User talk:Zero0000

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

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





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

Template talk:NPOV

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

Suess 1967 paper

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

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

Quote of 1st sources


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

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

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

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

We can quote 1st sources with full confidence if :

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

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

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

January 2014

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

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

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

Re: Amudanan

Hi Zero,

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

I am quite certain that the map is from 2011.

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

Regarding terms

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


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

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


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


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

Request for action on WP:ANI board, was Archive 830 without being resolved.[1]. On a personal note, I'd like to note that I didn't held you as the sole or main responsible party for that incident, more like the "scapegoat" who enabled that string of tendentious editing by editors with long history on that arbitration case, intended to promote point of views by giving undue weight to sources/positions, through tangentially related subjects, with disregard to the article\section coverage as a whole. Hopefully it was a misunderstanding and we just started on the wrong foot and can continue to work together. --PLNR (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Info on Metula

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

Thank you

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

miss working with you

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


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

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

Chelo's itinerary

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

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

Paulet-Newcombe Agreement

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

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

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

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

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

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

1517 pogroms


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

Merger of 1517 Hebron pogrom and 1517 Safed pogrom articles

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

Category Deletion Request


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

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

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

Arutz Sheva revert

Hi, can you please explain two things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

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

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


Let's discuss it, shall we?

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


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

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


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

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

Zochrot I-Nakba app

Hi, Zero. Perhaps you've already seen this, but perhaps it'll interest you: [2]. Cheers!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


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

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

Request for comment

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

Disambiguation link notification for June 1

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

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

Your powers of research

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

Putting lipstick on a pig...

Recently you participated in a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard entitled "Is a publication found in a University professor's personal website a Self-Published Source or not?" [3]

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

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

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

Reference Errors on 10 July

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

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

Israel West Bank Barrier

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

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

Recent 1RR AE Case

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

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

"Citations are not required for photographs taken by editors"

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

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

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

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

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

Jeffrey Herf

Hi Zero0000,

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

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

Incredible Efraim Karsh

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

Palestinian land laws and WP:AE

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

Your AE statement

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

My appeal of my restrictions

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

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

New notification system for discretionary sanctions

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

Bassam Tibi

Hi Zero0000, Nishidani

Do you know this scholar ? What is your mind about him ? I am puzzled because in an article ([5]) that sounds well written and neutral he praizes Kuntzel's work, which decredibilizes him. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Rachel Corrie

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

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

Reliable sources on Israel/Palestine

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



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

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

Request for Intervention

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

Nominating After Saturday Comes Sunday for deletion

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

File:Feghali Saturday Sunday.jpg

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

Overlooked sockpuppet

Hi. Just noticed that User:HonourYoMama was judged to be a sockpuppet but overlooked and not blocked (see [6]). Yours, Quis separabit? 23:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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

List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al-Aqsa Mosque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jewish Quarter. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Map of Tel Kabri and her vicinity

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

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

Western wall

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

Hi. Sources for Montefiore's contribution:

U haz a mail!

Kitten in a helmet.jpg
o hai, i brought u a mailz n ated ur cereal.
Hello, Zero0000. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

January 2015

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • UN Secretary General [[Kurt Waldheim] told the Security Council that the raid was "a serious violation of the sovereignty

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


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

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

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

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

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

Re: Nrg

Hi Zero,

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

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

IP indef-block

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

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


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


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

Some baklava for you!

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


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

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

Victor Guérin

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

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

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


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

That photo

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

Dan Bahat

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

West Bank

Good day!

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

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

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

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

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

Mandatory Palestine

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

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

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

Golan Arch. Museum

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


Hi. Still around.

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

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

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


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


Re: [8] - watch it, I'm losing patience with your repeated violations of wikipedia policy I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thats cute: [9] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I found a WP:HOUNDING section added to my talk page as well, it states:
Re: [10] - watch it, I'm losing patience with your repeated violations of wikipedia policy . Next stop will be WP:AE, where I expect to bring up your obvious sock puppetry, as well. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
As I have never used a sock puppet, it should be interesting to learn how it could be "obvious" that I have. Can anything be done about this guy? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

How does semi-protected status get requested?

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

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

Moved your section at the RFC

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

A delivery kitten for you!

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg
Hello, Zero0000. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

Edit War

The IP has broken 1R on the Arab Cultural Capital. See here: [11][12]. AcidSnow (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

"Giladraz" is possibly identical with,

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

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

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

Invitation to comment

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

Request at dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

Is this under WP:ARBPIA?

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

@EdJohnston: In principle it is not part of ARBPIA, but in practice it is. For obvious reasons, a large fraction of the huge polemic literature on this subject comes from people whose Israel-related motivation is clearly evident. Also a lot of the "evidence" comes from an organization that, whatever they say, is an unofficial branch of the Israeli government. So I think it is justified to include the article under ARBPIA and I think we would be better off if it was. Regards. Zerotalk 02:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
What organization are you thinking of? EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: MEMRI. Zerotalk 05:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
This article should indeed be covered by ARBPIA : [13]. Islam/Antisemitism/Islamophobia are an important topic in the propaganda war in the I-P conflict. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:AE#Result concerning Calypsomusic

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

High definition maps of Palestine

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

Martin Gilbert still WP:RS ?

I don't know how to manage this : [14]. He quoted Bat Ye'or and Joan Peters. He even praised the 1st here. But according to wikipedia, he is WP:RS. What is your mind ? Pluto2012 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

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

DYK for Burqin

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

Admin help

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

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

Reference errors on 26 April

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

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

Block of

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

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

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

Yaakov Moshiach

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


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


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

Children in the I/P conflict



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

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

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

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

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

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

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Children in the I/P conflict, history

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

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

Changing article names

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

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

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Conifer (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

DRN Notice about Pearl S. Buck

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


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Bayt Nattif". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 June 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Fighters' List ambiguous reference

In your edit of Fighters' List you inserted the reference <ref>Heller, pp. 268–283.</ref>, but unfortunately, there was already one Heller book and in the same edit you introduced a second Heller book, so which one is it? Please fix. —Anomalocaris (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about Christian Persecution Category

Hi! You were recently involved in some disagreement at the article on the Semiramis Hotel bombing over whether [[Category:Persecution of Christians]] should be added to it. This is currently being discussed on the article's talk page. Please head over there to discuss your thoughts about this and reach a consensus. In the meantime, please keep the page as it is and do not edit war. ~ RobTalk 11:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Bayt Nattif, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Reference errors on 5 July

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposals for a Palestinian state

Thank you Exceptional newcomer2 (no border).gif very much for your contributions! --Miraclexix (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


I'm somewhat bemused by your reverts of an IP earlier today (e.g. this). The changes made by the IP were actually an improvement, as linking to Palestinian people is clearly more appropriate than linking to Palestinian territories (which the articles have no link with). Adding the word Arab also helps clarify the situation, as pre-1948, all residents were Palestinians. Why did you revert them? Number 57 10:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: If someone wants to make a politically sensitive change to multiple articles they should explain their purpose and get some consensus beforehand. This IP hasn't touched a single talk page or even given a single edit summary. Certain of its edits, like this one don't give me confidence that encyclopedia improvement is its purpose. Zerotalk 13:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really sure how a more appropriate link and disambiguating term is "politically sensitive". The IP may well have made some inappropriate edits elsewhere, but it's hardly an excuse to rollback everything they've done. Number 57 15:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Number 57: This IP only improved the link in a tiny handful of cases, which I now fixed. It didn't ever add it when there was no link. And the reason for the addition of "Arab" is obviously denial, not disambiguation. I know a pov-pusher when I see one, and so do you. Is this the work of a good editor? Zerotalk 10:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Denial? Clearly your last diff is not a productive edit, but if unproductive edits were a reason for mass rollbacking edits of editors in this field (even in cases where the edits were positive), I can't think of more than one or two editors in this field who should not receive the same treatment. Number 57 11:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but several different editors (including me) have warned him/her on their user-page, and they do not respond, ever. The IP reminds me of User:Motique, who likewise continued stubbornly, without ever listening or engaging with other editors. Not a good sign, Huldra (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Yummy! Zerotalk 10:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 July

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Would you take a short glance at 2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies, if you have the time? Apart from one incident about fake photograph controversy by a Reuters employee, the rest of it is random, unconnected, referencing bloggers, and all sorts of other no-nos. I am unsure of policy and since you're one of the few admins active in I/P area, I would like your opinion. I am not experienced in WP:AfD, but if in your judgment it should be merged/deleted, I would be willing to put the necessary work. Kingsindian  22:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

An unbelievable pile of garbage. I'll get back to this. Zerotalk 00:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestinian Refugees

Without adding that Palestinians called for unification with Jordan, readers will assume that Jordan's annexation of the West Bank was an act of aggression rather than something done with the consent of the Palestinians. Octopus1066 (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC) (UTC)

Octopus1066, I keep fixing your addition because it's incomplete and misrepresents what the source says. Please stop cherry-picking to push your POV. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestinian refugees

How does it misrepresent the source? Octopus1066 (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) (UTC)

Because the quote is incomplete. The Palestinian delegates didn't "call for the unification of Palestine and Transjordan", as you put it. According to the source, they supported a resolution that called for "the unification of Palestine and Transjordan as a step toward full Arab unity". The second half of the resolution is of vital importance. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 01:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi dear "Georgia_guy"

Is the sentence below grammatically correct? thank You.Alborzagros (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Respecting to some idiots will make us feel slighted by them.

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Protection needed

Protection needed on Palestine Liberation Organization. An Argentinian sock deleted 12 edits at once yesterday and earlier more. --Qualitatis (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qualitatis: It looks too much like a content dispute for me to do it, since I'm "involved" in that subject. Ask at WP:RPP. Zerotalk 09:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1952 Beit Jala Raid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestinian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines: "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted." Rafiah and the whole Gaza Strip were de facto part of Israel between 1967 and 2005; therefore, according to the guidelines, the Hebrew name is permitted -- especially since the transliteration of the Hebrew name is already there. --My another account (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Israel reverts

I misunderstood nothing. Wikimania self-reverted to avoid breaching 1RR, not because there were substantive problems with the edit. As I discussed at AE, the text in question was deleted by an involved non-admin before the governing RFC had been closed. Unless you have a sound policy-based case for acting before the RFC had been validly closed, I ask that you restore the status quo ante bellum. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but the status quo ante bellum was without the text. That was edit-warred in, just in case you hadnt actually looked. nableezy - 04:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Temple Mount

I knew the edit that you reverted had something of editorializing in it, but on the other hand, the fact remains that the four changes to the status quo are all to the detriment of the Jews, and that nevertheless, surprisingly and paradoxically, the Arabs claim that the Jews are those who are trying to change the status quo. Could you agree to keeping the first statement, regarding that the changes were to the detriment of the Jews, which is after all a fact and a summary of the four changes, if I agree that we don't need the word "paradoxically" or something like that. I mean, I could probably easily source that, although I don't want to stress the conflict overly much. Debresser (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: A regulation that prohibits Jews from praying on the Mount is to the detriment of those Jews who want to pray there, but to the advantage of those Jews who believe no Jews should go there at all. By using words that only represent the views of the first group, you are taking sides. You shouldn't do that. In any case it is obviously a opinion, and opinions should be attributed. Zerotalk 00:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Leaving aside the question of those opinions, and without catching me on the word "detriment", the fact remains, that all four changes were restrictions on Jews only. Debresser (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@Debresser: It is still commentary, and it doesn't matter whether I agree with it. However, after looking at it more closely I don't agree with it. No non-Muslims are allowed to enter the mosques; that is not a restriction only on Jews. Similarly the visiting hours are for all non-Muslims. Writing the paragraph as if nobody matters except Jews is not reasonable. It is also (though here the source doesn't help) a pity that the paragraph doesn't say who imposes these restrictions. I'm sure the mosque entry is controlled by the waqf. The other restrictions, afaik, are imposed by Israel. Zerotalk 00:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
You're right about that last point, so thanks for your latest edits there.
There is a fine line between writing an article based on information and commenting. I am not sure I crossed that line. In any case that question became redundant now. Debresser (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


Re this, no need for a sorry. Honestly I didnt even look at the edit, just saw the last two edits from a NoCal sock that were the latest in an article and reverted on that basis. Cheers, nableezy - 08:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

1919 map

Hi Zero, hope you're doing well. Quick question - have you ever seen a copy of the original map presented by the WZO to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: No, I don't think I ever saw an original. If you come across a reference (even UK archives) I may be able to help you get it. Zerotalk 00:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
@Oncenawhile: Actually I wonder if there was a map in the original proposal, rather than a verbal description as here. Zerotalk 01:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I had been looking for a reference to underlying source, but I can't find it anywhere. The best i could find was on page 18 of this, but it sounds verbal as well. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about Edit on "Bayt Nattif" Article

My friend, User:Zero0000, I wanted to ask you a question about style and accuracy. Don't you think that it is better to write "During late 1948, because of continued hostilities on both sides, the IDF destroyed housing structures in some villages, causing their inhabitants to flee. Among these destroyed villages was Bayt Nattif," rather than "During late 1948, the IDF continued to destroy conquered Arab villages, in order to block the villagers return. Among these destroyed villages was Bayt Nattif." Our friend, Huldra, is insisting on this one edit, without citing a reference for the statement, and, without citing a reason for the IDF to expel some villagers. She argues that the former edit (my edit) is too general in scope (i.e. relating to the 1948 war), but she doesn't recognize that her own edit is also very general in scope. IMHO. Your advice please.Davidbena (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


I probably picked the word Tsunami from a Hebrew article I read. A country with some lakes and a Mediterranean shore doesn't need too many words for shock-waves, and even less from snow :)

Cheers, Settleman (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The Sergeants affair -- advice sought.

Both Brad Dyer/Bad Dryer and No More Mr Nice Guy have made edits removing the second sentence in the following text in The Sergeants affair article, citing WP:SYNTH (see the talkpage):

Menachem Begin claimed in his book The Revolt that the "cruel act" was one of the events which tipped the balance in the British withdrawal from Palestine.(cited to a website written by Yehuda Lapidot) However, well beforehand, in the White Paper of 1939, the British government had stated its intention to terminate the Palestine Mandate, which was supposed to take place within ten years of the publication of the paper.(cited to a website displaying a copy of the White Paper)

WP:SYNTH states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."

The policy gives the following example, which is quoted by Bad Dryer on the article' talkpage: "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world."

In the example, the separately sourced parts of the sentence 'combine' to imply something not sourced. Specifically, the second part of the sentence uses the stated purpose of the UN, given in the first part of the sentence' to imply that the UN has failed.

It does not look to me as though the two sentences at the centre of the dispute in the Sergeants Affair article 'combine'. The second sentence does not use the first sentence to imply anything unsourced. In Wikipedia it is normal, when events have different narratives, to juxtapose or contrast the narratives. That is a method used to achieve neutrality. The first sentence states what Begin had to say about the effect of the hangings on the British, that it was one of the events (likely, the others he had in mind were also Irgun attacks) that made the British decide to get out of Palestine. There is another narrative, though, that since the White Paper of 1939, which was issued in the wake of the 1936-1939 Arab revolt, the official policy of the British had been to try to end the mandate (and therefore British governance), attempting to negotiate independence for Palestine within ten years of the paper's publication. Contrary to Begin, therefore, it could be said that the British had actually decided to 'leave Palestine' long before the hangings. The second sentence is an attempt to describe a possible flaw in Begin's statement.

If the second sentence did in actual fact contravene WP:SYNTH, could you explain to me how?

    ←   ZScarpia   19:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi Zero0000. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Reference errors on 24 October

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


It was a good edit, thanks for NPOV-ing it. BTW, "remove analysis not in the source, clarify context, correct quotation, expand citation" - actually my term "rabid antisemite" was taken verbatim from the (biased) newspaper article, if you look closely:

” The English people,” concludes the rabid anti-Semite, ” arousing the unani­mous indignation of the entire civilized world, ...

Zezen (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Zezen: Thanks for your mail. Yes, the source says that and (assuming the factual information in the source is true) most people would agree to the description. However, as a matter of style more than anything, I don't think Wikipedia should use words like "rabid" without stating them as an opinion of some named person. Somehow it would detract from the cool neutral style that is best for an encyclopedia. Personally I think that calling him an author of multiple antisemitic texts is enough to inform readers that he was a rabid antisemite without the need for actually using the word. Zerotalk 08:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. I am happy you work to NPOV principles. I welcome you to professionally fix his WP entry, which I have been heavily updating today. I am astonished he has not gained more prominence in historical or WP research. Zezen (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Leon Uris may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • to be a conscious attempt to show that the culture of an entire people is rotten to the core."<ref>{{cite journal | author = Jeremy Salt | title = Fact and Fiction in the Middle Eastern Novels of Leon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Zero0000. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Leon Uris and Exodus. Thank you. --Light show (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Zero0000. You have new messages at Talk:DAB.
Message added 00:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pls use talk, I'd rather not template an admin. Widefox; talk 00:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request archived

Your request for clarification has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Richard Meinertzhagen

Hello, Zero0000, about this diff, I added the cite from The Economist to the Richard Meinertzhagen article to try to give a reference within the article for the term "bumf," which is defined in Wiktionary and, of course, the OED. I thought of The Economist, as a publication, to be a reliable source, not original research and that the explanation within the article might be helpful to others. "Bumf" as a definition doesn't deserve its own article, so wikilinking was not an option. Linking to Wiktionary is contra to the Manual of Style and the OED is a paysite. Still and all, is there a better way to include an explanation of the term in the Meinertzhagen article? It could be helpful to those for whom the term is not at the top of their everyday parlance. Geoff | Who, me? 22:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Glane23:. Hi, it isn't clear to me why the word "bumf" is in the article at all, since it appears in Wikipedia's voice. Even more so regarding "Australian bumf" (what is that?). If it was a quotation then we could discuss how to deal with the word, but in our text we should just replace it by something readers will understand. Unfortunately that paragraph has very unclear sourcing and I can't tell if the word "bumf" originated in one of the sources given or whether it was introduced there by some Wikipedia editor. The word does not appear in the Official History cited; I don't have "Army Diary" handy to check. Actually I believe it is a paraphrase of the book of Grainger (cited next), which has "This, of course, relied on the enemy’s understanding of the peculiar Australian attitude to discipline and ‘bumf’."(p107). That makes sense, but our phrase "comprehension of Australian bumf" doesn't make sense, which suggests that whoever put it into the article didn't understand it. The following sentence "The main consequence was a swap in the German High Command, and Mustafa Kemal's resignation." is also clearly derived from Grainger, but Grainger does not attribute any of that to the haversack ruse. I'd like to remove the whole paragraph; objections? (Also, this should be on the article talk page.) Zerotalk 00:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I copied the above to the article Talk page and replied there. I've no problem with losing the term and agree the article can use some copyediting. Geoff | Who, me? 16:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


Yes agreed, that's what it is. I have a preference at this point to try to broaden out the scope, as an overview of the travel books would be good. What we have at the moment is worse than sub-par.

By the way, I would be highly appreciative of your thoughts at the RFC at IPCOLL.

Oncenawhile (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Avengers Navigation

Could I add later members and additional enemies.

Iron max 3 (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Iron max 3 Iron max 3 (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

WWHF is a reliable source

The WWHF is a reliable source. It's a government agency of Israel. It is not a private agency. It interacts and deals with archaeologists and historians. Why would you claim it is not reliable? Sir Joseph (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Because it isn't reliable. The State of Israel's position on history is also not reliable. Neither of them are scholarly sources. Zerotalk 23:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: And note how that source says "Nevertheless, most historians believe that the Western Wall became a popular prayer area only since the Ottoman conquest of Jerusalem in 1517 (5277)." That is indeed the consensus of historians. Zerotalk 00:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
That is because popular means easier and less restrictive to get to. (due to crusades and war etc.) Not that Jews didn't pray at the wall. So then the WWHF should be a RS anyway?? Sir Joseph (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: No, unreliable sources often include correct statements. Government departments are only used without attribution for matters clearly within their competence and not subject to dispute. For example, we cite the Israeli Bureau of Statistics all over the place. For matters as sensitive as the history of the WW, there are legions of scholars to rely on instead. Zerotalk 00:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy Le Strange

Re: [15], is he not a RS? Chesdovi (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Chesdovi: Sorry, I didn't see your question. See my answer in the section below. I'll add: also we have to be careful with sources 126 years old. Zerotalk 14:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Perfect. Chesdovi (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


I noticed this edit. You removed information as OR, although it is sourced. Did I miss anything? Debresser (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: The source does not connect this information to the issue at hand. It is only some editor's opinion that it is related. Lots of gate names have changed or moved around over time; it requires an expert to know what conclusions to draw from a particular example. Zerotalk 23:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Western Wall

Does this page fall under WP:ARBPIA, in your opinion? Since you are an admin and have edited that page, you might have some ideas. The section on Western Wall#Views does raise questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Hi Ed, good question. The only possible yes/no answer is "yes" since that place is a historical flashpoint between Jews and Muslims. But there is a longer answer. Usually topic-bans are enforced with some allowance for the nature of the edits. Two illustrative examples: (1) User Gilabrand has a well-deserved topic ban from the I-P conflict but frequently edits articles which are clearly under ARBPIA. However, I won't report her if her edits remain restricted to matters that do not involve the I-P conflict by a reasonable interpretation. (2) The article List of state leaders in 2016 is clearly as a whole not under ARBPIA, but there is a war going on there over the single line that refers to Palestine. I would say that I-P-banned editors are not allowed to partake in that war even though they are welcome to edit the parts of article about, say, Iceland or Japan. In the matter under discussion, you should also be aware that it largely comes out of an intra-Jewish conflict (Chesdovi belongs to a thread within Judaism that is largely despised by the mainstream). Chesdovi is overall not a worse editor than Debresser and far better than Sir Joseph. Cheers. Zerotalk 22:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thanks for the gratuitous attack. What makes him better then me? I'm not an SPA. I don't create obvious POV articles and then when those articles are deleted insert insert the pov pointy into main space. Don't make it seem like you're not uninvolved without a pov. His edits are extremely combative and disruptive to the project.Sir Joseph (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
That's my honest opinion of your editing practice. And you are the last person who should complain about attacks. Zerotalk 23:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
That's why I stopped dealing with him. I don't know how much you have seen of him dealing with me. As for the issue at hand, I am not in favor, in general, but for him, when he edits he makes it an Israel/Palestinian issue, but in general I don't think the page should be under ds, similar to Jew or other pages.Sir Joseph (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
If I may be allowed to add my opinion here, I would like to do so. Especially since my name has been taken in vain here. Otherwise, I would suggest somebody move it to EdJohnston's talkpage.
First off, I completely fail to understand why an admin would have a more qualified opinion about this question than a non-admin, and in my humble opinion WikiProject pages like WP:JUDAISM, WP:ISRAEL and WP:PALESTINE are the obvious and correct places to inquire regarding this question. That is even disregarding the fact that in the ARBPIA area Zero himself has a clear POV, meaning that I find it strange and worrying that his opinion is the only one EdJohnston asked for.
To answer the question itself. There is no straightforward answer. Part of articles like Western Wall is ARBPIA related, while the majority of the article is not. The degree varies, but in this case it is fairly easy to isolate the problematic sections. In this I completely agree with Zero. I would like to note on this occasion, that despite our different POVs, I much respect Zero, and we have solved many difficult issues together. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I do disagree with the statement that "Chesdovi is overall not a worse editor than Debresser". That is in addition to the fact that I fail to understand why the question as it was posed necessitated in Zero's opinion an answer regarding any specific editors. Chesdovi is an extreme POV editor, who cherrypicks his sources and uses them in grossly misleading ways, as I have suspected for many years and has been proven recently with three examples on the talkpage of Western Wall. The same can not be said about me, and has not been said about me. Debresser (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@Debresser: Both you and Chesdovi have views quite different from mine, but I respect you both and can work with you both as I have demonstrated many times. Often when you claim that Chesdovi is misrepresenting some source it sees to me that he is just reading it with different colored glasses from the color you wear. I suspect that your antipathy towards him is as much to do with the fact that you find his opinions "disgusting" (your word) as with his actual editing behavior. Zerotalk 05:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Although I know I am not a paragon of virtue, I really feel that I am able to divest my editing from my personal opinions. My attitude is helped by the fact that I was raised in Europe (not in the Middle East), and enjoyed a classical education, including university studies in the exact sciences.
I think the simple fact that Chesdovi and I agree on many of his edits, including as proposed by him on the talkpage of that very same Western Wall article, proves this. Same can be said for editing with User:Hulda, for example, who has a very pro Palestine POV, and even you. That is why I really don't appreciate when editors accuse me of POV editing or, in other contexts, "being too close to Judaism-related articles" etc.
In short, I would like to repeat that I think your comparison between Chesdovi and me is not justified by our respective edits and editing patterns, and can only hope that if you re-read the pertaining section on Western Wall carefully, you will see for yourself that Chesdovi is indeed guilty of misrepresenting sources. Debresser (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


Hello Zero. I really appreciate what you wrote about me (and to the issue) re. the Seaman arbitration issue. Thank you.
For what it's worth, here is, in my opinion, what we are dealing with there. Mr Seaman was until recently one of the policy makers organising the covered payment of government money to sympathetic students in- and outside Israel, who would then support the current government's politics on Facebook, Twitter etc. pretending to act as private, objective contributors. He managed to get fired by his own gov't right before launching the programme on a grand scale, for making quite rude and undiplomatic political comments on his private FB page. His "friends" (or himself?) usually try to whitewash his WP page anonymously, Plot Spoiler is the only exception in a very long time, but the most extreme one of them all. Here he displayed all the hallmarks of Mr. Seaman's own system-savvy and aggressive style, but WP isn't the Gov. Press Office. Thankfully. But I would bet anything I have that this isn't the end of it, perseverance is the other "Seamanship" top characteristic.
I didn't add anything to the article, I only brought back in what Plot Spoiler had blighted. I have rearranged one lead paragraph setting the events in a more logical, chronological sequence and addressed Plot Spoiler's formal complaints re. subchapter headings. The only additional material comes from our dear Dr. Dr. Nishidani, WP's highly regarded Oxbridge luminary.
I am trying to concentrate on real life for a change, stay as civil as possible, and keep my distance from "The Conflict", but Mr. Seaman & Co. will always have my undivided attention; manipulation of public opinion, censorship and aggressive behaviour from people acting as civil servants are to me like the red rag to a bull. Thanks again and all the best, ArmindenArminden (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


Hello, Zero0000. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


(Note: I have posted the same message on the Emmaus Talk-Page)

Shalom, User:Zero0000. It's good to communicate with you again. I wanted to ask your opinion about the necessity of mentioning areas now fully under Jewish legal control and jurisdiction as being, formerly, under the control of the Arab Legion during and prior to the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, in other words, what some call the "West Bank." Since the term "West Bank" implies that it was formerly under a different jurisdiction, but is no longer under that jurisdiction today, what good purpose is there in mentioning that a city is "in" (note present-tense) the West Bank? If we take Emmaus Nicopolis, for example, it is fully under Israeli law and jurisdiction, whereas not even the Palestinian Authority controls the region. It seems terribly misleading to write in that article: "The site today is inside Canada Park in the West Bank, and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." It tends to ignore current historical facts about the site's legal jurisdiction. As we know, the Arab village, Imwas, was a border-line village. The Arab legion occupied the nearby Latrun monastery during the war in 1948. The result of the campaign to expand the Jerusalem Corridor as far as the western foothills of the Judean mountains, freeing it from pockets of resistance, helped, in the final analysis, to determine the border of Israel with Jordan during the 1949 Armistice Agreement. See: Har’el: Palmach brigade in Jerusalem, Zvi Dror (ed. Nathan Shoḥam), Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishers: Benei Barak 2005, p. 273 (Hebrew). Remember what Ben-Gurion said during the War in 1948 about a region then occupied by the Egyptian army: "In the Negev we shall not buy the land. We shall conquer it. You forget that we are at war!" (See: Mêrôn Benveniśtî, Sacred landscape: the buried history of the Holy Land since 1948, p. 120). The Arabs, meanwhile, also vied with Israel over the control of territory by means of war, while the Jordanian Arab Legion had decided to concentrate its forces in Bethlehem and in Hebron in order to save that district for its Arab inhabitants, and to prevent territorial gains for Israel. Thus is it stated by Sir John Bagot Glubb, in his book, A Soldier with the Arabs, London 1957, p. 200. You see, the same principle applies today. Now that Israel has taken full-control of these territories after the Six Day War in 1967, there is no reason to insist on its former entities, since it is a way of politicizing what should be our intent as editors to remain neutral. IMHO.

Writing about this place, in particular, that it is located in the "West Bank" is a contentious issue, and I think that we'd do best by avoiding it altogether. For one reason, on the "West Bank map," the village actually sits in a Gray Area, not clearly demarcated. For another reason, it is more of a political statement than a reflection of the reality, where Israelis recognize the area as under Israeli jurisdiction. Thirdly, Israelis themselves do not call this area by the name the West Bank. Davidbena (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Davidbena: The position of the Green Line was determined in the armistice agreements and Imwas was on the Jordanian side. I really don't see what else there is to say; it is in the West Bank and nobody disputes it. It is definitely not a "contentious issue". So we should say it is in the West Bank. It isn't our job to help Israel annex the West Bank by pretending that facts are not facts. I also don't think you are right that it is "fully under Israeli law and jurisdiction"; actually it is in Area C, which is under Israeli control but not sovereignty per Oslo agreements and the international law of occupation applies according to Israel as well as everyone else. Zerotalk 22:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, User:Zero0000, and let me thank you for your reply. Let's just say it was on the Jordanian side. But today's Israeli border is NOT the 1948 border. Today, the village is in Israel. Can we then compromise on this issue and write instead, "The site today is inside Canada Park in what was formerly Jordan (i.e. West Bank), but now in Israel and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada."??? Does this sound better? The reason why I'm asking is because the current edit ignores current political facts. It's like saying that "The city, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, is in the Sioux Indian Nation," rather than in the United-States. To this very day, many Lakota native American Indians do not recognize the sovereignty of the United-States over their ancestral homeland, but it does not change the fact, does it? Israel has sovereignty over Emmaus-Nicopolis, and it should be mentioned as in the State of Israel. IMHO. One more thing: The Oslo Accords did not give full sovereignty of lands to the Palestinian Authority, but was only a means to achieve administrative cooperation between the Palestinian Arabs working in conjunction with and under the auspices of the Jewish State. As for its current status, see Oslo Accords#End of the interim period. Davidbena (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Emmaus-Nicopolis is, indeed, within the territorial bounds of the State of Israel, just as all of Jerusalem is in the State of Israel, even though it too was divided until 1967. Ask any Israeli citizen, or check maps published by the Government of Israel, the village of Emmaus is NOT listed as being in another State or country, nor in the West Bank (a term rarely used by Israelis). Furthermore, to deny this fact is very strange to me. We're talking here about Israeli sovereignty (military or otherwise) over this territory. The Oslo Accords were meant to settle the final status of the territory, but it did NOT, as yet, settle the final status. Meanwhile, the place (Emmaus) is still in Israel. Article X (IX), Annex II, in the Oslo Accords specifically states:
"It is understood that, subsequent to the Israeli withdrawal, Israel will continue to be responsible for external security, and for internal security and public order of settlements and Israelis. Israeli military forces and civilians may continue to use roads freely within the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area."

Quick clarification

I noted that in your comment at WP:AN/I you happened to assume that I am a female editor. I'm not, and I am a male editor. The "Neve" part is basically just the word even—just happened to be the first word to enter my mind for a username—backwards.--Neveselbert 08:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Ok, thanks for explaining. I'l refer to you as "he" henceforth. Zerotalk 08:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit Reverts

Friendly question for you. Also not sure that this is the proper place to ask, but am wondering why you reverted my edit? Hoping that you are friendly to newbies & are willing to reply here as I have not set up my user page (still finding my way). SeaBeeDee 08:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)SeaBeeDeeSeaBeeDee 08:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC) SeaBeeDee 08:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive advice on unnecessary links. I have sent you a Smiley Award. Looking forward to becoming the best Wikipedian that I can be, thanks to friendly advice like yours! SeaBeeDee 00:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeaBeeDee (talkcontribs)

Map mistake

Hi Zero0000,

You or I made in mistake in the localisatio of Imwas. See both these maps: [16]. I think that you put it on the Monastery location. I don't remember which sources I have used at the time (should be Morris - 1948) but I had asked Yoav G. to check my maps... What is your mind ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I lack time and have to go.
But this map is false. The fort was in the Jordanian territory and east of the 1949 line. How else could it be ? Did the Israeli get the evaucation of this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Pluto2012: Yes, the latitude and longitude give for Imwas and Emmaus Nicopolis are wrong, and different from each other. I'll try to fix that soon. In this map that I made, I copied the armistice lines from an official Israeli source of the 1950s, which differs a bit from Google's version. Zerotalk 16:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pluto2012: @Huldra: I adjusted the coordinates but the fact that maps don't exactly agree is a problem. I'll try again later. Please be more specific about what problems you see. On this map, Latrun village is shown but not the Police Post (fort); I'll try to add it. Also the location of Emmaus Nicopolis is just to the left of the red blob "Imwas". Zerotalk 00:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zero0000
Between my post and you reading of it somebody changed the article and removed a map...
I wonder if this map of 1948 is right:
I am not sure but it defers from yours.
I think I based mine on this one and I used the road alongside Ayalon valley as a reference to locate Imwas when it turns. Pluto2012 (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Pluto2012 (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Pluto2012:. One thing to realise is that the main NW-SE road through the Latrun Interchange did not exist in 1948, nor I think in 1967. It is newer. My map shows the new road, but your map and this one show the old roads. That's the main reason things seem to have moved in major ways. For the armistice line I used this map. Note how it passes through Latrun village, as it does on this one but not on your map. Cheers. Zerotalk 09:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zero0000,
Thank you for your input.
There is also a mistake for Deir Aiyub on my map.
Pluto2012 (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Smiley Award for you!

Smiley.svg For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted:
Random Smiley Award
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Thank you for your advice! SeaBeeDee 00:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC) SeaBeeDee 00:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeaBeeDee (talkcontribs)

File permission problem with File:BBCreel116.png

Thanks for uploading File:BBCreel116.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 11:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:BBCreel125.png

Thanks for uploading File:BBCreel125.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 11:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Map desperately needed

Ok, I´m working on User:Huldra/Jisr al Majami ...and the related Naharayim (and to some degree: Gesher, Israel and Island of Peace). I have ...sort of.... cleaned up things in the commons categories (at least the worst). The thing is: There are 2 old (Mamluk? Roman?) bridges, each with a parallel modern railway bridge. One pair is now in User:Huldra/Jisr al Majami -category...the other pair is in the Naharayim-commons -category. Oh, and Naharayim was -partly- named Jisr al Majami earlier. It is a mess. We desperately need a proper map over the area.....interested? Huldra (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Huldra: Yeah, that is quite a puzzle. See the two 20-22 maps at . At 2032/2255 you can see the road bridge and railway bridge that I usually see called Jisr al Majami. But where are the other bridges you mention? I see a pair of bridges at 204/228 on a different river, is that it? 11:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
For some reason the does not work for me (it goes fuzzy when I try to focus), but yeah, you are right. The one spanning the Jordan river is what Petersen calls Jisr al Majami, this commons-cat (with the adjoining Ottoman rail-bridge here.)
The other bridge, *also* often called Jisr al Majami, is further up, spanning the Yarmuk. While the surrounding around "the lower" Jordan Jisr al Majami have not changed much, the surroundings around Yarmuk Jisr al Majami have changed enormously, due to the electric power station, and dam, which was there until 1948. The railway-bridge at Yarmuk was called "Yarmuk valley glider bridge", its commons-cat is here. As you can see, the writers/uploaders commonly refer to the adjacent old bridge as "Roman". As you can see here, there is basically nothing much left of the rail bridge at Yarmuk (it is the one in the front), while the adjacent Yarmuk Jisr al Majami (at around 3 o´clock) has been repaired in the middle. Huldra (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
@Huldra: The 1:20000 maps only focus for me at full magnification, and sometimes only then with persistence. Today I can't get them to load at all. Incidentally, I don't see where the Yarmuk bridge is called Jisr al Majami. That page of Fischbach doesn't say that. Incidentally, the Jordan bridge is shown and named on the Jacotin map. Zerotalk 06:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, @Huldra: Check your email for a great source. Zerotalk 13:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I got the source, and it is great (though they could have used some better ce; they speak of "Peterson" and "Carmon". Hmmmpr.)
From what I understand, from sources such as this [18] [19] [20], the whole area which is called Naharayim on Wikipedia, was called Jisr al Majami during the Mandate era (Naharayim was just the Hebrew name, while Baqoura was the Arab name.) And if you look at the pictures in the commons cat of the Yarmuk bridge: Category:Yarmuk valley glider bridge, many of them are called "Jisr al Majami. Interestingly, while Jacotin clearly mentioned the Jordan Jisr al Majami, there is no indication of a Yarmouk Jisr al Majami; perhaps the Yarmouk -bridge wasn´t "Roman" after all? Huldra (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
@Huldra: It is confusing about where the name "Jisr el Majami" was applied. I strongly suspect Fishbach is wrong, since all of the mandate-era maps I looked at showed it only on the west side of the Jordan and never on the east side. The place called Naharayim is never called Jisr el Majami on any map I looked at (many). In early maps it is called Tel Or, though I have one source which describes Naharayim and Tel Or as adjacent rather than identical. A typical map is here (1930s); note that in addition to the bridge with name Jisr el Majami there is a village called Jisr el Majami and a village called Tel Or, on opposite sides of the river. This later map (1940s) still has the village Jisr el Majami on the west (as well as the new Gesher) and on the east it has "Naharayim (Tel Or)". For sure the "Jisr el Majami" in the censuses and Village Statistics, as well as the Palestine village lists published right up to 1947, was on the west of the river since those documents did not include Transjordan. I have some relevant stuff about land sales in the 1920s that I didn't sort out. About the bridges: there is an article of Albright where he calls the Jordan bridge "Roman", but that idea seems to now be discarded. I don't see sources on the Yarmuk bridge. I'm in a time-panic for about 3 weeks but after that I'll spend more time on this, including a map. Zerotalk 00:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
By the way, note that Gesher was initially close to the bridge but after 1948 it moved about 1km west. Zerotalk 00:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This 1954 Hebrew map shows Tel Or and Naharayim separately, and is also a good source for "Peace Island". Zerotalk 00:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no hurry, I´m not going to move User:Huldra/Jisr al Majami to mainspace in quite a while!
Also it is not only Fishbach. If you look at the commons-cat for the Yarmouk-bridge, this this and this were all uploaded from the Australian War Memorial, while this was uploaded from the Matson-collection, and all of them call the Yarmouk-bridge for Jisr al Majami.
Also, from what I`ve read: the Gesher kibbutz started inside the old Khan, (on land that baron Rothschild had bought), they moved to the present location after 1948/9. Huldra (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I believe those images of the Yarmuk bridge are mislabelled. But I can't prove it. Zerotalk 00:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@Huldra: Now I found an 1850 map (Zimmermann) that labels the Yarmuk bridge "Jisr el Ajjeh". Have you seen that name? More recently, l see a 1924 map that calls it "Jisr es Saghar" and I find it elsewhere spelled "Jisr [el] Saghir". For example it is called that in Grootkerk p338 (referring to a name list compiled by the Dept. of Antiquities; I have that list). It is also called that in Schumacher's 1888 book Pella, p8 (try here —do you know where a copy of the whole book can be found)? Also this handbook. And page 730 here. I'm out of time, probably there is a lot more to find. Zerotalk 03:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Zerotalk 03:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I still think that it is unlikely that three different authorities (Fischbach, Australian War Memorial, Matson) all have gotten it wrong; I find it more likely that Naharayim also was named Jisr al Majami, at least for a while.
No, I haven´t found Schumacher's 1888 book Pella anywhere (with full view).
And there is a further mixup at Jisr al-Sidd (further north on the Jordan river). Most seem to agree that there were (at least) two bridges, named Jisr al-Sidd and Umm al-Qanafir. However, Petersen, 2001, thinks they were the same(!). Huldra (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC) 
@Huldra: Before the founding of Tel Or and Naharayim, and sometimes afterwards too, the whole local region was called Jisr al-Majami. For example you can find variations on "Jisr al-Majami Power Station" in heaps of places both before and after it was built. So I agree with you on that point. But that doesn't say anything about the name of the Yarmuk bridge. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see that any of the photographic sources you bring state that the bridge itself (rather than the locality) was called Jisr el-Majami. On the other hand, the sources I brought explicitly give a name to the bridge: Jisr Saghir. One of them is the official Australian war history and another is the mandatory government's Department of Antiquities. When I have more time, I'll write the authors of that paper I sent you. Zerotalk 01:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, "Jisr" means "Bridge", that the whole area was given the name Jisr al-Majami just points to the importance of the place, IMO. Also, this, from 1944, gives the position of Jisr Saghir at 204/228 (while Jisr al-Majami is given at 203/225). To me, that looks as if Jisr Saghir is north of Tel Or/Naharayim? Huldra (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@Huldra: 204/228 is exactly the location of the old bridge over the Yarmuk River, within meters. It is north of Naharayim with the artificial reservoir between. I don't know of any old bridges in the neighborhood except this one and Jisr el Majami. That list you found is the "Geographical List" that Grootkerk cites. Zerotalk 10:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I thought it was south of the reservoir! As I said, we desperately need a better map, which can be incorporated into the articles. Huldra (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi. Nableezy pointed out that you hadn't commented yet on my proposal at Talk:Ancient_synagogues_in_Palestine#Requested_move_4_June_2016. Since you participated in the move discussion above that, and since I much appreciate our previous interactions, you are cordially invited to present your opinion on my move proposal. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Zionist colonisation in Uganda

I hope you agree with the changes which I made in the "Zionism" article based on your hints: pages 55/56! --L.Willms (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is A Conflict. Thank you. Gestrid (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

If you can do me a favour

And not delete this. I want to have a laugh every now and then.--Bolter21 (talk to me)

@Bolter21: Ok, I was thinking about rev-delling it but you are welcome to keep it. Zerotalk 12:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker):@Bolter21: if this happens repeatedly, you could consider setting up something like my "fan mail" archive - see the archive box at the top of my talk page. Just a thought. --NSH001 (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

About an edit you made three years ago

Hello Zero0000, somewhere in 2013 you made this edit in which you wrote that "During the 1929 Palestine riots, three residents were killed and the remainder left" in the Kibbutz of Ein Zeitim. Your provided this source: ""Three new villages in N. Palestine". Palestine Post. January 18, 1946. p. 1", what is it exactly? I want to use it for a section I created for 1929 Palestine riots but I am not sure about it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bolter21: The full text of the Palestine Post up to the time it became the Jerusalem Post can be found at the Historical Jewish Press site. There have been some arguments around whether it is reliable, but I think it is citable with the possible exception of the 1948 war period when it became very partisan like all newspapers on both sides. Zerotalk 22:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe it is reliable, just the name of the source seems wierd, what is exactly "three new villages in N. Palestine? is it a news article or a seperate text published by PP? And why it is "page 1"? I usually trust other Wikipedians, when using sourced statements with no links, but this one seemd suspicious..--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Bolter21: You can see the answers from the citation format: {{cite news|title = Three new villages in N. Palestine | newspaper = Palestine Post | date = January 18, 1946 | page = 1}}. "Three new villages in N. Palestine" is the article title, "Palestine Post" is the newspaper name, "January 18, 1946" is the newspaper issue, and "1" is the page number. There would be a field "author=.." except that this one is just "Palestine Post Reporters". It is possible to also give a direct url to the page, but you need to edit out the Javascript stuff that the website gives you: [21]. Zerotalk 08:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Alright then. I am not used to see such sources (physical newspapers) so I wanted to be sure this source is not a reference mistake.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion on Wehrmachtbericht at the NPOV noticeboard. As a follow-up, I posted a link to the Talk pages where it had come up, and it may have helped to sway an editor's opinion, which originally was for inclusion: Wehrmachtbericht transcript. It was great to get input from uninvolved editors, so thanks again. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


Thank you for providing this link. I wonder if there are any sources discussing Transjordan's relationship with the British Mandate of Palestine? Specifically those about the borders in the link. To be blunt, anything that would destroy the fictional spinoff; that Jordan was carved out of "Palestine" and stolen from the Jews and the Palestinians? And that would destroy this fictional map --Makeandtoss (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: I uploaded an extract from that image to Commons: File:PalestineandTransjordan1922.jpg. You can add it to articles when it is relevant. The dashed red lines are a bit mysterious. The map doesn't explain them, but they might represent the approximate extent of British influence. It's also interesting that the name "Kerak" is given more prominence than the name "Trans-Jordania". As to your question, which text in which articles are you concerned about? Zerotalk 13:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
There were some content on sister Wikipedia projects (like Wikiquote and Wikivoyage) that were infuriatingly promoting faaaaar right-wing Zionist idea of Jordan being a Palestinian homeland, I removed the nonsense. It seems to me that they are so convinced of this idea due to this map, which happens to be fictional. I wanted to find a source mentioning the borders seen in the 1920 atlas so that I can add them to Wikipedia. --Makeandtoss (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: I think you mean "Jewish homeland". One source on this is this article in an academic journal, which also treats the similar myth about the Golan. I was surprised when I read it because the writer is usually considered very right-wing. If you can't obtain access to the article, send me email. Zerotalk 03:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, both! Sometimes Jewish homeland and Palestinian homeland! "Jordan was carved out of Mandatory Palestine, it BELONGS to the JEWS" and "Jordan is Palestine, Jordan never existed" (ironically missing out on the fact that Jordan is 27 years older than Israel). I can't view the article but damn why doesn't Commons have a restriction on original research. The map's usage across multiple Wikipedias is horrendous. --Makeandtoss (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


Hello. As you probably know, I am making maps every now and then. My question to you is, what program(s) and maybe even methods do you use for mapping? I use (as weird as it might sound) MSpaint for all mappings and very rarely I use photoshop.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bolter21: I use Photoshop. I load the source maps into separate layers and align them, then I build the new map in higher layers. Boundaries and road are easiest with the pen tool. Zerotalk 09:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Black Sunday, 1937

I noticed your edit to this page. See this discussion I had with Nishidani: I am trying to get the article speedily deleted and userfied while the AfD for The Bloody Day in Jaffa is going on - this won't happen if other people add content to it. I do not know enough about the topic to judge whether the article is notable or not - if it is I can drop the idea. Kingsindian   14:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you a RS for the complete quote and perhaps also contextual analysis

of the B-G remark Zionism Has Reached the End of the Road here? Plenty of time, no hurry. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I heard it is in this collection and it seems a bit similar to the extract you can see there. I don't know an English source. Zerotalk 08:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. Like much else it goes into the files then, with a note that it is curious secondary source literature appears to neglect another key statement.Regards Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Zero0000. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


Hi, I would like to ask for your opinion on the state of discussion at Talk:History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. The discussion is constantly being discontinued, what are Wiki policies on this issue? Not looking for your support on the discussion, strictly policy advice.. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Mount Zion

Please read my edit comments. I'm happy to discuss if you have any problems to save time on reversion related process. Crock81 (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Crock81: If you are considering the "hill" thing, you are confusing me with another user as I did not edit regarding that. Zerotalk 10:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand. The revert is in your avatar Crock81 (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thank you, I didn't spot the other user. Crock81 (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
PS. You need to find somone with much better knowledge of German orthography than I for a source, but there are no words in German starting with Tz, which I remember from school days. Because political Zionism was created in late 19th century Austria, it was spelled in German, with a Z, though the sound approximates the Hebrew Ts in Tsadi. German-speaking Jews would have been phonetically correct. Crock81 (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
@Crock81: I know how צ is pronounced, and I know how Z is pronounced in German. That's not the point. You introduced a theory that "Zion" got to be spelt that way due to German influence, but for that theory you need to provide a citation. That spelling appeared in English publications long before political Zionism appeared in Germany. For example: 1659 1766. If you can't provide a source for a German origin of the spelling, your addition needs to be removed. Incidentally, your claims about "hill" have problems too. The article hill only gives the 610m definition as the UK standard, but Mt Zion is not in the UK. Zerotalk 11:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I had no way of knowing what you know. There were no formal rules for English spelling until late 19th century, so spelling of Zion in the 17th century is very likely a borrowing from the continent, perhaps the Dutch. I would be surprised if anyone could offer a source you seek.
In Israel it is Har Tzion, not tel Tzion, or any other word for hill. Apparently this logic was inadequate for the previous article editors. Given Wikipedia is in English language, and the subject has modern scientific measurements and cultural values, why not use both? 11:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crock81 (talkcontribs)
@Crock81: If a source cannot be provided, the information cannot be included. That is one of the basic policies of Wikipedia. Also, "tel" means an artificial mound, such as generated by a settlement over a very long period of time. Zerotalk 02:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Re-reading this, what are you saying, that early (i.e. 19th century) Jewish Zionists were reading 17th century English literature to get their spelling for Zionism?! It isn't commonsensical to assume this, and is not something that requires validation or sources, because you are asking me to prove Theodor Herzl spoke German! The earliest Zionismus I can Google is 1868. How about you prove to me that Zvi Hirsch Kalischer's name was spelled with a Zayin in Hebrew, despite every article reference showing otherwise. Even the original Jewish Encyclopedia article the Wikiepdia article is based on has an error in the title. Its an emphatic-Z (diacritic) in the title (look closely), but the Polish equivalent is a C for the /ts/ sound. So, if you were a good editor, you would move that article to a correct name, Cvi or Tsvi, right? ;-)
Last offer. We can collaborate and do good, or you can keep being disruptive and antagonistic, in which case all that will happen is that I will make a few dollars in Amazon and Wikipedia will get yet another 'OOPS moment' in cyberspace Crock81 (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, this is what I'm saying. There are no contemporary, i.e. TaNaKh, sources that use any other words than har, i.e. mountain, so calling it a 'hill is OR. However, I'm going to spend some time on re-editing the article and adding references, both cultural and academic. It will however take time. Would you mind protecting the article while I do so? I'm happy to of course discuss editing on talk and incorporate any data others may suggest, again, given it is rationally referenced. One of the current references uses 'hill' in the text in spite of quoting TaNaKh passages which say mountain. Crock81 (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
@Crock81: If I protect the article it would prevent you from editing it. Calling it a hill is not OR if modern reliable sources call it that. In general, you seem to not understand what OR means and I suggest you read those policy pages again as the one violating the rules here is you. Zerotalk 07:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
There are many 'sources' on many subjects that are, and have been proven to be full of shit. Many academics, for reasons of intellectual dishonesty, bias or some political perspective say absolute nonsense. The greatest problem is with terminology because many people use words like they were sheets of toilet paper. The particular 'source' used in the article now has not (that I can see) defined what a mountain or a hill is, because it isn't relevant to the author.
Very many Wikipedia articles relay on electronic sources because most editors I have med can't be bothered to get books even from a library. No one trusts a reference that isn't accessible online, but few people actually have read the entire work to understand authors perspective. They often do not realise that their 'reference' is in fact used as argument/evidence for exactly the opposite idea the editor is trying to present in the article. This makes Wikipedia worthless because it isn't trusted. I have come up against this time and again, with admins siding with technical upholding of Wikipedia 'policy' that prevents improvement and completion of articles, thought he people doing the criticising would not EVER actually have done anything about the article themselves.
Mount Zion is a classic example. WTF is it with the 'three locations'??! This is as blatant an OR theory as I have ever seen, all based on one misquoted book! No one had considered that the well over 100 original source references in TaNaKh may consider Zion a synonym to Jerusalem? No one considered that a city may simultaneously have two names? No one considered that the loss of the location for Zion the mountain was caused by the Roman policy of depopulation of Jerusalem and later the Byzantine Christian Greek speaking culture which decided to relocate the name to an event more significant to itself? Look at this map I can date it to before 1888 because it doesn't have the New Gate yet, but notice something else? It’s got two cities of David! That beats three Mount Zions!
I’m not going to waste time on this article if I'm going to have to argue every word and edit with people that have too much time on their hands. I don't, so if I do get interference, I will just 'walk' and you or Hetzl1888 can find another editor for this not an insignificant article, in the scheme of things. I'm happy to work with productive people, but if I face disruption, it will not be any problem for me to walk away. I can still do the article, and publish on Amazon for $1 and make Wikipedia a laughing stock. You pick Crock81 (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
@Crock81: So we should just stand back and watch you edit against the well-established policies of Wikipedia? It doesn't work that way. You have to obey the rules or you have to leave. Those are your only options. Personally I have a considerable knowledge of the subject, and I love books on paper (almost 400 of mine, all about Middle East history, sit on the shelves behind me as I type and two very large libraries are nearby). But I don't just insert what I believe into articles without providing the best sources I can find. Unlike you. Regarding that map, you are wrong again: it is dated 1912 and it doesn't show New Gate because it is intended to be a depiction of ancient Jerusalem. It doesn't have two City of Davids either; it shows two locations that were considered possible at that time with a question mark after each. Zerotalk 10:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I had watched the article for over two years because I had just been too busy with the real world. If it was up to me, I'd just start from scratch but I know how that would look to admins. You want to do it, by all means...DO IT. See who gets a better result, you in Wikipedia or me in Amazon. It isn't quite the same when there is a competitive option that administrative privilages cannot do anything about, is it? So yes, either leave it to me, or you do it. I find that projects are better accomplished when someone OWNS THE PROJECT. You want ownership, I'll stay out of your way. But if I own the article, you should stay on the talk page, and encourage other distructive-minded to do same.
And, I thought there was a semi-protect that allows editor exclusions. And, if not, why not?!
The PURPOSE of Wikipedia WAS to provide encyclopaedic-standard articles, not to enforce its policies on those that try to do so. According to Denis Diderot in the article "Encyclopédie", the Encyclopédie's aim was "to change the way people think". not to enforce editorial rules.
The poor state of this not unimportant article is due to the people with the fortitude to take it on having all been bullied out of editing by the very tactics you are using on me now, but, I'm not going to stand for it, and I will retaliate.
There isn't a problem with inserting content into article without sources! There are a multitude of articles with tags requesting references going back years! It just tells the reader that this particular statement is not validated, but it is still content because it survives the logic & common sense tests. You think there is something I added that fails these tests, put it in the talk page.
How would the map authors in 1912 know anything about the various walls given the primitive and very short duration archaeological work by amateurs that had been carried out to that date. And the two cities of David, with question marks, prove it. The sources on which the map relied had completely disregarded the sources within the culture that OWNS the property, and had done so for millennia.Crock81 (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Your case against me

Zero0000, I'm not going to play your game. I have seen all too many of these 'case files', which just waste time, and which are called Kangaroo court here in Australia. Your mates will show up, and use every WP: tag there is with voluminous links to my edits and reverts to show that I'm not fit to edit and promptly block me so they can go back to their ham&cheese sandwich and coke. No one is going to listen to me or bother to read what I write because most people with admin priv are biased, and I had seen it many times exercised in my own and cases of others. So, you go and file, but I DON'T CARE. I do care to write a good article, but if I don't get the opportunity to do that in Wikipedia, I'll do it somewhere’s a big cyberspace out there mate :-) You should try reading Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Dealing with disputes on your own user page before compiling cases. I have invited you several times to talk, but you refused. You claim I'm not adding sources, but I have done so, and I have a life, have just started, and there isn't anything I added which is 'controversial'. I certainly edited out more OR than is warranted by Wikipedia or anyone's common sense. Go ahead, do the [[22]]. See how far you get, but I'm sure you have done this many times before. If you had something of substance, you would have got another admin to block me by now. Crock81 (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Until the next one

done nableezy - 21:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Good work! Zerotalk 23:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

AN3 complaint about Dinesh D'Souza

There is a currently open complaint at AN3 about these articles. Each participant has already been notified under WP:ARBAP2. Both sides continue to revert vigorously in the service of what I assume are their personal opinions. One option for the admin who closes the AN3 is No Violation, due to the lack of a 3RR. (though there might be a trivial one at 2016: Obama's America, where one person continued to wikilink the date '2012'. ). Another option is to ban both parties from the topic of Dinesh D'Souza for a period of time on all pages of Wikipedia. Since I notice you have commented in the 3RR I wonder if you think that the dispute is at a stage where topic bans ought to be considered. Thanks for any opinion, EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Hi Ed. I agree and said so at AN/EW. Zerotalk 06:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Opinion needed on a map

Hey. I"ve created a map of the Mandate recently (and kinda negelected it), so now I want to start creating maps from it. Now the first set of maps is to make a map of minorities in Palestine (Jews, Christians and Others, I am not going to make a map for Muslims becuase it is too much work). I had a problem of asthetics with the map of Christians. As you can see, there are many places where there are less than 10% Christians, and most of those places have 1% Christians, so can you think of any solution to this? I thought about replacing the 10% color with a small marker instead, that would be placed only on the location of the village/city.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bolter21: Interesting question. One thing that occurs to me is that you don't have a continuous gradient from 0 to 100 because 0 is represented by a dark grey which is closer to 100% than to 10%. I tried experimentally to change the dark grey into white or neutral almost-white, say #f6f6f6, and I think it looks better. Now you can use a very pale green for the small Christian percentages and it still looks fine. It would be ok to ignore the tiniest percentages though; I not sure of the reasonable cutoff. Zerotalk 23:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I have a thing, when creating demographic maps, I want them to be as accurate as it can get (while not going beyond sourcable content). I tried changing it to almost white and a more pale green (here) but I am not quite satesfied with it. Also, since this is a very large image (4000x8000px) in Raster graphics but there is no Feathering for the borders (like in your maps for example), complete opposite colors of black borders on white background, does not seem to mix that well, and to me at least (and I have a high resolution monitor) it looks rough (though I didn't try uploading to Commons). If you can think of any other solution it"ll be great (sorry for the perfectionism).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Bolter21: I prefer the light colors, but as you say the fine wriggly lines don't look great. It is one reason I prefer the antialiasing that a raster-based format like photoshop provides, though that has its limitations too. Readers won't look at it in only one magnification either, so you are at the mercy of Wikipedia's rescaling algorithms. What happens if you change the village boundaries into a mid-grey rather than black? The boundaries between two dark greens won't look right, but maybe they can be black still. Zerotalk 00:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Re maps

Sorry to bother, Zero, this is just offhand, no urgency nor obligation. Noting the above, I wondered whether there is some Australian wiki editor who knows how to do simple maps for tribal territories, more or less along the lines you get in Sarah Yu's monograph p.2? It's just coloured blocks. Or rather, do you know on what wiki page I could make that enquiry for assistance? Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani: If I understand that map, the coloured blocks are not tribal territories but pastoral leases. Only the green writing that names the language group is an aboriginal indication I think. Zerotalk 12:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Whoops. Reading too many maps. I should have gone for the native title maps, where that has been recognized. In any case, forget about it. That stuff is way down the road. Thanks for the wake up call.Nishidani (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Beit Qad has been nominated for Did You Know

Updated DYK query.svg Hello, Zero0000. Beit Qad, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of WikiProject Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)