User talk:Zero0000/2007

Our mutual friend

Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think? Abu ali 20:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JerusalemWest1870s.jpg

Hi. Well done with the Suba article (it's moved around a bit, let's see if you can find it!). Anyway, I saw you uploaded Image:JerusalemWest1870s.jpg and was wondering if you happened to have the whole map, or at least the part a bit further to the west. This is unrelated to the article, I just happen to live around there and I was curious...--Doron 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Casus Belli

Well, admittedly your deletion of the casus belli line might have just accomplished the inevitable with a lot less flamewar, but I'm still uneasy about it. I mean, I spent the better part of an hour digging up primary sources and dictionary definitions for that one little line, and it gets deleted because ignorant morons learned different in Sunday School (or think, falsely, that they did, because they don't bother to find out what 'casus belli' means).

I don't know. I sort of expected this to happen when I waded tentatively into the Israel/Palestine morass, but it's still disappointing. Granted, the rest of the article is a lot worse, and I should probably just resign myself to it staying that way. But please reconsider.

Eleland 14:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabra and Shatila - a genocide ?

Hi Zero,
UNO voted in 1982 a resolution that it was an "act of genocide".
The information has been added in Genocides in history's article.
I wonder if this fully respects NPov ?
See : [1] Alithien 07:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You've made 3 reverts in 24 hours at Folke Bernadotte. I know that you are an experienced editor and you know that edit warring is unacceptable. It fosters bad feelings and prevents proper resolution. You ought to be using dispute resolution like mediation when in a conflict, not aggressively edit warring. I am in particular concerned by your use of rollback against other good faith editors you disagree with; please see Wikipedia:Revert#Rollback, it is not for content disputes. Dmcdevit·t 17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressive reversion disguised as an edit.

You say that you removed "highly non-encyclopedic edits" because this "is not a eulogy!” of Rabbi Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl. Please tell me what's unencyclopedic about what was written. If you think that parts of it are unencyclopedic; I can understand that; but be so kind and leave what to you is encyclopedic. What does "highly non-encyclopedic" mean? Are mediocre or lowly unencyclopedic edits acceptable? What consists a eulogy? Is what is said at a eulogy forbidden in Wikipedia?

I truly don't understand on what grounds you did a blanket reversion of 5 edits without bothering to explain. For an experienced editor like you; this is totally unacceptable.

Also reversions need to be identified as reversions; otherwise they are considered edits. Reversions disguised as edits or edits disguised as reversions is pure vandalism. Itzse 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Keller court martial undeletion

Hi Zero0000, I am trying to get an interresting article Adam Keller court martial undeleted. The article helps provide a more balanced view of Israeli society and shows that Israelis are not all gun toting settlers. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 26#Adam Keller court martial. The main justification for the deletion is a aledged lack of citation in the mainstream media. Do you have access to any citations of the courtmartial? Thanks in advance for any help. Abu ali 15:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humus

That Humus - he's a naughty POV pusher isn't he? 86.27.64.149 21:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Plaut

I could do with some help at Steven Plaut, where Isarig is constantly removing a link to Norman Finkelstein's response to Plaut's smears. Isarig claims falsely that the article contains no footnotes, even though I have listed on Talk:Steven Plaut the 32 separate articles cited. RolandR 23:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

presonal crusade

Your personal crusade against Ktaz is becoming a problem. I know such crusade exist in the academic world but wikipedia is not a place for such battle. Please brush up on what wikipedia is WP:Not Zeq 10:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message at Wikipedia talk:Attribution

Possibly you might find an answer to your question in the discussion on the same page about Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Proposed new example of synthesis. If you do find an answer, proposing edits to the policy page to make it clear to others with the same question as yourself is likely a good idea. --Coppertwig 13:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab Case: 2007-02-11 Mohammad Amin al-Husayni

You have been named a responded in a MedCab Case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-11 Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. If you wish to proceed with informal mediation with me acting as your mediator, please state your acceptance of Alan.ca as your mediator and your intention to proceed in the discussion section of the mediation page. This Link. Alan.ca 07:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised, my request was for you to respond with an intention to participate or to decline the mediation. Alan.ca 09:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Shahak

Regarding this edit, please do not delete material contrary to a consensus on the talk page, especially when to do so creates WP:NPOV problems in an article.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you to adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Israel Shahak. Thank you. TedFrank 11:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Israel-InfoBox

Hi, Zero, how's it going? Could you have a look at the edit war I've been involved in (shame on me) at Template:Israel-InfoBox? Cheers.--Doron 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gave up on trying to resolve this by discussion, so I posted a RFC (Template_talk:Israel-InfoBox#Request_for_Comment:_Israel.27s_area_figure_in_the_infobox)--Doron 23:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ghabisiyya

Done. Sorry for the mistake, I was a bit stressed when I added it (making sure it wouldn´t get deleted.) I also added Benvenistis footnote, hidden in the text ( quote inside the quote is from the High Court Justice Decision 220/51, 30 November 1951.) It is not very "elegant" with such a long quote in an article (as I said: I was stressed..) ....so feel completely free to break it up/delete/rework it as you see fit. There is more about the later developement in The Benvenisti book, mostly about the village mosque, which they have tried to use/renovate for years. I´ll add that later. I understand there is a law in Israel against destroying "holy places", like churches and mosques? Do you have any references about that? In Ghabisiyya the authorities basically argued that the village mosque hadn´t been a mosque; therefore they could not renovate it. (In Biram and Iqrit they have been allowed to renovate their churches, (citing the same law?)). If you have any references on this law, it would be great. Thanks, and regards, Huldra 00:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have also expanded it with some of the later stuff in the Benvenisti -book (...I just bought it..) If you think it is too long, or whatever; do feel free to shorten it/rework it (I´m not a native english speaker, as you might have noticed). Also, I think there might be a typing error by note 12? It says "In September 1948"...but if that date is correct, then the sentence should be moved forward? However, if it should be, say, "In September 1950"...then that would be consistent with the claim that they were kicked out of their village three times. Regards, Huldra 08:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC) PS: and thank you for your excellent work on Al-Ghabisiyya![reply]

Re: Correct erroneous and somewhat jumbled text

Hi Zero,

Aside from my spelling error, I'm not sure what was wrong with my edit. Didn't "Palestine" refer exclusively to Western Palestine after the 1923 separation of Transjordan? Let me know if I've made some stupid mistake :-) Tewfik^Talk 02:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transjordan was a political subdivision of the British Mandate of Palestine alongside Western Palestine until 1946. I don't see any contradiction there aside from the ambiguity in years in that passage, especially regarding your third point, where I don't think the implications you see are really there. Tewfik^Talk 05:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZFA

Yes, it appears to be so...--Doron 23:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please update the wikipedia map of the west bank barier on its page, thanks

--J intela 23:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNWRA

Would you assert that the UNWRA is in any way neutral when it comes to issues relating to Palestinians and Israel? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"incorrect claims"

Could you explain what specific problems led you to remove this? Right now the narrative skips 25 years of important events. Thanks for your input, Tewfik^Talk 23:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

Hi Zero, Did you vote here [2] ? Alithien 14:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of historians

Zero0000, I'm curious; how would you compare the reliability of Shmuel Katz to, say, the reliability of Ilan Pappé? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's try to be polite here

1. I have no disrupted anything 2. Your edits are actually the one that are disruptive - you are reverting without providing explnation. Including reverts of a WP:RS source such as haaretz 3. No "anon" can ban me 4. I am no longer under probation

If this is all I expect that you will confirm receiving this message and remove the unjustified threat you just made. I remind you that in your arbitration case you were displiplined for misuse of admin power and that you can not as an admin block someone you have a dispute with. Zeq 13:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a formal notice that I intend to edit the article so I just want to make sure you check and re-chcek before you (again) try to misuse your admin power prior to block me. Should you block me this will be at least a 3rd violation of your admin power and most liley you will be reported and handled accordingly. Zeq 13:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so what about a reply ? Zeq 08:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of User:Zeq

I've started a thread at the administrator's noticeboard about the block and article ban you placed on User:Zeq recently. You may want to read or comment about it. ♠P M C♠ 18:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Your comments in response criticism, indicating that you still think that your admin action, despite involvement, was reasonable, concerns me even more. I have opened an arbitration case to deal with these issues. Please make a statement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Zeq_and_Zero0000. Dmcdevit·t 23:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hass1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hass1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 19:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note

FYI, I canned a (IMO) needless note left here by Zeq. Sems they asked him to put a bit of brevity into his Arb response, and he thought it'd be cute to cut n paste the message word-for-word to you as well. Just thought this mess could do well with one less provocation.

Anyways, saw your note on El C's page about leaving and just wanted to echo his sentiment about maybe just taking a break rather than quitting. I think you do some good `round here, and it'd be the wiki's loss if that work was removed from the equation. Tarc 13:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs containing covert references to real musicians

You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15#List of songs containing covert references to real musicians, since you were involved in a previous discussion of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq

Hope the Zeq case goes well... this guy sometimes makes me want to bite my foot off. Please don't be discouraged, your contributions to Wikipedia are priceless.--Doron 21:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abd al-Kader

Hi Zero,
Troubles with Zeq ? :-(
I have some other. An administrator from Commons wants to delete the photo of Abd al-Kader al-Husseini because he says nothing prove the picture was taken in the British Mandate (Palestine or Jordania) where copyrights were limited to 25 or 50 years.
Copyrights are the same in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Irak and Saudi Arabia.
Do you think you could source Abd al-Kader only lived in those countries ? I could not but could not source he lived elsewhere either... Thank you !
NB:this is quite "urgent". We have 3 days remaining (out of 7) to "prove" the fact... Alithien 06:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your answer.

I think it is "obvious" that the picture if free or rights but proving this is another matter, indeed.

I leave him delete this. I think we cannot prevent this. Alithien 08:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zero

I don't really care about that specific person but it looks like you misspelled his name: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shmuel_Katz&diff=prev&oldid=126378594 - can you explain ? Zeq 20:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amoruso

I'm loosely considering an rfa against Amoruso, based on his ludicrous statements on the Deir Yassin page that "No historian today believes there was a massacre." I really don't think that anyone who can hold such absurd positions in face of definitive evidence to the contrary, ought to be editing this page, and this is not the only page where he has caused other editors a lot of unnecessary trouble.

I don't know much about the rfa process or when is an appropriate time to start one, but I've noticed you have mentioned the idea before and if you think there is a case to be made, I would certainly be prepared to participate. Regards, Gatoclass 07:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "historian"

I notice on the Schmuel Katz page you had this to say:

There is no formal definition of "historian" so the fact that he wrote a few books that have the form of history and one (the last one on Jabotinsky) that has received some favorable notice from historians means that I don't object to him being called a historian here.

I really think that Wiki should not be referring to people without the appropriate degree as "historians". If someone has written a history of something that has gained recognition from qualified historians, I have no objection to them being quoted on the relevant page, but they should still not be referred to as historians but only as writers. On the basis of what you have suggested here, almost anyone who has written something cited by a real historian can be called an "historian", which can only lead to a total debasement of the term. Gatoclass 04:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured perhaps that was an attempt to be conciliatory, but it already seems to have backfired to some extent, with Amoruso quoting you over it.

Anyhow, I see no reason why someone like Katz should ever be referred to as an "historian". Writer and journalist, fine, historian, no. By that yardstick I could call Chomsky a historian because Zinn has said some nice things about him. You have mail BTW. Gatoclass

San Remo

Is it what you are looking for ? I stopped reading all that after a the 10th line :-( : [3] Alithien 21:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ac.jabotinsky2.jpg

Hello, Zero0000. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Ac.jabotinsky2.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Zero0000. This image or media was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 00:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Trans)jordan

From what I read and what you found, I think we can guess (only guess unfortunately) that Abdallah had in mind to give credit to his annexion by changing the name of his country. He modified history to make it believe it had always been -from 1946- the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan but only proceed to the use of these words starting beginning of 1949. The official name was never officially modified given it has to be this one since 1946 but most historians, who never cared about this little manipulation, just noted that the apparition of the new name coincide with the annexion of West Bank and they fix this at different moment according to the first time they met this.
Don't worry. I don't want to write this in wp but I am confident not to be far from truth after comparing you primary sources from PP, secondary sources from historians and official Jordan website with a version that is not reported by any historian...
Cheers, Alithien 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/British Mandate of Palestine.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Eldad

Couldn't find any. Does look suspect, perhaps taken from a book? Who knows...--Doron 14:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bad sources

Hi Zero,
I have a high respect for your expertise and I think that when you write something or give an analysis you can be trusted.
I have nevertheless a "problem" with the arguments you sometimes use to "prove" a source is not reliable...
The fact an historian is biaised cannot be used as an argument to reject him as a reliable source simply because they are all biaised a way or the other and all make mistakes. Even if you can "prove" that an historian is of "bad faith", a "pov-pusher" or a "propagandist", he is still an historian and unless we have writings from his pairs where they clearly attack him on that subject, I don't see how we could reject him as a reliable source for wikipedia.
More, we are not assumed to "write the truth". Wikipedia is not expected to be a "secondary source" but to be a "tertiary source", ie gathering the minds and analysis of secondary sources on a subject - truths and lies -.
NPoV doesn't mean using "neutral secondary sources" (that do not exist) but to introduce - a neutral way - all secondary sources on a subject.
I am confident your analysis are right here but on the methodology, this creates problems :

how to make the difference between an historian who is not honnest and an historian who is wrong ?
what is the limit of "bad faith" at which we can decide an historian cannot be a source for wikipedia ?

In practive, if Katz or others should be "rejected", don't you think there is enough to rejet any writings from Pappé ?
What do you think ?
Regards, Alithien 14:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zero,

First I want to underline that there is no critic but only questions in my comments :-)

To answer you :

I had rather Pappé and Schechtman in mind. And I had also your methodology in mind (such as the one you use in the British mandate article to proove how biaised is an historian)...

I think it is not objectively possible to distinguish Schechtman from Pappé, and particularly if we just "copy/paste" the methology I have just referred to.

Both have been caught "forgotting some facts" or "lacking fairness" (Pappé by pairs, Schechtman by you and ... ?), both have political agenda, ...

I agree that when we can source by another source we should better use that other source. Clear.

And I agree that Pappé's theories can only be sourced by Pappé and he is a strong defender of some points.

But why is Schechtman censored for the same reasonning ?

I don't see any difference in stating that Plan Daleth was a blueprint for ethnic cleansing than in stating that Husseini was mainly an antisemite or that most Palestinians were immigrants and not established in Palestine... And I could say I do not understand how somebody can write a chapter on 1948 War in "forgetting" to describe real balance of forces before-during-at the end of the conflict... (extremely few historians do that. Are they liars ?)

What do you think about the way to objectively differenciate all of them ?

From my mind, even propagandist deserve to see their mind written... And if it is controversed (by their pairs) it must be stated but none propaganda can be censored by us. We are not assumed to judge the propagandist character of an information.

Alithien 10:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Palestine

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! (Welcome!)

Evidence for PalestineRemembered case

Hello. The evidence page for the case does not currently have a statement collecting all the various refutations of the Holocaust-denial quote allegations. Since you are the resident expert on the matter, can you help draft one? Thanks, nadav (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Regarding Intro to Palestinian Exodus

Hi Zero! Can I have your feedback on this [4]? I'm trying to get some form of consensus going... Cheers and thanks, Pedro.Gonnet 14:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you review sources

Before making toom manychanges please review the sources such as this: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0101/feature4/ Zeq 12:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS comunication between editors is important. do I need to get arbCom to explain this to you ? Zeq 22:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

You removed this: "The city is home to several startigic facilities such as a power plant, a small harbor and one of the world largest de-salinization plant - all located at the southern end of the city. Recently, the area has been a target of Palestinian Kasam rockets fired from Gaza. "

are claiming it is not true ? that it is "political" ? explain why you removed it. Zeq 22:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New source for usable images

That's good news - should fill quite a few gaps! --Ian Pitchford 15:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - WikiCommons does not comsider CC-3.0 as free use because of the "moral rights" clause. -- Avi 21:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000

This arbitration case has closed and the decision published at the link above. Zer0000 is advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq, including but not limited to enforcement actions under their prior arbitration case, and admonished that so long as an editor, including one on probation, is not restricted in their editing of a page or area they are entitled to be accorded good faith and be treated with respect and courtesy when they edit in those areas. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 20:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero,

read this again:

"advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to Zeq, including but not limited to "

Now I asking you again to undo your admin action in which you speedt delete an article I created. You have also override a decision by other admin who first considered but later accepted that the article should noy be subject to speedy delete. You also did not place the tag for speedy delete allowing for other to review your decision.

How many more policvies can you violate in one action ? this seems to be a record. Now, please restore the article and follow process. Zeq 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:EtzionPrisoners.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:EtzionPrisoners.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

solved

Process

Pleaseestore the article, place the tag for speedy deletion and allow discussion of the comunity to run it's course.

You were told not to take admin actions with me and deleting the article is such action. Zeq 17:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement request - your comments needed

Hi. It would be helpful if you could respond to this thread concerning you. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 02:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using admin tools against Zeq

Zero0000, please write an email to the ArbCom mailing list about your recent deletion of the article written by Zeq. I feel that this action goes against the ruling in the arbitration case. Before I ask the committee to desyop you, I would like to hear your explanation. FloNight 02:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice trip...

Overseas ? In Europe ?
Have a nice and pleasant trip ! Alithien 14:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Committee ruling

This is to advise you that the Arbitration Committee has adopted the following motion:

Any future use of administrative tools by Zero0000 in relation to someone with whom he is in a dispute, will result in immediate desyopping once it is brought to the attention of ArbCom. This specifically includes, but is not limited to, administrative action against or related to Zeq.

Please be guided accordingly. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Arbcom Ruling

I think the ruling is more than unfortunate. Note the rush to adopt. I am worried about what will happen to you now. Perhaps it would be better to give up the tools than wait to be provoked. (although you might be unlikely to ever get them back).

I wrote a bit on the ArbCom talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Motion in Zero/Zeq, and specifically addressed the same suggestion [here] Jd2718 00:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Bank Barier

Can you please update your map and statistics of the west bank barier to june 2007 data? --J intela 22:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:EtzionPrisoners.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:AlHusayniHitler.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Al-Azm.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tantura article

Hi Zero, Given the recent edit wars on Ilan Pappé regrading the "made-up massacre" there, and the statement that "Neither Israeli nor Palestinian historians had previously recorded or described any such incident", perhaps it is time to move your Tuntura article into main article space? regards, ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Menelaus' theorem

Be careful of what you move things to. /user.talk 01:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I don't know what happened, but it seems like everybody's spelling it Menelaus' theorem instead of Menelaus's theorem for some reason. /user.talk 02:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New article about Israel & UN

Hello Zero, you recently left a comment in the talk page of the Israel and the United Nations article, asking for objective data re. anti-Israel bias. I share your opinion and, disappointed with the quality of the article, rewrote it completely. Please have a look : Israel, Palestine and the United Nations. Emmanuelm 17:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your views requested re Kosovo arbitration enforcement

You'll recall that a few months ago you participated in Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO, which involved User:Nikola Smolenski arguing in favour of using an unreliable source. Another issue has arisen with the same editor repeatedly disrupting an article currently under article probation. I can't take action myself, since I've edited the same article, but I'd be grateful if you could review the facts set out at WP:AE#Enforcement request re Kosovo. -- ChrisO 00:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]