "pose" picture and not something people wore daily. In any case, while it's safe to assume that the garb is Palestinian, I emailed Maha Saca in Bethlehem to get more info; she runs a heritage center which specializes in these sorts of things. I'll post more to the talk page of the Said article if I get more info. It seems like the person who was trying to change it to "Arab" has not done so in the past couple of days. Ramallite(talk)15:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS I now understand why you need those 13 hours to go through each and every one of my edits to find "example" to show your point. It is almost like those who count letters in the tora to prove their points - they have lots of time until they find "a proof".... Zeq14:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do edit any other subjects excpet Israel (and your line of research work) ?
Why are you so obssed with Israel and the Tora ? Are you on a POV mission to remove any pro_israeli source fom Wikipedia ? Only pro-Palestinian sources are valid in your mind ? or maybe there is some hidden mesaage there that the rest of us don't seem to understand ? Zeq13:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I fixed the double redirects (there were only 3). It would be nice to have admin powers here for these kinds of administrative tasks, but with the enemies I've made I don't think I'll ever win a vote. -- Dissident (Talk) 02:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was consensus enough in my opinion. The move makes it fit the standard pattern that a name is not a disambiguation page if one meaning is much more prominent than the others. Compare Israel (disambiguation). --Zero11:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jordanian annexation of Jerusalem
Zero, I found this in The Times, Editorial: 'Israel and Jordan', Friday, Apr 28, 1950; pg. 7; Issue 51677; col C: "The Government have announced their de jure recognition of the State of Israel and their acceptance of the Arab territory to the west of the River Jordan as an integral part of King Abdullah's dominions. In each case they make some significant reservations. The present boundaries of Israel, defined by provisional armistice lines, are not necessarily accepted by Britain as the final frontier, nor is Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish part of Jerusalem recognized until the status of the whole area is settled. The armistice line between Jordan and Israel is accepted as the boundary of the new territories only until a settlement is reached between the two countries, and no Jordanian sovereignty in the Arab-occupied portion of Jerusalem is recognized." The British government's acceptance of the Jordan union under the terms described was announced in parliament by Kenneth Younger, Minister of State, on Thursday, 27 April with the actual words "The part of Palestine which is now united to the Kingdom of Jordan includes a portion of the area defined in the resolution on the internationalization of Jerusalem adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1949. His Majesty's Government wishes to state that, pending a final determination of the status of this area, they are unable to recognize Jordan sovereignty over any part of it. They do, however, recognize that Jordan exercises de facto authority in the part occupied by her." (' House Of Commons' The Times, Friday, Apr 28, 1950; pg. 4; Issue 51677; col C). --Ian Pitchford16:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello maybe you should have the information here : Pappé, Ilan, Britain and the Arab-Israel Conflict 1948–51. London 1988. Unfortunately I don't have this book. In another book "The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947-1951" I have read in French he doesn't discuss about Jerusalem but he underlines only UK and Yemen recognises the annexion de jure.
In the article Definition of Palestine and Palestinian, it is stated that Transjordan was created in 15 Mai 1923 (mistake ?). In the article British Mandate of Palestine it is stated that it was in September 1922. In the article Jordan they talked about 1922. But I have read in Pappé - la guerre de Palestine en 1948 that Abdallah were crowned in 1921 and this is confirmed in the article Abdallah. May I assume that he moved to Transjordan in 1921 and that the British recognized him as Transjordan sovereign in september 1922 ? Thank you :) Christophe Greffe18:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
cycle/cyclic graph
Hello Zero0000. You recently changed occurences of cyclic graph in the article cycle graph to the latter name. I believe that the more accepted term for polygonaly graphs is cyclic graph. See eg this link at mathworld [6]. Furthermore, cycle graph has a specific meaning [7] covered in the article cycle graph (group). Can you please explain your motivation for this change on the talk page. Thanks. Debivort05:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
new historians
Hello zero. I would appreciate your mind about the talk in the article "new historians". This is related to what new historians claim. Maybe there is a misunderstanding. Thank you. Christophe Greffe12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine move
Your move (pretty much unilateral) of Palestine (region) to Palestine has effectively caused an edit war on the article, because some editors insist on thinking of Palestine as a political entity. In the future, think about 100 times about making such moves, and ask around a bit more. I'm sure you meant well, but it's now turning into a disaster area. --Leifern15:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is only getting worse. Please show me where the move was put for discussion and vote. If it wasn't, I'm going to get an admin to move it back the way it was. --Leifern18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine
It's possible you are right about the name (I haven't had time to think it through), but that doesn't solve the problem. What can be done about an editor who continues to insert factually incorrect, POV, and off-topic material into the article? What do you suggest? Jayjg (talk)20:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreement ongoing, it would appear, over some fine propaganda inserted by an anon. You might like to take a look. I am too busy to pursue the matter unfortunately. Palmiro | Talk16:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops... I've corrected this. I was confused by the statement in the article that "In February 1948, Jewish workers were slain by Arabs in a factory after being disarmed by the British". I can't find any record of such an event in Jaffa. Do you know anything about this? --Ian Pitchford09:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Safed article remains extraordinary Jewish-centric, despite your comments on its Talk page. I wonder if you'll be getting back to that? --Macrakis18:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Zero. I am sorry to have left the discussion about 1948 war. I have had many work on the professinal plan and have just some few free time now. I see that things did not move forward and that quarrel goes on but between you and Heptor. Sorry for that. I think it is better I work on the French wiki on the article but following what happens here because you are pretty well documented.
About that : you had promised me an information :-) ...
And I have also another question. :-))
1. could you please confirm and eventually indicate a reference for April 1922 as the start of the British Mandate on Palestine and September 1922 as the foundation of Emirate of Transjordania.
Could you please confirm this is not a fake or written maybe by a propagandist ?
Was the "potential" problem of jewish refugees discussed that soon in May 1948 - simultaneously I would say - with the start of the palestinian refugee problem ?
Would you have more information (eventually with references) about when Jews started to leave or to be chased from arab states ?
Would eventually have refence of Ben Gourion (or other leader) comments about this phenomenon and when the jewish politicians started to realize the problem or to decide to take care of this ?
Could you please put your comments separatly from my original message? The text gets hard to read with comments on comments on comments on comments in every message. Heptortalk18:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Zero0000. I don't know if this is the right place but I think this is a good start towards the right solution : [8]. I leave you inform appropriate people if useful. Christophe Greffe10:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder
I want to remind you that Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Even if one is editing from Belgium this rule still apply.
Hi Zero. I think the photo is more than welcome but when I read the article with my laptop 15.4", it completely make unreadable the "table des matières" next it. Would not it be possible to move the photo a little bit higher or lower ? I don't know how to proceed. Christophe Greffe11:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried. Image placement is hard as it depends on your browser as well as screen size and font size. Now probably someone else will say that it doesn't work for them ;-). --Zero11:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What would you think about Hannah Arendt as a scholar source ? She was the first female Professor at Princeton...
Look at this :
"The Grand Mufti's connections with the Nazis during the war were not secret; he had hoped they would help him in the implementation of some final solution in the Near East", Hannah Arendt [9], Eichmann in Jerusalem, p. 13. [10]
You are right that searching quotes is not a methodology. But everybody read books in function of the time he has...
I have 2 comments and 1 question :
Please edit Hannah Arendt article to enter the information about the fact she is not a reliable source concerning nazism and antisemitism. Your claim clearly indicate you have relevant material about such facts and also, about Philip Mattar, Director of the Institute for Palestinian Studies and Associate Editor of the Journal for Palestinian Studies, you should edit his article to introduce the material that explains he is neutral and not at all controversed.
About his book -you have read- could you explain me the unrelevance of this quote : "His many comments show that he was not only delighted that Jews were prevented from imigrating from Palestine, but was very pleased by the Nazi's final solution" (scan of this book here : [11]). I know... This is because it is not a major point in his study. It is just written in it.
Do you know the word empathy ? I use this much in French. It is just to put oneself in the position of the other. Just have a few minutes empathy about me and put yourself at my place. (just a few minutes). Who would you believe : Zero or quotes taken from Hannah Arendt stating exaclty what is written in the book referenced by the same Zero. Christophe Greffe10:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)~[reply]
Good evening from Belgium. I imagined nevertheless you were in the USA so I should maybe say good morning... My first point is that you don't answer to my questio... My second point is that your comments are not link with mine and so I add a question : "have both Arendt and one of both author you suggested to me wrote enougth so that we can state both the Mufti was antisemtic and he would have been pleased by the implentation of a "final solution".
About Library of Congress. The guy who told this to me is active on the French wikipedia. Precisely he just told me the Mufti broadcasts records were there. He didn't specify where and how to get them. He just gave me the website and precise it had a cost. He told me he had written an article about this. I don't have any idea how this guy is reliable and I don't feel enough interest in this topic to spend time for this.
But If you have some time I would be glad if you can specify to me when Emirate of Transjordania were precisely created as well as Brits received their Mandate on Palestine. This is for the French wikipedia. Thanks ! Christophe Greffe18:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your theory is explained here [12]. No comment. They also give another reference claiming the contrary : Simon Wiesenthal's website [13].
Valuable reference work
Zero, I thought you would be interested in the Encarta article on Abdullah I of Jordan: "King Abdullah was the only Arab ruler willing to accept the 1947 UN partition of Palestine between Jews and Arabs. In May 1948, immediately after the creation of Israel, he yielded to pressure from other Arab countries and led his British-trained army against the new state, capturing a large area of its territory". And people say Wikipedia is unreliable! --Ian Pitchford14:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries
Please do not use the edit summary to attack another editor; Just describe what you did. These are not appropriate. They may be seen as personnal attacks and can quickly become disruptive:
"rv pathetic labeling. this is not a toilet door." [14]
"rv. Zeq has been vomitting on the article again." [15]
Hello. I don't understand your agressivity. You call me Greffe, now ?
I gathered all relevant quotes taking all your sourced information into account. As you could have seen, Schetchman, is not taken and for all that can be controversed, there is a link to who they are or why they are controversed when this is official.
There is nothing more and nothing less.
If somebody has external analysis that Mufti would have been anti-semitic, they will illustrate this.
If somebody has external analysis that Mufti was the chosen victim of the israeli propaganda, they will illustrate this too.
These are just a gathering of statements about the topic. This is the only think that cannot be controversed.
This arbitration case has closed. Zeq is banned from articles he has disrupted and placed on Probation. Zeq and Heptor are cautioned regarding sources. Zeq is cautioned regarding removal of well sourced information. Others are cautioned to use the procedures in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Where applicable, these remedies are to be enforced by block. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk09:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another request
Please explain your reverts. Please avoid reverting (or doing any edit) without proper explnation and also be civil to your fellow editors. You should also always asssume good faith. If you have proof that I should be banned you should have presented it already (so don't therten me please) or you should start a new ArbCom case. In any case you should follow policy in all your edits. Especially avoid edit wars. I expect that you will self revert your last edit war or explain why it is not according to policy. btw, Dror asked me to send his regards. Zeq11:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always assume good faith for all editors who have not proven they edit in bad faith. Draw your own conclusion. --Zero11:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to deabte you what the "proofs" you use. In any case please :
I am still waiting for explnation of your revert in machsom watch. Clearly NPOV means represneting both views on the subject of the article not both sides of a specific meeting. Zeq11:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You and others are nice to me again. I am able to make a big difference in articles such as Zionism, al-sarafand, Hamas and Machsom watch so i decided that although I came to work on only one article and my work on it is done I will stick around a bit more. I am dcided that you decided to work per policy and be reasonable again and agreeing to my requests. Thank you. Zeq15:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely see your reasoning about the group describing itself as "terrorist", and I agree with you that this fact is noteworthy in itself. However, instead of including the current passage in the introduction I think it would perhaps be a better idea to write something along the lines of "Lehi described itself as a terrorist group" and place it further down in the article. Do you agree with me?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk00:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They were a small group and their effectiveness depended a lot on the fear they instilled in the British. Anything they could do to portray themselves as ruthless was to their advantage. That's what I think the logic was. --Zero09:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Villages
I had the same thought yesterday when I was re-reading Morris' book for the exodus article. As a first stage I was going to enter all of the place names and Morris' codes into an Excel spreadsheet to allow the data to be manipulated in various ways. I might have time later this week. --Ian Pitchford11:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the level of detail it sounds as though Khalidi's book would be the best one to use. I don't have a copy, but should be able to get one within about ten days or so. If we create tables in the article or elsewhere with the agreed fields we can complete them as time allows. Best, --Ian Pitchford13:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you could help resolve the current dispute between me and User:AladdinSE over the inclusion of a quote by Paul Findley. Aladdin stakes his claim on the basis that it is relevant because Paul Findley is still a "well respected former congressman" which I feel is farce, today Findley is definitely far from the mainstream for advocating beliefs such as that the Iraq war was launched primarily on behalf of Israel and that Congress is being led astray by a dictatorship of Israel and Aipac. I will support your ruling regardless of your decision, I just want to get out of this conflict. Thank you- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk03:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I maybe (in your mind) the cause but it is you who edit war with no stop. You have disputed my edits, without reading the Or report (while I did) . Please follow Dispute resolution process instead of an edit war and I again ask you to stop the personal attacks. Zeq05:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Machsom Watch, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Al-Sarafand, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
The current situation sounds much to me as if you were a victim of some sort of provocation's campaign aiming at making you ban. I would advise you to keep cool and have this in mind each time you comment. Sorry for this and with you good luck :-). You know, it is not because one pov word or 2 are introduced in 1 article or the other that anything will change... Christophe Greffe21:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Machsom Watch
Just about every intro I write contains criticism of the person or group, assuming there has been substantive criticism from reputable sources. Machsom Watch is not defined for you by the criticism that's made of it, but it is so defined by others. The point is to make sure that the criticism is not trivial, and that it comes from a good source. I added the criticism from the NGO Monitor. Zeq added the statement from the IDF chief, which personally I would leave out of the intro, so I don't know whether you're objecting to one or both. You'll have to show me where it says it's "normal practice" to leave criticism out of an intro. Intros should provide an overview of what's to come. SlimVirgin(talk)00:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism has to be from reputable organizations. Inserting criticism from Hamas into the intro of Israel would be like inserting an opinion from Stormfront into Jew. Here's what Wikipedia says about intros:
Wikipedia:The perfect article: " ... begins with a definition and clear description of the subject; the lead section introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excess detail."
You can't compare Israel and the IDF with Hamas. Regardless of your personal feelings about the first two, they're reognized throughout the world as being a legitimate state and its armed forces. Hamas on the other hand is widely viewed as a highly controversial terrorist organization, and because of that, there is criticism in the intro. It would be utterly bizarre if there weren't. Saying in their defense that they're the elected representatives of the Palestinian people would be like defending the Nazis just because they were elected by the German people. SlimVirgin(talk)01:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am addressing the issue. I'm talking about the lead. The article (and intro) isn't about Machsom Watch's view of Machsom Watch, or the IDF's view of Machsom Watch, but both, and other credible sources' views too. We don't allow organizations to self-describe where the descriptions differs from that of reputable published sources. See WP:V and WP:RS. And the lead is meant to sum up the important points of the whole article, criticism and all. SlimVirgin(talk)01:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block[17] is 12 hours. Here are the reverts in question[18]. Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP08:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zeq
I'm not sure if editing the Talk: page counts as a violation of the terms of his remedy, but I'll find out. I'm pretty certain asking me to help mediate on the page is not a violation. Jayjg (talk)04:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Leap-frogged citations" are a major problem in Wikipedia. In particular people often cite scholarly papers and books when they've actually only copied material from a web page. --Ian Pitchford18:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You flashed a page again
Be carefull, and do not use your feet to edit (again) [19]
For the life of me I can't understand how that strange set of edits resulted from mine. Hope it is ok now. --Zero23:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other words for "group" in Lehi
Usually you can say use a word like organization or something, but that would be inappropriate for a group with less than a hundred members. what do you think of something like faction, band, maybe syndicate, I'm running out ideas. It seems like we should start using a thesaurus or something becasue the word group must occur like 40 times in the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk02:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we say "Lehi was an armed underground faction in Pre-State Israel that had as its goal the eviction of the British from Palestine to allow unrestricted immigration of Jews and the formation of a Jewish state." that way we show its goal as well as its armed nature and we don't use group:) - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk03:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, were you aware that the anon you reverted was Alberuni?-
I wasn't aware that there was a controversy, I guess I was just wrong about the territory, we'll just use Palestine then. Also would you object to moving the quotation section to wikiquote and adding a interwiki.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk03:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your modifications :-) That sounds good to me. He writes that arab authorities (Al-Husseini, AHC, AL AND national comittees) never wanted-asked-required-recommanded-prompted Palestinians to-for leave-flight-flee-goaway but they tried to stop it. And this is developped in the introduction, in a whole chapter and in the conclusions. I think this is an interesting source for this topic. Christophe Greffe13:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Book reference
Zero0000, do you happen to own, or have access to, a copy of Fischbach, Michael R. (2003). Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231129785 ? Jayjg (talk)16:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tips, they were quite helpful. Do you happen to know what footnote 137 on Chapter 1 says? Is it that same JNF letter by Weitz? Jayjg (talk)18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deir Yassin
I am not Francisco, his website is not a blog, and the link is directly under another link to a site which is also a histiographical analysis of the evidence that suggests that there was no massacre. Just because you may disagree with the conclusion does not mean you should prevent others from hearing a perfectly reasonable and well documented alternate theory of what happened. Ryan417:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's also saddening to me that you couldn't imagine the possibility that someone might care deeply enough about the truth to spend their time and energy spreading the well documented research of someone who they beleieve is right. Ryan417:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is this personal vendetta you have? HIR and Emperor's Clothes are respectable alternative media sources whose authors take time and effort to ensure that every single claim they make is footnoted and supported by factual documentation. This is more than you can say for the entire mainstream media. In what way are these sites 'blogs'??? Ryan417:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Emperor's clothes (ie Jared Israel) was noted in the mid-1990s for doing a not very impressive job of trying to defend the Serbs from accusations of ethnic cleansing. He championed the Serbs and a magazine called "Living Marxism" over Serb concentration camps. Then Jared Israel/EmperorsClotes switched to doing the same for Israel. And they're doing it for money - lots of that available to deniers! Is it $3 billion a year the US gives them? PalestineRemembered19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I saw the modifications you added on the citing sources's article. I completely agree with this. If you think of me when you did it, note this is exactly what I did, maybe with a different precentation. For each quote, the author can go and check the text where I found this. Christophe Greffe22:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ariel Sharon
Do you think that "the Butcher of Beirut" belongs in the introduction? I have tried to move it to another section as I feel it is too POV to be included in the intro, but my efforts thus far have been to no avail.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk11:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey zero, I was wondering what your position is on calling someone an "intellectual" in an article. I think isnce there really is no qualification per se then it should be avoided, and a less ambiguous alternative should be found like "scholar". Do you agree?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk06:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you think it would be okay if you readded the link to your talk page on your signature stamp?[reply]
Palestine map
"Nice map! However, all of Gaza is now administered by the Palestinian authority (since last year) so it should all be dark green."
Well, I did not draw "Palestine election map.PNG" map. This map is from Wikimedia Commons, and I just started its page on English Wikipedia and posted it into category "Palestine maps". Original map is posted on Wikimedia Commons and the person who created and uploaded this map is User:Astrokey44, so you should ask him to change the map. Here is the original page of this map on Wikimedia Commons:
Hey Zero, When I first tried to create this stub I accidently mispelled "Mishael" "Michael", I fixed it but the old mispelled page still exists, how do I delete the wrong one.
In case this was confusing let me just sum up- "Mishael Chesin" is the correct spelling Michael is the wrong one. Thanks- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk07:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Al Aqsa Intifada
People on both sides keep adding more and more POV images showing how bad the other side is. I deleted them because although I think pictures are great for an article it seems people started going overboard on this page. Of course some guy re-added one of them and in rapid succession they almost all returned. Do you think my initial action was justified and if so what should I do to ensure they stay out of the article?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk07:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Persian Jews
Hey Zero I was wondering if you know anything about Parthia. There are a couple of editors on the talk page insisting that the Parthian empire wasn't influenced by Helenism, which is quite silly if you realize their writing system was greek.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk04:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zero, I've seen you many times call this book "junk." If you want it not to be used as a source, please supply some articles by academics in that field who call it junk (or similar), so that we can consider what you say. SlimVirgin(talk)09:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say academics would cite it as a source. I asked whether there had been any serious reviews of it, and given how false and pernicious you say it is, I'd expect to find some reviews warning against it. Donald Neff is a journalist and the 2002 review you mentioned was in the Journal of Palestine Studies, published by the Institute for Palestine Studies, which we've discussed before as having been called the "academic wing" of the PLO by a State Dept official in 1982. The same issue that published the 2002 Neff review discusses the "dignity" of suicide bombers and how "nothing quite prepares you for the devastation" at Jenin.
Until you find someone with Bard's academic background and experience who agrees that it's junk or a poor source, it'll continue to be acceptable for Wikipedia. (I know of at least one major news organization that has handed Myths and Facts out to all its senior editors.) Alternatively, you could compile a list of what you see as its mistakes, and I'd be happy to go through it to determine whether they really are errors, or just differences of opinion.
As to whether I'd cite it myself, if I find reference A in reference B, I cite "A cited by B," until I've had a chance to look at A itself. But we can only request that editors do that; we can't insist, because the higher the citation standard we demand, the fewer citations we'll get of any standard. SlimVirgin(talk)17:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(excuse the interruption, but this is ridiculous) What some unnamed US official (hardly a reliable source regarding Palestinian politics) may have said about the JPS in 1982 is hardly relevant. It is a journal owned by the Insititute of Palestine Studies, an independent academic research centre with no links to the PLO. Name-calling by ill-informed foreign officials is hardly of any great interest. Palmiro | Talk17:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zero, I didn't say or imply that you'd stated an opinion about Neff, nor did I say or imply that I knew what your opinion was. Every time you respond, you set up a fresh strawman. My point is simply that, if you want to trash the book as a source, you need to provide evidence, either in the form of some trustworthy reviews, or in the form of a list of errors you believe he has made, so we can all check them out. It's hardly helpful just to keep on saying it's trash, and that you personally know what the entire community of historians the world over thinks about it, just because you can't find reviews. Absence of evidence isn't good enough. You have an exceptionally strong bias in this area, and a tendency to dismiss sources because you disagree with them. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but we need to see some good evidence that you're right, or it'll continue to be used as a source. SlimVirgin(talk)01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, and because Bard has a Ph.D in a relevant field, and is a published author about the Middle East, he's regarded as a reliable source. That's all we have to show. If you want those credentials, exceptionally, to be insufficient, you have to provide evidence that the book is widely regarded as unreliable by people in a position to know. Alternatively, draw up a list of his errors (errors, not just differences of opinion) together with reliable sources showing that you're right and he's wrong, so that others can judge the merits of what you say. But the source can't be excluded based on a couple of editors' personal opinions. SlimVirgin(talk)01:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Schmelz
Hi Zero,
I find it odd that your intrerpretation of Schmelz work is different from what others read into it. maybe you can bring exact quotes that support your understanding of the text ?
But I don't see Zero interpreting anything, all he's doing is quoting Schmelz's figures on Arabs in Jerusalem/Hebron areas; that 5.2% of Muslims and 3.0% of Christians were born elsewhere in Palestine, and additionally that only 1.6 percent of Muslims and 3.6 percent of Christians surveyed were born outside Palestine. Schmelz goes on to break down this latter (born outside Palestine) group by country of birth. It's really quite simple, as I see it... Ramallite(talk)03:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't need to interpret anything but I did add together some numbers since Schmelz breaks down the figures into many categories. The full set of data given by Schmelz is in tabular form and so difficult to quote. I decided to be naughty and upload the two required tables; please take your own copy because I'll have to delete them very soon for the obvious copyright reasons (see the slap I got below). I also uploaded a map showing the regions. To calculate the summary percentages I gave, you need to add together the values from Table 1.8 after weighting them by the population sizes ("full figures") given in Table 1.5. Note the way Table 1.8 gives percentages, then expands a fraction into percentages of that fraction. For example the first column (Muslims, Jerusalem City) involves 11,000 peope (Table 1.5), of which 78.0% were born in locality of residence. Of the remaining 22.0% born outside the locality of residence, 7.5% (i.e. 7.5% of 22.0%) were born in Hebron city, and so on. Table 1.8 is the only place Asia, Africa and Turkey are mentioned quantitatively, so it's the only place Gottheil could have taken his numbers from. --Zerotalk05:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:SchmelzTab1.8.png
Thanks for uploading Image:SchmelzTab1.8.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Honestly I thought the generic description worked better. I think when you actually include the quote it makes it look kinda partisan. When it is summarized it looks less controversial. Are you pretty set on your version?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk14:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your block of Zeq
It probably wasn't a good idea for you to do this because you're so often involved with him editorially. I'm going to take a look at the material he posted and I'll probably be reducing the block, depending on the seriousness of it. You're correct that an indefinite block for posting material like that can be warranted, but it rarely is after a first offense. I'm letting you know about this well in advance, because we're not supposed to undo another admin's blocks without a proper discussion, so please let me know if you have any thoughts. SlimVirgin(talk)01:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jerusalem bus 2
Zero,
I agree with you that all must be remembered and that it is ugly what the Jerusalem municiplity has done.
The way to remember , all of them is the way we do it here in Wikipedia, we list all the names, without difference who is a jew or not a jew.
If you want to open an article about the Municiplaity of Jerusalem racist partices (there are many) be my guest. I am sure there are other municiplities and countries which behave in a racist way (toward Jews for example) which also desreve an article. I can give you example of such article was was the subject of a hot debate in wikipedia. Zeq11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
Hi! I know this is ages late, but it was only now that I noticed all the great historical info that was added to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. I wondered: Who did that? and it turned out to be you. Great job! It would be great to see more of the same for all the targumim. Dovi18:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This edit summary
I know this is not the first time someone points this out to you:
avoid making personal attacks in your edit summary
Don't call other people work "trash" - even if you disagree with them you should respect other poeple edits and not insult any wikipedia editor .
I have to agree with Zeq on your insulting behavior. Just now on Zeq's talk page I saw this recent comment from you in which you said "I called it rubbish, not trash, but now that you mention it trash would be a fine description too. Like most of your edits."
Please do not use the edit summary to attack another editor; Just describe what you did. These are not appropriate. They may be seen as personnal attacks and can quickly become disruptive:
"rv pathetic labeling. this is not a toilet door." [23]
"rv. Zeq has been vomitting on the article again." [24]
Zeq is not an editor in good faith. He is an extremist with no redeeming features. In the case mentioned, Zeq claims that an article in Israel's most respected newspaper about the memorial to a massacre is not relevant to our article about the massacre. Does he really believe that? Could anyone really believe that? Of course he knows it is nonsense, but that newspaper article is damaging to his mission and has to be censored by any means possible. If the newspaper said things he likes he would would be copying paragraphs from it, unlike the very mild single-sentence summary I inserted. You are right that I should moderate my language, I agree with you on that. --Zerotalk12:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is certainly a zionist, but as to redeeming features I would disagree. My dialog with him dates from his arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq, and I have found him willing to discuss matters in a reasonable way. That does not mean that I consider him to now be engaged in optimal editing. The link to the article was not good today, so I can't comment on that. I think you assume too much. You say, "Of course he knows it is nonsense". I think that, in fact, he does not know it is nonsense. But I do think he might listen to and understand a patient explanation presented in a courteous way. Now it may be that he will just get worse and probation, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Remedies, will have to be more and more vigorously enforced, but my hope is that he will gradually improve in his behavior. Keep in mind that "He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing." If that is necessary, please ask for it. Fred Bauder13:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weasel Terrorist categories
Hello again Zero, a number of editors have recently created a couple of categories that attempt to weasel around Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism policy. I do not have a real problem when people mention in the article's body that a group has been accused of terrorism, but when a category is added it gives the impression that the accusation is more official. The two categories that I am aware of are: Category:Organizations accused of terrorism, and Category:Designated terrorist organizations. In my mind it might be okay to place such a category in an article about an Organization that is active internationally and whose goals follow a movement more than the achievment of a single goal such as the Jewish Defense League or Al Qaeda, but I do not think the categories are appropriate in such articles like Hamas, Irgun, or Hezbollah. Of course we really cannot create such subjective criteria so it seems to me that that the categories should be deleted as a violation of policy and for being excessvily divisive and inflammatory. What is your opinion on all of this? (Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg)
Categories like this leave me cold and I'd like to delete all of them. The chances of being able to do that is minimal alas. If we have to have them, then we should use them accurately. Lehi clearly fits "Organizations accused of terrorism" (it even called itself terrorist, in addition there are multiple governments, the mainstream Yishuv, and the world press who called it that), so it's hard to see a real choice there. I don't want to edit it (I'm not here!). --Zerotalk08:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zero, thanks for your message. The translation is quite relevant, but at the same time, that page is undergoing such continuous bombardment (no pun intended) at the moment that I would rather stay away for a few days until it (hopefully) dies down a little long enough for any serious new piece of information to stick. I saw that there was an attempt to provide the information in the translation but it got reverted, or deleted in the process of continuous rearrangement. Hopefully we can try again in a few days. Ramallite(talk)20:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
warnning
Welcome back. You have been warned before not to belittle other people or their edit in your edit summary. You have also been warned not to remove sourced material and to make sure to follow NPOV so please fix this edit : [25]Zeq17:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Zeq. Zero has now threatened to ban me. He said I use bad faith which is a wrong allegation, only because he disagrees with me politically. Amoruso16:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zero0000, the second part of the French representative's quote has resulted in an exchange between Ian Pitchford and me on our respective personal talk pages and within the talk page of the article that you may (or may not) be interested in taking a look at. My most recent message to him began "I have reconsidered your inclusion of the quote and now agree that it is relevant because the speaker actually explicitly drew the linkage himself; I admit that I did not originally focus on the manifest explicitness of this linkage" --Just so you know. Thanks for your contributions to this issueDasondas16:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was for you
No, the comment was for you, in response to yours above it: "What counts in history is investigation, not repetition." What counts in Wikipedia is repetition, not investigation. SlimVirgin(talk)10:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zero0000, you might be interested in some of the editing on this page. I'm afraid I don't have the time or inclination myself, unfortunately. Palmiro | Talk20:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Fraid there's nothing to understand. Amoruso is here as a self-appointed representative of Etzel and Lehi. He is not interested in Wikipedia rules or processes. --Zerotalk11:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly interested in staring into Amoruso's soul. I'm interested in understanding the purported reason for the removal of material. It seems to me that significant, well-cited information has been removed from the article. People are allowed to hold opinions, even extreme opinions, even repellent opinions, and remain active in Wikipedia. But it does not exempt them from the usual rules about editing articles. He has removed material that appeared to me to be well cited. He has given what at least has the form of a rationale doing so, but I literally don't understand his stated rationale. I'm not that interested in his deep motivations: I'm interested in whether the stated rationale is comprehensible to someone; I'm assuming good faith, but I've given up on his ability to explain his rationale in terms I will understand. Since you were also involved in the discussion, I was hoping that you might be tracking better than I. - Jmabel | Talk16:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please Remain Civil
It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. These allegations that accuse me of bad faith and personal attacks are not allowed on wikipedia. Thank you. Amoruso22:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeatedly asked user Amoruso to show solid proof for his accusations that Bernadotte did not want jews on the White buses. If he does not provide solid references he should remove the allegations. If neither is done - I suggest we forward it to an admin so she/he can take care of it. Ulflarsen 09:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Your threats are out of line and your abuse of power and false allegations are simply outrageous. The person who blanked material on the page is you. Your attempt to make content disuptes into something else is extreme bad faith and you should be banned for that behaviour. Amoruso04:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine
Hey, you reverted my attempt to stop deletion of what I considered a useful edition by another person to the Palestine article. I considered your edit summary a little rude, to be honest. I have looked through your edits and seen that you only seem to contribute to articles on very related topics ... please could you NOT just revert my edits to fit your own POV. Can we at least discuss if you really do disagree. I know I'm a new wikipedian but I am perfectly willing to engage! Thanks! --SandyDancer01:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are SandyDancer accusing another editor of POV, something you condemn me for on the George Galloway page. Zero0000, I advise you to take SandyDancers' comments with a large pinch of salt. MarkThomas10:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your help is wanted
On the Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page, there are some serious disagreements right now regarding the NPOV policy. I'm trying to get as many people as I can engaged in editting this page to siphen out the garbage.
Hey Zero, I saw your an accusation that you levied at User:Ryan4 about being one and the same with Gil-White. I decided to do a little detective work and came to the conclusion that you were actually completely correct in your assertion. "Ryan" seems to have written almost the entire article about White, in fact the only people besides him that did anything to the article besides routine administrative stuff were anons who seemed to have a remarkably similar pov to Ryan. When I looked over the talk page I saw that Ryan had presented "E-mail correspondance" he carried on with White whenever it suited him. A few admins had talked about deleting the article but nothing ever came of it. I was wondering if you might consider helping me launch the afd if your interested?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk12:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amoruso thinks this should be two categories (and put it up for deletion). I created the category and think it should be one, but I'm not absolutely married to the idea. I'd welcome your opinion (or anyone's really, this shouldn't be a particularly partisan issue). —Ashley Y08:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Deir Yassin massacre. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under 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. -- Avi14:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zero may be suffering frustration that good material is being systematically excised from this article, while rubbish is being inserted in its place. Nasty revisionist material, since nobody really doubts that this was an attack on a friendly village and the dead were very largely non-combatants.
And the statements brought to "defend" these actions are often totally ahistorical, from laughably biased commentators (and in this case, an open supporter of ethnic cleansing) eg:
Emanuel Winston, a Middle East analyst and commentator, wrote: ... This Arab village in 1948 sat in a key position high on the hill controlling passage on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem road. Those villagers were no different than other nearby Arab villagers who were heavily armed, hostile and aggressive. They also hosted a battle group from the Iraqi army. They had incessantly attacked Jewish convoys trying to supply food and medical supplies to Jerusalem which was under siege and cut-off by Arab armies in linkage with those same villagers. They were killing many Jews. Deir Yassin was a staging area for the villagers and regular army from various Arab armies. They were not innocents as proclaimed by the Arab nations or the Jewish Revisionists.[1]
Why people would wish to post such nonsense is a complete mystery - unless, of course, they are trying to conceal crimes from which they themselves are benefitting, similar to crimes they themselves have committed.
Zero0000, there is often tag team reverting waring with quick reporting if you take the bait. Sometimes it can seem as if it is designed to anger you and thus discredit you -- it is best to avoid revert wars. --Deodar07:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup needed for the section "Demographics in the late Ottoman and British Mandate periods"
I'm not entirely sure what the protocol is for the request for sysop moderation here, but this seems to be it. There are irreconcilable viewpoints in [Talk:Palestine], subsection Cleanup needed for the section "Demographics in the late Ottoman and British Mandate periods" that you are familiar with. This article needs moderation, and, hopefully, this is the right place to ask. Thank you Wood34522:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hebron 1927
The whole thing took 8 hours. Saw that in the museum there in Hebron. About the rape, they where gang rapes but dont have to include for the tznius sheboi, wtvr. The British Policeman, I will be writing in article killed tens of arabs. His weapons are displayed in the Museam there in Hebron. Chavatshimshon12:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind that there are rules in Wikipedia and you are not above them.
Removing sourced info, a photo which is important is a clear violation - you don't want to end up with arbcom again and again and again. so please play by th rules. Zeq19:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This message delivered: 04:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC).
Advice
Hi Zero --
I've apparently pissed off the group at the Zionism page now enough that they're following me around and reverting what I do. I'm guessing you may have experience with this: how do you deal with it? This strikes me as utterly bizarre. I wasn't insulting them; I've tried speaking on their talk pages, but they won't respond. See Folke Bernadotte. Can one request mediation? Their brazeness suggests to me I don't have a solution. Please let me know. Thanks! Mackan7900:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I agree mediation isn't necessary on the Bernadotte page; thanks for adding that additional information. As far as the Zionism page, is it just that it doesn't seem like a big deal, or that mediation on a page like that is generally fruitless? I gather you try to avoid squabbles; I'm just somewhat curious, because it seems there's a lot of subtle and not-so-subtle bias in many of these pages, which I'd like to try to address, but I'm not sure if I'll simply be thwarted at every turn. I'd also add I seem to be in a pretty similar situation as you, not being tied to any of the groups (well, except the Swedes), and without any political axe to grind, but simply being of the opinion that the articles would be a lot better and more useful without the POV. Do you find it's simply not possible to address the subtle stuff, or perhaps its just better to avoid all contentious situations? Unfortunately, that would seem to put a page like Zionism off limits. Sorry for the long questions, but it seems like you know the environment pretty well. Mackan7919:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing: SlimVirgin has reported me for 3RR based on the Folke Bernadotte page. Since you probably know as much about it as anyone, and if it's something you do, please feel free to comment there. Thanks, Mackan7900:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli official historiography
Post-Zionist and palestinian historians claim the "traditional Israeli historiography" didn't explain the events the way they happen. "Official Israeli historians" (who were maybe more propagandists than historians) built an history for these events. Right.
They are many references for this in first quality scholar's works.
As a consequence, isn't their point of view an important information to add to an article. Not to claim that what they say is (or may be) true but only to underline what they say and permits he readers to understand precisely the "size of their (alleged) lie"...
I think Katz, Schechtman and other propagandists' pov would deserve a place in all these controversed articles but in a special section : "Israeli official history".
Their Pov could be given and critics of their pov from other historians too.
As I think I wrote some months ago (but without echo) :
if what they claim is (maybe) not true, it is true that it is what they claim.
This information deserves numerous lines in the articles because this is what all Israeli citizens and most western people learned unless they studied the matter deeply.
Any comment ? Alithien09:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. So you agree but doubt the other will agree :-).
Note these are not new historians such as Shlaim or Pappé but the historians you gave me are quite newer than Schechtman or Katz. But you are right anyway. This is the "old" official israeli point of view.
something else : I would not locate Gelber with Shapira. I think he is closer to Morris and together they took some distances with Pappé & all the Palestinian historians.
From what you know about the 1880-1950 conflict, is there an interesting point not developed by Morris, Pappé, Gelber, Shlaim, R Khalidi, W. Khalidi, Shapira or Karsh ? I mean, do you have some book to advice me that would bring something from somebody else ? Thanks. (NB: I advice you fr:Henry Laurens but he only writes in French. Alithien18:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In the article it is written the operation was named shoshana operation by IDF. I doubt this. Did you hear about that ? Alithien20:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Well done with the Suba article (it's moved around a bit, let's see if you can find it!). Anyway, I saw you uploaded Image:JerusalemWest1870s.jpg and was wondering if you happened to have the whole map, or at least the part a bit further to the west. This is unrelated to the article, I just happen to live around there and I was curious...--Doron22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1948 Casus Belli
Well, admittedly your deletion of the casus belli line might have just accomplished the inevitable with a lot less flamewar, but I'm still uneasy about it. I mean, I spent the better part of an hour digging up primary sources and dictionary definitions for that one little line, and it gets deleted because ignorant morons learned different in Sunday School (or think, falsely, that they did, because they don't bother to find out what 'casus belli' means).
I don't know. I sort of expected this to happen when I waded tentatively into the Israel/Palestine morass, but it's still disappointing. Granted, the rest of the article is a lot worse, and I should probably just resign myself to it staying that way. But please reconsider.
Hi Zero,
UNO voted in 1982 a resolution that it was an "act of genocide".
The information has been added in Genocides in history's article.
I wonder if this fully respects NPov ?
See : [28]Alithien07:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring
You've made 3 reverts in 24 hours at Folke Bernadotte. I know that you are an experienced editor and you know that edit warring is unacceptable. It fosters bad feelings and prevents proper resolution. You ought to be using dispute resolution like mediation when in a conflict, not aggressively edit warring. I am in particular concerned by your use of rollback against other good faith editors you disagree with; please see Wikipedia:Revert#Rollback, it is not for content disputes. Dmcdevit·t17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aggressive reversion disguised as an edit.
You say that you removed "highly non-encyclopedic edits" because this "is not a eulogy!” of Rabbi Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl. Please tell me what's unencyclopedic about what was written. If you think that parts of it are unencyclopedic; I can understand that; but be so kind and leave what to you is encyclopedic. What does "highly non-encyclopedic" mean? Are mediocre or lowly unencyclopedic edits acceptable? What consists a eulogy? Is what is said at a eulogy forbidden in Wikipedia?
I truly don't understand on what grounds you did a blanket reversion of 5 edits without bothering to explain. For an experienced editor like you; this is totally unacceptable.
Also reversions need to be identified as reversions; otherwise they are considered edits. Reversions disguised as edits or edits disguised as reversions is pure vandalism. Itzse17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could do with some help at Steven Plaut, where Isarig is constantly removing a link to Norman Finkelstein's response to Plaut's smears. Isarig claims falsely that the article contains no footnotes, even though I have listed on Talk:Steven Plaut the 32 separate articles cited. RolandR23:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
presonal crusade
Your personal crusade against Ktaz is becoming a problem. I know such crusade exist in the academic world but wikipedia is not a place for such battle. Please brush up on what wikipedia is WP:NotZeq10:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be advised, my request was for you to respond with an intention to participate or to decline the mediation. Alan.ca09:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sorry for the mistake, I was a bit stressed when I added it (making sure it wouldn´t get deleted.) I also added Benvenistis footnote, hidden in the text ( quote inside the quote is from the High Court Justice Decision 220/51, 30 November 1951.) It is not very "elegant" with such a long quote in an article (as I said: I was stressed..) ....so feel completely free to break it up/delete/rework it as you see fit. There is more about the later developement in The Benvenisti book, mostly about the village mosque, which they have tried to use/renovate for years. I´ll add that later. I understand there is a law in Israel against destroying "holy places", like churches and mosques? Do you have any references about that? In Ghabisiyya the authorities basically argued that the village mosque hadn´t been a mosque; therefore they could not renovate it. (In Biram and Iqrit they have been allowed to renovate their churches, (citing the same law?)). If you have any references on this law, it would be great. Thanks, and regards, Huldra00:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have also expanded it with some of the later stuff in the Benvenisti -book (...I just bought it..) If you think it is too long, or whatever; do feel free to shorten it/rework it (I´m not a native english speaker, as you might have noticed). Also, I think there might be a typing error by note 12? It says "In September 1948"...but if that date is correct, then the sentence should be moved forward? However, if it should be, say, "In September 1950"...then that would be consistent with the claim that they were kicked out of their village three times. Regards, Huldra08:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC) PS: and thank you for your excellent work on Al-Ghabisiyya![reply]
Re: Correct erroneous and somewhat jumbled text
Hi Zero,
Aside from my spelling error, I'm not sure what was wrong with my edit. Didn't "Palestine" refer exclusively to Western Palestine after the 1923 separation of Transjordan? Let me know if I've made some stupid mistake :-) TewfikTalk02:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transjordan was a political subdivision of the British Mandate of Palestine alongside Western Palestine until 1946. I don't see any contradiction there aside from the ambiguity in years in that passage, especially regarding your third point, where I don't think the implications you see are really there. TewfikTalk05:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what specific problems led you to remove this? Right now the narrative skips 25 years of important events. Thanks for your input, TewfikTalk23:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. I have no disrupted anything
2. Your edits are actually the one that are disruptive - you are reverting without providing explnation. Including reverts of a WP:RS source such as haaretz
3. No "anon" can ban me
4. I am no longer under probation
If this is all I expect that you will confirm receiving this message and remove the unjustified threat you just made. I remind you that in your arbitration case you were displiplined for misuse of admin power and that you can not as an admin block someone you have a dispute with. Zeq13:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a formal notice that I intend to edit the article so I just want to make sure you check and re-chcek before you (again) try to misuse your admin power prior to block me. Should you block me this will be at least a 3rd violation of your admin power and most liley you will be reported and handled accordingly. Zeq13:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Hass1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. MECU≈talk19:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A note
FYI, I canned a (IMO) needless note left here by Zeq. Sems they asked him to put a bit of brevity into his Arb response, and he thought it'd be cute to cut n paste the message word-for-word to you as well. Just thought this mess could do well with one less provocation.
Anyways, saw your note on El C's page about leaving and just wanted to echo his sentiment about maybe just taking a break rather than quitting. I think you do some good `round here, and it'd be the wiki's loss if that work was removed from the equation. Tarc13:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hope the Zeq case goes well... this guy sometimes makes me want to bite my foot off. Please don't be discouraged, your contributions to Wikipedia are priceless.--Doron21:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abd al-Kader
Hi Zero,
Troubles with Zeq ? :-(
I have some other. An administrator from Commons wants to delete the photo of Abd al-Kader al-Husseini because he says nothing prove the picture was taken in the British Mandate (Palestine or Jordania) where copyrights were limited to 25 or 50 years.
Copyrights are the same in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Irak and Saudi Arabia.
Do you think you could source Abd al-Kader only lived in those countries ? I could not but could not source he lived elsewhere either... Thank you !
NB:this is quite "urgent". We have 3 days remaining (out of 7) to "prove" the fact... Alithien06:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your answer.
I think it is "obvious" that the picture if free or rights but proving this is another matter, indeed.
I'm loosely considering an rfa against Amoruso, based on his ludicrous statements on the Deir Yassin page that "No historian today believes there was a massacre." I really don't think that anyone who can hold such absurd positions in face of definitive evidence to the contrary, ought to be editing this page, and this is not the only page where he has caused other editors a lot of unnecessary trouble.
I don't know much about the rfa process or when is an appropriate time to start one, but I've noticed you have mentioned the idea before and if you think there is a case to be made, I would certainly be prepared to participate. Regards, Gatoclass07:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definition of "historian"
I notice on the Schmuel Katz page you had this to say:
There is no formal definition of "historian" so the fact that he wrote a few books that have the form of history and one (the last one on Jabotinsky) that has received some favorable notice from historians means that I don't object to him being called a historian here.
I really think that Wiki should not be referring to people without the appropriate degree as "historians". If someone has written a history of something that has gained recognition from qualified historians, I have no objection to them being quoted on the relevant page, but they should still not be referred to as historians but only as writers. On the basis of what you have suggested here, almost anyone who has written something cited by a real historian can be called an "historian", which can only lead to a total debasement of the term. Gatoclass04:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I figured perhaps that was an attempt to be conciliatory, but it already seems to have backfired to some extent, with Amoruso quoting you over it.
Anyhow, I see no reason why someone like Katz should ever be referred to as an "historian". Writer and journalist, fine, historian, no. By that yardstick I could call Chomsky a historian because Zinn has said some nice things about him. You have mail BTW. Gatoclass
From what I read and what you found, I think we can guess (only guess unfortunately) that Abdallah had in mind to give credit to his annexion by changing the name of his country. He modified history to make it believe it had always been -from 1946- the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan but only proceed to the use of these words starting beginning of 1949. The official name was never officially modified given it has to be this one since 1946 but most historians, who never cared about this little manipulation, just noted that the apparition of the new name coincide with the annexion of West Bank and they fix this at different moment according to the first time they met this.
Don't worry. I don't want to write this in wp but I am confident not to be far from truth after comparing you primary sources from PP, secondary sources from historians and official Jordan website with a version that is not reported by any historian...
Cheers, Alithien15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zero,
I have a high respect for your expertise and I think that when you write something or give an analysis you can be trusted.
I have nevertheless a "problem" with the arguments you sometimes use to "prove" a source is not reliable...
The fact an historian is biaised cannot be used as an argument to reject him as a reliable source simply because they are all biaised a way or the other and all make mistakes. Even if you can "prove" that an historian is of "bad faith", a "pov-pusher" or a "propagandist", he is still an historian and unless we have writings from his pairs where they clearly attack him on that subject, I don't see how we could reject him as a reliable source for wikipedia.
More, we are not assumed to "write the truth". Wikipedia is not expected to be a "secondary source" but to be a "tertiary source", ie gathering the minds and analysis of secondary sources on a subject - truths and lies -.
NPoV doesn't mean using "neutral secondary sources" (that do not exist) but to introduce - a neutral way - all secondary sources on a subject.
I am confident your analysis are right here but on the methodology, this creates problems :
how to make the difference between an historian who is not honnest and an historian who is wrong ?
what is the limit of "bad faith" at which we can decide an historian cannot be a source for wikipedia ?
In practive, if Katz or others should be "rejected", don't you think there is enough to rejet any writings from Pappé ?
What do you think ?
Regards, Alithien14:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zero,
First I want to underline that there is no critic but only questions in my comments :-)
To answer you :
I had rather Pappé and Schechtman in mind. And I had also your methodology in mind (such as the one you use in the British mandate article to proove how biaised is an historian)...
I think it is not objectively possible to distinguish Schechtman from Pappé, and particularly if we just "copy/paste" the methology I have just referred to.
Both have been caught "forgotting some facts" or "lacking fairness" (Pappé by pairs, Schechtman by you and ... ?), both have political agenda, ...
I agree that when we can source by another source we should better use that other source. Clear.
And I agree that Pappé's theories can only be sourced by Pappé and he is a strong defender of some points.
But why is Schechtman censored for the same reasonning ?
I don't see any difference in stating that Plan Daleth was a blueprint for ethnic cleansing than in stating that Husseini was mainly an antisemite or that most Palestinians were immigrants and not established in Palestine... And I could say I do not understand how somebody can write a chapter on 1948 War in "forgetting" to describe real balance of forces before-during-at the end of the conflict... (extremely few historians do that. Are they liars ?)
What do you think about the way to objectively differenciate all of them ?
From my mind, even propagandist deserve to see their mind written... And if it is controversed (by their pairs) it must be stated but none propaganda can be censored by us. We are not assumed to judge the propagandist character of an information.
WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! (Welcome!)
Evidence for PalestineRemembered case
Hello. The evidence page for the case does not currently have a statement collecting all the various refutations of the Holocaust-denial quote allegations. Since you are the resident expert on the matter, can you help draft one? Thanks, nadav (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS comunication between editors is important. do I need to get arbCom to explain this to you ? Zeq22:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain
You removed this: "The city is home to several startigic facilities such as a power plant, a small harbor and one of the world largest de-salinization plant - all located at the southern end of the city. Recently, the area has been a target of Palestinian Kasam rockets fired from Gaza. "
This arbitration case has closed and the decision published at the link above. Zer0000 is advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq, including but not limited to enforcement actions under their prior arbitration case, and admonished that so long as an editor, including one on probation, is not restricted in their editing of a page or area they are entitled to be accorded good faith and be treated with respect and courtesy when they edit in those areas. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk)20:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zero,
read this again:
"advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq, including but not limited to "
Now I asking you again to undo your admin action in which you speedt delete an article I created. You have also override a decision by other admin who first considered but later accepted that the article should noy be subject to speedy delete. You also did not place the tag for speedy delete allowing for other to review your decision.
How many more policvies can you violate in one action ? this seems to be a record.
Now, please restore the article and follow process. Zeq19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free use disputed for Image:EtzionPrisoners.jpg
This file may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading Image:EtzionPrisoners.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.
Zero0000, please write an email to the ArbCom mailing list about your recent deletion of the article written by Zeq. I feel that this action goes against the ruling in the arbitration case. Before I ask the committee to desyop you, I would like to hear your explanation. FloNight02:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is to advise you that the Arbitration Committee has adopted the following motion:
Any future use of administrative tools by Zero0000in relation to someone with whom he is in a dispute, will result in immediate desyopping once it is brought to the attention of ArbCom. This specifically includes, but is not limited to, administrative action against or related to Zeq.
I think the ruling is more than unfortunate. Note the rush to adopt. I am worried about what will happen to you now. Perhaps it would be better to give up the tools than wait to be provoked. (although you might be unlikely to ever get them back).
Thanks for uploading Image:EtzionPrisoners.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 '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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot07:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:AlHusayniHitler.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 '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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot07:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Al-Azm.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Al-Azm.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 '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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot08:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tantura article
Hi Zero,
Given the recent edit wars on Ilan Pappé regrading the "made-up massacre" there, and the statement that "Neither Israeli nor Palestinian historians had previously recorded or described any such incident", perhaps it is time to move your Tuntura article into main article space? regards, ابو علي (Abu Ali)11:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BarrierFeb2005.png){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/maps/fence10.jpg){kind=link}
[19]
![[20]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DeirYassinWiki.jpg){kind=link}
-2007-05-14T00:10:00.000Z-Image:Ac.jabotinsky2.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}