User talk:Zero0000

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Patria.jpg

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

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

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Harovbomb33jy.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist terrorist group?

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

Possibly unfree File:PeelReport291.png

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

Fair use rationale for File:Stern-stamp.jpg

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 02:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PeelReport291.png missing description details

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

Welcome Back

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

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

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

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

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

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

removed source

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

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

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

Hütteroth, Wolf-Deiter

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

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

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

Irgun attacks

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

Convoy of 35

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

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

re: 98.204.183.125

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

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

FYI

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

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

Your back

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

Thanks

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

Can I mark resolved

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

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

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

Abu Shusha

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civility, please

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

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

Another welcome

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

Edit warring warning

Warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DeirYassinWiki.jpg

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

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

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

oh please

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

== For your contribution and involvement in Editing the article Fatah subsection on 6th Fatah Assembly

Censorship of "Little Eichmann's" Sub-Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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