User talk:Zero0000/pre2010

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Patria.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

Zionist terrorist group?

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

Possibly unfree File:PeelReport291.png

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

Fair use rationale for File:Stern-stamp.jpg

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

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

File:PeelReport291.png missing description details

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

Welcome Back

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

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

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

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

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

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

removed source

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

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

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

Hütteroth, Wolf-Deiter

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

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

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

Irgun attacks

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

Convoy of 35

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

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

re: 98.204.183.125

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

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

FYI

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

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

Your back

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

Thanks

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

Can I mark resolved

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

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

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

Abu Shusha

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civility, please

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

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

Another welcome

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

Edit warring warning

Warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DeirYassinWiki.jpg

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

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

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

oh please

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

For your contribution and involvement in

Editing the article Fatah subsection on 6th Fatah Assembly

Censorship of "Little Eichmann's" Sub-Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE:Deleting bogus articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PP26Jul1938.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

re Rachel Corrie

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

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

BLP

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

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

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

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

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

Update on Request for Citation

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

Just a note

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

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

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

Auschwitz bombing article

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

Exodus from Lydda and Ramla

Hi Zero0000! A couple things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exodus from Lydda and Ramla

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

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

BLP request

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

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

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

Comment on content, not the editor

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

Yorshalim?

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

Survey of Western Palestine

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

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

Palestine origin of Name

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

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

Sheikh Bureik

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

Villages depopulated 1880-1930´s

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

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

File copyright problem with File:PP14Dec1947.png

File Copyright problem

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

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

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

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

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PP1Oct1939.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

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

PSM - "Between History and Fiction" by Michael Hagemeister

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

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

Palestinian people

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

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

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

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

Warning TO an Administrator: PLAGIARISM

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

Al-Bassa

Is THIS how "things are done" in Wikipedia?

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

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

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

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

Can't access it

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

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

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

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

Your geographical expertise is required

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

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

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

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

Morris & Khalidi

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

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

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

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

RSN thread

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

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

Very well, no harm in discussing it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there no such thing as WP: Double Jeopardy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine

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

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

thank you

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

Can you have a look?

Hi Zero!

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

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 17:59 22.11.2009

Google fault

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

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

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

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

Orphaned non-free image File:Jaffa1953B.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jaffa1953B.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)