It is semi-protected due to frequent abuse. You can get my attention by writing a note on your own talk page and flagging it with {{ping|Zero0000}}.
Can't edit this page?
It is semi-protected due to frequent abuse. You can get my attention by writing a note on your own talk page and flagging it with {{ping|Zero0000}}.
Contents
- 1 Archives
- 2 Kudos
- 3 Template talk:NPOV
- 4 Suess 1967 paper
- 5 Quote of 1st sources
- 6 January 2014
- 7 Re: Amudanan
- 8 Regarding terms
- 9 Haaretz
- 10 Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
- 11 ANI-notice
- 12 Info on Metula
- 13 Thank you
- 14 miss working with you
- 15 H.
- 16 Chelo's itinerary
- 17 Paulet-Newcombe Agreement
- 18 Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
- 19 1517 pogroms
- 20 Merger of 1517 Hebron pogrom and 1517 Safed pogrom articles
- 21 Category Deletion Request
- 22 Arutz Sheva revert
- 23 Please explain your revert of my vote on a merge proposal on Talk:State of Palestine
- 24 Linking to Oren's exact page, with word "compensation" highlighted.
- 25 Disambiguation link notification for April 21
- 26 Tzippori
- 27 1RR
- 28 Farhud
- 29 Zochrot I-Nakba app
- 30 Subjective
- 31 Request for comment
- 32 Disambiguation link notification for June 1
- 33 Your powers of research
- 34 Putting lipstick on a pig...
- 35 Reference Errors on 10 July
- 36 Israel West Bank Barrier
- 37 Recent 1RR AE Case
- 38 "Citations are not required for photographs taken by editors"
- 39 Jeffrey Herf
- 40 Incredible Efraim Karsh
- 41 Palestinian land laws and WP:AE
- 42 Your AE statement
- 43 A barnstar for you!
- 44 My appeal of my restrictions
- 45 New notification system for discretionary sanctions
- 46 Bassam Tibi
- 47 Rachel Corrie
- 48 Reliable sources on Israel/Palestine
- 49 SeattliteTungsten
- 50 Request for Intervention
- 51 Nominating After Saturday Comes Sunday for deletion
- 52 File:Feghali Saturday Sunday.jpg
- 53 Overlooked sockpuppet
- 54 List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict
- 55 Orphaned non-free image File:Feghali Saturday Sunday.jpg
- 56 Disambiguation link notification for December 27
- 57 Map of Tel Kabri and her vicinity
- 58 Western wall
- 59 U haz a mail!
- 60 January 2015
- 61 Jericho
- 62 Derogatory comments? by Number 57 on the Talk Page of Israeli Declaration of Independence
- 63 Re: Nrg
- 64 IP indef-block
- 65 Thanks
- 66 Replies
- 67 Some baklava for you!
- 68 mail
- 69 Victor Guérin
- 70 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct of User:DaoXan
- 71 TRANS/JORDAN
- 72 That photo
- 73 Dan Bahat
- 74 West Bank
- 75 Mandatory Palestine
- 76 Golan Arch. Museum
- 77 "Wadi-Chanin"
- 78 Hey
- 79 WP:HOUNDING
- 80 A barnstar for you!
- 81 How does semi-protected status get requested?
- 82 Moved your section at the RFC
- 83 A delivery kitten for you!
- 84 Edit War
- 85 Help!
- 86 Invitation to comment
- 87 Request at dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)
- 88 Is this under WP:ARBPIA?
- 89 WP:AE#Result concerning Calypsomusic
- 90 High definition maps of Palestine
- 91 Martin Gilbert still WP:RS ?
- 92 DYK for Burqin
- 93 Admin help
- 94 Reference errors on 26 April
- 95 Block of 87.69.45.70
- 96 Yaakov Moshiach
- 97 Ooops?
- 98 Censorship
- 99 Children in the I/P conflict
- 100 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
- 101 Haifa
- 102 Jordan
- 103 Children in the I/P conflict, history
- 104 Changing article names
- 105 ANI notice
- 106 DRN Notice about Pearl S. Buck
- 107 Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
- 108 Formal mediation has been requested
- 109 Fighters' List ambiguous reference
- 110 Discussion about Christian Persecution Category
- 111 Request for mediation rejected
- 112 Reference errors on 5 July
- 113 The Wikipedia Library needs you!
- 114 Proposals for a Palestinian state
- 115 Reverts
- 116 A beer for you!
- 117 Reference errors on 27 July
- 118 2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies
- 119 Palestinian Refugees
- 120 Palestinian refugees
- 121 Q
- 122 Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened
- 123 Protection needed
- 124 Disambiguation link notification for August 30
- 125 Rafiah
- 126 Israel reverts
- 127 Temple Mount
- 128 rv
- 129 1919 map
- 130 Question about Edit on "Bayt Nattif" Article
- 131 Tsunami
- 132 The Sergeants affair -- advice sought.
- 133 Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted
- 134 Reference errors on 24 October
- 135 Zionism
- 136 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 137 November 2015
- 138 ANI discussion
- 139 Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
- 140 Disambiguation link notification for November 27
- 141 Talkback
- 142 Clarification request archived
- 143 Richard Meinertzhagen
- 144 Hi
- 145 Avengers Navigation
- 146 WWHF is a reliable source
- 147 Guy Le Strange
- 148 Question
- 149 Western Wall
- 150 Seaman
- 151 mail
- 152 Emmaus-Nicopolis
- 153 Quick clarification
- 154 Edit Reverts
- 155 Map mistake
- 156 Smiley Award for you!
Archives
Kudos
You caught unsourced OR that had been in the Fundamentalism article since 2010 that the rest of us overlooked and thought was sourced. I still think this point ("A criticism of fundamentalism is the claim that fundamentalists are selective in what they believe.") needs to be brought out but it sourced from some critic of religion. Alatari (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Template talk:NPOV
Notifies you to update your comments on Template talk:NPOV#Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article. since the debate continues. Thanks --14.198.220.253 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Suess 1967 paper
Hi -- I just noticed at WP:REX that you sent me the 1967 paper; I never received it, for some reason. Could you resend it? Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sent it again just now. Zerotalk 21:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Quote of 1st sources
Hello,
I may have not understood what you wrote but per my understanding you say we can quote a 1st source, such as memoirs, if we precise according to whom it is claimed.
If this is what you say, I don't agree fully. From my point of view we cannot as automatically quote a 1st source because we don't know if what we read is notorious and representative of the feeling of the author.
The memoirs and speecheds of the Mufti are a good examples. We can find contradictions between them and the interpretation can be sometimes very strong. We should only quote 1st sources when it was checked by historians that :
- the quote is relevant of the global thinking of the author, eg that he didn't say the exact contrary or nuanced this at other times ;
- the thinking is notorious enough and it has enough due weight to be quoted, eg quoting somebody who once in his life said something whereas he is very notorious for many other things (eg Einstein on the Zionism).
We can quote 1st sources with full confidence if :
- the notoriaty and the relevance is proven by a secondary source;
Else, we can quote them with high care if we have checked by ourselves the author didn't say the contrary or if we can fairly conclude it is notorious for him. We can, but this is obviously WP:OR given we didn't find the 2nd source confirming our own (maybe true) deduction.
Pluto2012 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Woodhead Commission may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- * [https://archive.org/details/WoodheadCommission Woodhead Commission report]]
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Re: Amudanan
Hi Zero,
Thanks for the update! It looks indeed like a better map, even if it's already outdated. The map is from the Israel Mapping Center ("Survey of Israel").
I am quite certain that the map is from 2011.
Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 19:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Regarding terms
Hi. You made changes related to the subdistricts of Mandatory Palestine so I want to tell you that the usage of the terms is discussed at Talk:Subdistricts of Mandatory Palestine#Regarding terms. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Haaretz
A dispute resolution resolution request has been filed regarding an issue you have been involved with. Dlv999 (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- PLNR (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
ANI-notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --PLNR (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Request for action on WP:ANI board, was Archive 830 without being resolved.[1]. On a personal note, I'd like to note that I didn't held you as the sole or main responsible party for that incident, more like the "scapegoat" who enabled that string of tendentious editing by editors with long history on that arbitration case, intended to promote point of views by giving undue weight to sources/positions, through tangentially related subjects, with disregard to the article\section coverage as a whole. Hopefully it was a misunderstanding and we just started on the wrong foot and can continue to work together. --PLNR (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- The issue was closed by Drmies with the statement: "No admin action will follow from this thread." ← ZScarpia 15:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Info on Metula
Hi! From a guide in Metula (Israel) I heard that starting around 1880, Jews from other parts of the world, as they were being persecuted and expelled, went to the United States and Israel. With money from wealthy Jewish families, like the Rothchilds, Montefiore, Hirsh and Turra, Jews PURCHASED land around Metula and established kibbutzim. This land was purchased from either the Turkish government or Arab families. Often times, the Arab did not want to sell to a Jew, so a middleman might be used. These early settlers were constantly being robbed by their Arab and Bedouin neighbors and hired other Arabs to guard their homes. How could I verify it? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni Turra 1 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you
The Diligent Librarian Barnstar | ||
For exemplary performance at the Resource Exchange, tirelessly delivering the reliable sources on which this encyclopedia depends, please accept this award. :) alt |
miss working with you
and as i have passed along many messages today thought i would tell you that too. hope you are well and thank you for all your continuing quality contributions. Tiamuttalk 20:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
H.
Hi, you wrote: "Both Huldra and I have copies, feel free to ask."
Huldra left wp:en, didn't she ? Pluto2012 (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Chelo's itinerary
Hi. I have seen you and Nishidani remove mentions of Chelo's itinerary because it is a forgery. I see that he is linked from Western Wall and Victor Guérin. Perhaps you should remove that there too or the page about Guérin needs clarifying about this because of the way it is written. I don't know this case so I am just telling. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I came here with the opposite purpose. I saw you removed information from the Itinerary from at least two articles about Jewish sages. Even though the Itinerary is now considered a forgery, it is still a quoted source. Should we remove it at all? Perhaps it would be better to keep it and specify that it is now considered a forgery. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
-
- That's a good question. My opinion is that we should remove it, since a forged itinerary has no value at all, or even a negative value since it is actively misleading. The only argument I can see is that it will keep coming back if there is no mention at all, but I don't think that's a good enough argument. Zerotalk 08:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Paulet-Newcombe Agreement
Hi Zero, hope you're well. I made some amendments to the Paulet-Newcombe Agreement today - in particular giving the article a new (and, hopefully you'll agree, improved) name.
I was just wondering if you have ever seen the maps from the various 1920, 1922 and 1923 agreements, which were appended to the documents? They would be an interesting addition to the border, particularly as it relates to the Blue Line and the Sea of Galilee.
Oncenawhile (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have a map of the 1920 agreement as interpreted by some British public servants; I think the agreement itself had no map, and you know the border was defined very roughly. The Golan part of that border shown in the map on that page was taken from that map after matching the description to standard maps of the time by myself and Doron. The 1923 map is much more detailed and I have several copies. Zerotalk 21:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
-
- Aha. I hadn't come acros Doron before, so wasn't sure. Btw the sourcing at File:GolanHistoricalBorders.svg doesn't mention the 1922/23 map, which made me question it originally.
- I added this File:1949 Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement (png).png from 1949 to show the armistice around the area, but it's not in colour so it seems impossible (at least to me) to identify which line is which - particularly which is the armistice line.
- Anyway, if you have those maps in electronic form and can email them to me, I would be happy to try to add them into the relevant articles.
- Oncenawhile (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- PS - the map you made in 2007 seems to compare very well to e.g. this 2009 work from the US Institute of Peace. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
1517 pogroms
Hi,
You participated to a discussion on that article. A short mind would be welcome here. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Merger of 1517 Hebron pogrom and 1517 Safed pogrom articles
Following your remark at the talk:1660 destruction of Tiberias, you are welcome to participate in merger procedure of 1517 Hebron pogrom and 1517 Safed pogrom articles into Jewish communities during the 1517 Ottoman-Mamluk war. Discuss it at talk:1517 Safed pogrom#Rename.GreyShark (dibra) 21:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Category Deletion Request
Hi,
We have never met on Wikipedia before but I just did random selection from administrators list :-)
Please can you please help delete Category:Vice-Chancellors of Ghana? I created a new one Category:Vice-Chancellors in Ghana after recognizing I can request for speedy renaming. I will be glad you delete the first one. Regards. →Enock4seth (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Seems to be gone already. Zerotalk 07:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
-
- Yeah! Thanks. Another random admininstrator I notified did. Regards. →Enock4seth (talk)
Arutz Sheva revert
Hi, can you please explain two things:
- How was my edit political? I was trying to clarify the relevance of the word "occupied", which I think should either be removed from the article as irrelevant, or at least clarified as to why it is relevant. This was discussed on my talk page.
- How did I violate 1RR? I waited 24 hours since my previous "revert" (minus ten minutes, but I don't see why that should matter).
--- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 16:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- Claiming that the status of the occupied territories is not occupied but "controversial" is a minority political opinion. Here we state plain facts according to the majority of reliable sources.
- 10 minutes less than 24 hours is less than 24 hours. The rule is clear, you should obey it. Zerotalk 18:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- Ok sorry, I didn't realize we were so strict. And I did not claim that "the status of the occupied territories is not occupied but 'controversial' ", I claimed that it is controversial and occupied (i.e. controversial because it is occupied). --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 19:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Please explain your revert of my vote on a merge proposal on Talk:State of Palestine
Please explain your rationale and justification for reverting my vote (with very short explanation) on a merge proposal on Talk:State of Palestine. Please cite the WP policies you think justifiy such a revert. (Please note that I made no political comment. I was commenting on articles on WP, not states/countries/disputed territories in the real world.) Thanks. —ThorstenNY (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- It was an accident that I reverted almost immediately. See the following edit. Zerotalk 05:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Cool! Somehow I only saw the original revert. Thanks. —ThorstenNY (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Linking to Oren's exact page, with word "compensation" highlighted.
http://books.google.co.il/books?id=TcD1bCMAP6AC&pg=PA306&dq=compensate+OR+compensation+inauthor:michael+inauthor:oren&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CidRU-KYLoydyASZwIDQBA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=compensate inauthor:michael inauthor:oren&f=false
Are you blind? It's right there in b&w: when the exact page number is cited & it's right there plainly in black&white (or whack&blite? :-) ), there can only be 1 thing blinding you and it's not your "eyes". ;-)
EDIT: fixed the link; you need to copy-paste the URL manually or else googlebooks only shows 1 page, rather than pg. 307, the page which was cited. But if you'd actually gone to googlebooks & searched for "compensation" in Oren's book, you'd see that the cited page, 307, contains it. 72.183.52.92 (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yalo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crusader (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Tzippori
Let's discuss it, shall we?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tzippori#Colonial_or_Imperialist
Evildoer187 (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
1RR
There was nothing on the talk page indicating that it was part of the Arab-Israeli conflict area. Nevertheless, I undid my revert, now you must undo yours (since you also violated the 1RR). If these conditions are not met, you are liable to be blocked.Evildoer187 (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The point of 1RR is so people will discuss on the talk page. It's not meant to encourage people to wait 24 hours and then revert again. That's why it was put there, though I did not see any such notice on that page.Evildoer187 (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Farhud
Hi Zero, hope all is well. Just wondering whether you have ever come across the "Report of the Iraqi Commission of Inquiry on the Farhud, issued in July 1941"? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, but there are 12 pages of it in Norman Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands in Modern Times (pages 405-417 maybe). I have that somewhere... Zerotalk 09:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Zochrot I-Nakba app
Hi, Zero. Perhaps you've already seen this, but perhaps it'll interest you: [2]. Cheers!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Subjective
You're using the word peripheral as a euphenism for subjective, when from an advertisers perception, you are experiencing the peripheral route to persuasion, or basically not thinking outside the box, allowing the box to think for you, based on your beliefs on how we should follow and administer the standards. It takes a lot of belief to understand how they are lying, but once you know, they can't lie to you know matter how hard they try. Stay thirsty my friend (for the truth, not dox equis) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:780:BE1:216:CBFF:FEBB:76C7 (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- I used the word "peripheral" to mean "peripheral". Neither of the two articles contains information suggesting that they should reference either other. Neither even mentions the topic covered by the other. Zerotalk 23:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jewish land purchase in Palestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jordan Valley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Your powers of research
Hi Zero, just thought you might be interested in the question at Talk:Expulsion_of_Egyptian_Jews_(1956)#Proclamation_re_Jews_and_Zionists. It just seems very odd to me. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Putting lipstick on a pig...
Recently you participated in a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard entitled "Is a publication found in a University professor's personal website a Self-Published Source or not?" [3]
I just you might find it amusing how the initiating editor, Mercy11, is portraying the discussion:
- "Excuse me? No such "determination" ever came out of that discussion. Several editors shared their opinions but there was no consensus, let alone clear consensus, which would be more in line with your "it has been determined" qualification. No offense, but to state that an isolated posting of an (alleged) original document allegedly from the FALN coming exclusively from a single source (i.e., never confirmed by anyone else, not even the US Govt) and, namely, also a sole university professor's personal webpage, a professor known for his radical ultra-right views against anything Cuban, anything socialist and anything communist can hardly be considered by any NPOV editor to be anything but questionable at best and really brings the fairness of your judgement into question. The discussion over there ended in a stalemate with multiple editors shooting in different directions and with the one radical editor that took the stubborn stance and sided with the source being reliable never retuning to debunk the much more enlightened thoughts of editors that followed him. The fact that the quote is still in the article shouldn't give you the idea that it has been accepted by the other editors here (as you can see). At Wikipedia we do not wholeheartedly and unconditionally embrace as reliable sources with such a laundry bag of stigma surrounding it, especially when, as in this case, its reliability has been brought into question by several (established) editors. When there is a decisive agreement that the source is reliable, then you can make the sort of "mission accomplished", "it has been determined", statement above. Nothing personal, its the way we do "business" at Wikipedia. Mercy11 (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)"
Not looking for any further comments from you, just thought you could use a good chuckle! Cheers! Hammersbach (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 10 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
- On the Yafa Yarkoni page, your edit caused a cite error (help). ( | )
- On the Daniel Kahneman page, your edit caused a cite error (help). ( | )
Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Israel West Bank Barrier
Hi. (Please forgive me if I don't get the talk protocol correct. I do not edit many articles and usually there is no need to discuss the edits.) On the IWBB, this was debated years ago with the resolution to include both / all points of view: the POV that the barrier will (speculatively) harm the economy and the actual data about the actual economy. See IWWB talk for more details. Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Recent 1RR AE Case
It was incredible, and must have been very frustrating for you, that the AE admins decided that the edit in the first diff given wasn't a revert. I'm one of those editors who's thought for a long time that the inconsistency with which what a revert is is interpreted is harmful and should be removed, either by insisting that editors either stick with an interpretation adhering fairly rigidly to the current policy definition or by producing a new, less ambiguous, definition. ← ZScarpia 01:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, interpretations vary from "almost everything" to "almost nothing". This problem is getting worse, but changing the situation will be a challenge. People will jump in claiming that the definition is clear already. Zerotalk 05:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps part of the reason that the policy definition isn't adhered to more closely is just that editors, to varying degrees, don't want to interpret it that way. When it comes to enforcement, therefore, some arbitrators would rather say, it's not a revert, rather than it is a revert (because it fits the policy definition) but we don't want to have to treat the edit in the way that obliges us to. In the policy definition, the word which allows editors room for manouevre is 'undo'. I suppose a way to start to remove some of the inconsistency in the way that policy is applied at AE would be to tenaciously insist that admins explain how they personally define what a revert is, then to justify that definition relative to either policy or consensus, then to justify their evaluation of edits relative to definitions given. ← ZScarpia 11:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
"Citations are not required for photographs taken by editors"
Hi, you have reverted my source request here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_of_Palestine&diff=619921757&oldid=619916778 Please, provide:
- a proof for your reason of revert ("Citations are not required for photographs taken by editors") in the form of Wikipedia rule,
- a proof that photograph is "taken by editor" (which editor? editor of what?)
-- A man without a country (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your question. "Editor" means "editor of Wikipedia". The rules for photographs supplied by Wikipedia editors can be found at WP:Image_use_policy#User-created_images and WP:OI. While image captions are not permitted to express opinions or draw conclusions on the basis of what is in the image, they are permitted to state what the image shows without the need for a published source. This makes captions a bit different from other text, but we do that since otherwise few editor-supplied photographs could satisfy the requirements. You can check on the origin of the photo by clicking on it and following links. In this case you will get to the Commons page of photo-journalist Justin McIntosh, who takes responsibility for the photo and granted us a sufficient licence. We value such donation of images very much. You can challenge an image caption if you can provide a convincing argument that it is not correct (for example, if you can prove it is a photo of something else) but you can't demand proof of it without a good reason. Zerotalk 10:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- Thank you for your answer. I followed your link and unfortunately I haven't found in Image use policy confirmation that there is no need for confirmation of the image title (of course, if I simply missed it, I'd appreciate if you copy the exact phrase from there). Besides, if "editor" means "editor of Wikipedia", what is the link for Justin McIntosh's Wikipedia discussion page? Is he really Wikipedia editor, or just a contributor for Wikimedia (which is great, but different)?
-
-
-
- Now I also have another question. If I understood you correctly, I can photograph myself, or for example my friend's daughter (Russian), may be even during the trip to Palestine, upload this photo to Wikimedia, and then add it to a lot of articles with a title "Palestinian boy / girl", and voila - it is totally in compliance with the rules (as you understand them), and no one can object, unless they manage to somehow find that friend's daughter (which after some years can be quite difficult, as children use to grow up) and manage to publish the thing in the media to get a reliable source? -- A man without a country (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- "Editor of Wikipedia" is anyone that edits Wikipedia articles. There are no special "editors" in the sense that a newspaper or magazine uses that word, though there are administrators (like me) and people with more power and authority. You are right that someone could trick us into using a fake photo, just as someone can forge a document or lie about the content of a source that's very hard to check. How do you know that my photograph of Danny Rubenstein is really him? The system isn't perfect, but without such allowance Wikipedia would lose tens of thousands of great images. The general principle is to assume good faith unless the opposite can be demonstrated. I see no reason to not assume good faith in the case of a photographer who has obviously been to the place where he says the photo was taken, nor does it show anything surprising or suspicious. If you want to get more opinions you can post a question on WP:NORN. Zerotalk 14:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thank you for your answer. Well, now I see that nearly everyone can be an editor of Wikipedia, as unregistered users are elso editors (although some pages are protected against anonymous edits), so the fact we don't know one's user page here doesn't mean he is not editor. And speaking of J. MacIntosh, I found his contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Just1pin
- Now to the photograph. In fact, it is surprising. The girl portrayed in it is not a typical Palestinian face. Not only because of hair color, but also because of lack of tan. And we also see, that the photographer initially posted his photos with emotionally expressed titles, not description of the subject, and even posted a photo taken in Tel Aviv with a title of "occupation". He also is focused on photographing anti-occupation demonstrations. So it is hard to deem him as neutral. And all this together leads me to suspicions. -- A man without a country (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- The hair color might be artificial (note the black eyebrows). However I'm not sure. The blogosphere says that red hair is not so unusual among Palestinians, and someone looking different from average is likely to catch the eye of a photographer. The lack of tan is commonplace: search for "Palestinian girl" at Google Images and you will find many examples of girls without tans. It probably means her parents keep her inside most of the time. Zerotalk 00:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
Jeffrey Herf
Hi Zero0000,
When I read this, I am convinced that Jeffrey Hert is nor honnest nor WP:RS. Anyway he has all the credits (Prof Emiritus of History who widely published on the topic and who is quoted). What is your mind ? How to argue he would not be wp:rs in compliance with wikipedia principles ? Because, at the end, it is just because I disagree with him(*) given the way he discards facts or some sources and use others... Pluto2012 (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC) (*) Hamas is of course an integrist and terrorist group; the issue is not there. It is all the extrapolations around this and other pseudo-facts that he makes that is the concern...
- Yes, Herf is like a more competent version of Daniel Pipes. His obvious status as an activist means his claims should be attributed. I don't think there is a way to exclude hi altogether. Zerotalk 23:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Incredible Efraim Karsh
- israel-academia-monitor.com
- Benjamin Pogrund,The 'guardians' of Israeli academia, Ha'aretz, 23 octobre 2009.
- Hillel Fendel, Anti-Israel Academics, Beware!, Arutz Sheva, 22 avril 2010.
- Dana Barnett (no less that a PhD thesis on her action with Efraim Karsh as supervisor ?
- Dana, the sister of David ? -> [4]
Pluto2012 (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Palestinian land laws and WP:AE
Hi. There is an entry on WP:AE partly about content in the Palestinian Land Laws article. You might want to comment, since you made some comments on the talk page regarding this. I do not know the details because I was not involved in the edits. Kingsindian (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Your AE statement
Hi. At WP:AE, you alleged that certain editors are "edit-warriors" to varying degrees. Per the principle described at WP:ASPERSIONS, you must not allege misconduct by others unless accompanied by actionable evidence in the proper forum. Please edit your comments accordingly, or you may face sanctions. Regards, Sandstein 02:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't believe that my general assessment, in the AE context, is a violation. It is reasonable to point out that an accuser has a long-term record as bad as the accused and this practice has a long history on AE and other boards. I did not assert specific instances of wrongdoing, nor did I expect action on the sole basis of my words. However, I have no time to be more specific so I struck my sentence. Zerotalk 03:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
-
- Also, a comment on someone's editing behavior is not a "personal attack". Zerotalk 04:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar | |
It's been obvious for a bit that a request at WP:AE should be closed as technically a violation, but no action needed; for a while; and I admire the one who stepped forward to do it. WilyD 11:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
My appeal of my restrictions
I do not know what forum to use to appeal my restrictions, is it possible you start the thread for me and then I fill in the details? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): They are Arbcom restrictions, so you need to appeal to Arbcom to overturn them. The proper place to do that is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment - feel free to ask me if you have any problems with the templates or anything like that. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
New notification system for discretionary sanctions
Hi Zero. Your recent notice for SeattleliteTungsten is regrettably an old-style notice. Since Arbcom's motion of 3 May 2014 we are supposed to notify using {{Ds/alert}}. Details are at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts and on the template page of DS/alert. Also under the new system we are no longer supposed to log notices in WP:ARBPIA: there is an edit filter that builds its own log. I can point you to the talk threads if needed. Any old-style notices issued prior to 3 May 2014 remain effective until 3 May 2015 and people in that group don't require a new notice. Except for that all notices expire after a year. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Bassam Tibi
Hi Zero0000, Nishidani
Do you know this scholar ? What is your mind about him ? I am puzzled because in an article ([5]) that sounds well written and neutral he praizes Kuntzel's work, which decredibilizes him. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, quite prominent and frequently cited. Don't know what the deal is with him and Küntzel. Zerotalk 09:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Profoundly unimpressed. I grew up in an area where Catholics were barred by a Protestant majority on the municipal council from opening any business, except as publicans, where you were stoned and taunted on the way to elementary school as you passed Protestant schoolyards, and you heard people like Ian Paisley froth at the mouth about us being "vermin". My father was denied entrance to clubs for the same reason. As a boy I read a tract from the 18th century which, had you changed the hysteria about papists and Jesuit conspiracies for Jews, would sound like the Protocols of Zion of later date. So when I read widely in anti-Semitism I always had this sense of similitude at the forefront of my mind: I failed to see the 'uniqueness'. The Irish had suffered genocidal policies in the 17th. century - brilliant minds like Edmund Spenser could theorize our extermination. There are so many taboos developed instrumentally over this area of discourse, confusing Israel's problems with the Arab world's 'mentality' for geopolitical advantage that it will take another generation to see through it, and the Tibis and Kuentzels of this world are tendetious bores. The hadith of the gharqad tree is mentioned everywhere in public polemics, its precedent, the Birkat haMinim is hushed with silence; the King's Torah doesn't ring a bell, whereas Sayyid Qutb's bigoted nonsense is chimed and pealing in every relevant forum. Nishidani (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Many thanks !
- Nishidani, even if I knew the difference, I found interesting the idea that in Arab world there was shift from Judeophobia to antisemtism in parallel to the development of Islamism. In a way, he goes in the same direction as you given he doesn't consider any hadith as antisemite but just judeophobe. But he sees clear antemitism in new publications ; even if as you said he forgot there are many publication of the same sort everywhere as there are some Jewish religious leaders who racism it totally crazy and... nobody take care on these.
- Thank you Zero0000. My problem is that he has written that Kuntzel work is "brilliant". And Kuntzel is just a propagandist, even not wp:rs on wikipedia. Due to this, I am "perplexe".
- Pluto2012 (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Profoundly unimpressed. I grew up in an area where Catholics were barred by a Protestant majority on the municipal council from opening any business, except as publicans, where you were stoned and taunted on the way to elementary school as you passed Protestant schoolyards, and you heard people like Ian Paisley froth at the mouth about us being "vermin". My father was denied entrance to clubs for the same reason. As a boy I read a tract from the 18th century which, had you changed the hysteria about papists and Jesuit conspiracies for Jews, would sound like the Protocols of Zion of later date. So when I read widely in anti-Semitism I always had this sense of similitude at the forefront of my mind: I failed to see the 'uniqueness'. The Irish had suffered genocidal policies in the 17th. century - brilliant minds like Edmund Spenser could theorize our extermination. There are so many taboos developed instrumentally over this area of discourse, confusing Israel's problems with the Arab world's 'mentality' for geopolitical advantage that it will take another generation to see through it, and the Tibis and Kuentzels of this world are tendetious bores. The hadith of the gharqad tree is mentioned everywhere in public polemics, its precedent, the Birkat haMinim is hushed with silence; the King's Torah doesn't ring a bell, whereas Sayyid Qutb's bigoted nonsense is chimed and pealing in every relevant forum. Nishidani (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Making Bassam Tibi and the above mentionned publication WP:RS make the following ones wp:rs as well... Pluto2012 (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ugghh...choke...vomit... Zerotalk 23:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's a very complex issue. With the list of Professors collaborating with ISGAP here we have to conclude the publications are wp:rs and we could even add notorious. The wp:rs scholars -even if sometimes controversial- who collaborate with ISGAP give official reliability to all of these... Pluto2012 (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Rachel Corrie
I have noted your edit summary here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=623396185&oldid=623376809 This appears to falsely accuse me of adding unreferenced content. I did not add any content - I fact tagged some existing content that was unreferenced and which had been in the article for years in that unreferenced condition. You then deleted part of that existing tagged content. Please take much more care in your edit summaries. I also wonder why you deleted part of the unreferenced content and retained part of it, given that ALL of it was fact tagged and ALL of it had been in the article for a very long period of time. Why do you consider it more "plausible" that someone makes wild accusations of "glorifying terrorism" than someone makes wild accusations of "anti-Semitism"? I suggest you either restore the entire fact tagged content (best option) or delete the "glorifying terrorism". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies; I misread your edit. It should be all deleted if there is no source, but I'll break 1RR if I do it today. Zerotalk 15:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources on Israel/Palestine
Hi. I have a question regarding reliable sources here. I am not sure of the policy and would like someone more experienced to take a look, if you have the time. Thanks. Kingsindian (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
SeattliteTungsten
Hi,
I noticed at the arbitration enforcement page that you suspected additional accounts. I've left the SPI case open so that you can provide evidence for the two other accounts, should you like the checkusers to perform additional checks. Best, Mike V • Talk 01:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I have watched your administrative actions against the account of User:SeattliteTungsten. It is unclear to me what you hope to achieve. If your allegations about sockpuppets are correct, it appears that you have done nothing. The edits keep a' comin'! :-) or :-( depending on your POV. A cursory review of the history of User:SeattliteTungsten's edits and the alleged sockpuppet edits indicates that he/she edits semi-profusely but does not actually engage in edit wars and rarely reverts. I do not know where you live, but from where I live you appear to be attempting to plug leaks in a fishing net. I split my time between Rome(*) and Chicago(*). The locations of Starbucks(*), Il Fornio(*), FedEx(*), McDonalds(*), in these areas are in the hundreds. There are countless internet coffee shops with free WiFi. Even Albertsons(*), Winn Dixie(*), and Whole Foods(*) now typically have open WiFi. Sapienza Università di Roma(*) and University of Texas(*) offer open Wifi over acres of space. My quick look suggests that you have probably missed one or two sockpuppet accounts (false negatives) and closed one non-sockpuppet account (false positive), which means you have not had the desired effect and have bothered other (innocent) people. Given this, what do you hope to accomplish?
- (*) illustrative purposes.
- Your actions are an interesting experiment. I, personally, would not waste any of my time conducting it but observing it is very interesting. I will follow the results to see whether you have had any success and controlling the content of Wikipedia through these administrative actions. Time will tell. SevenOrEleven (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Request for Intervention
User:Zero0000, shalom! There is currently a dispute between me and fellow editor about what is considered worthy or not worthy of publishing on a WP article page because of what may or may not be perceived by others as distasteful (bad taste). The editor in question has posted a Commons photograph of Israeli singer, Dana International, a photograph which I personally feel shows bad taste and tends to "flout" the dignity and self-respect of the Yemenite Jewish people. I voiced my concerns to the editor about my feelings of repugnancy evoked by the picture on a main article page that treats on ethnicity, namely Yemenite Jews. Most Yemenite Jews will feel a sense of shame by seeing this photo of "Dana International" on the page that speaks specifically about them as a people - and who, by the way, are mostly conservative to religious. Can you please help me resolve this dispute? Perhaps you can give me some guidelines as to how it is best to resolve this issue.Davidbena (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Nominating After Saturday Comes Sunday for deletion
Hi Zero0000, As per the Talk page, I just nominated this page for deletion. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
File:Feghali Saturday Sunday.jpg
Saw your comment - you may be right, I'm not 100% sure. Maybe just type it in as text in a quote box. Note that it's not used in any articles - some bot/person will come along and tag for deletion as WP:F5, talk pages don't count. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Overlooked sockpuppet
Hi. Just noticed that User:HonourYoMama was judged to be a sockpuppet but overlooked and not blocked (see [6]). Yours, Quis separabit? 23:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- Sorry, my mistake -- it was blocked indefinitely, just not notated here. Sorry. Quis separabit? 23:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
-
List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict
I see that you used to be involved in this page, if you have the patience, could you swing by? I am suggesting in the pre-1948 list, we adopt an approach that rather than simply list the villages/neighborhoods with the assertion that they were depopulated and sourced to a single, independent webpage, each village be reliably sourced. To establish that it did exist. Was depopulated. Whether it was depopulated because the land was sold or fro some other reason. And , if it is asserted that it was replaced by a specific kibbutz or Israeli town, that this be established. i am not asserting that such events did not take place. Only that events ought not to be listed as facts unless they can be reliably sourced.ShulMaven (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Feghali Saturday Sunday.jpg
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al-Aqsa Mosque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jewish Quarter. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Map of Tel Kabri and her vicinity
Heya, did you every get around to making that map of Kabri? I'm back on Wikipedia after a long hiatus, and I want to finally get that article shining. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 5 Tevet 5775 14:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Excellent! All right, so I've started a new sub-section on my page under the Kabri map section. So let's continue things here. The name is a reference to an exceptionally corny joke we tell on our digs. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 6 Tevet 5775 00:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Western wall
I see you removed my explanation about the top layers of the wall being added by Montefior. Even in it is untrue and a mere urban myth as you claim, it should still be include in the article, not as a true explanation of the top layers construction but as a widespread and notable urban myth pertaining to the wall. Additionally, if the Montefior explanation is untrue there must be some other explanation for the the construction of top layers made of smaller stone. Without any explanation the aritcle is sorely lacking. (Personally I would be very intrested to know any explanation you might be aware of; this is what led me to the Western Wall article in the first place.) Naytz (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Sources for Montefiore's contribution: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Western-Wall-stones-in-danger-of-crumbling http://blog.bibleplaces.com/2008/04/western-wall-stones-crumbling.html
U haz a mail!
o hai, i brought u a mailz n ated ur cereal.It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12 Tevet 5775 13:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
January 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Operation Entebbe may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- UN Secretary General [[Kurt Waldheim] told the Security Council that the raid was "a serious violation of the sovereignty
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Jericho
--deleted. No longer necessary. 108.217.108.193 (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Derogatory comments? by Number 57 on the Talk Page of Israeli Declaration of Independence
I have read the policy article Wikipedia:No personal attack. If the remark of Number 57 - despairing wikilawyer - on Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence were derogatory, the lead gave me the right to remove them. Whether the remark were derogatory is open to debate. At the very least, it does not help the discussion.
My concern here is that the main body of the policy article does not mention the word derogatory; rather it refers to personal attacks. It may be that the comment was derogatory, but not a personal attack. The inconsistency between the lead and the main body of the policy article need to be resolved, but not by me.
(I have left the comment on the Talk Page, if only so that a later reader can make up his/her own mind). Trahelliven (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Re: Nrg
Hi Zero,
NRG was part of Ma'ariv, but as far as I know, it's now part of Israel Hayom, while Ma'ariv itself is part of The Jerusalem Post.
—Ynhockey (Talk) 08:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
IP indef-block
I just noticed you indef-blocked IPv6 2606:6000:FD07:E900:A1A3:E8AE:9A34:9F13. IPs usually should not be indef-blocked because they might be re-assigned to other people. Would you consider shortening the block length? Huon (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is probably an open proxy since if was used by a vandal coming from a large number of different IPs. But I don't know how to tell for ipv6 addresses, do you? I changed it to 2 weeks. I'm under attack by some little boy. Zerotalk 13:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
... for cleaning up Nableezy's page. Could you oblige also on my NSH001 talk page, please, where he's also been at work? Many thanks. --NSH002 (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Replies
Heya, got back to you on the Kabri map project and also the Jericho article as well. I'd like to take it on (having her reports handy and having gotten to spend an hour handling a Jericho skull, which was amazing!), but I don't think I'll have the time for something that big right now.... Also, looking at your talk page history, you do seem popular—though not necessarily with the right people—lately, haha. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 7 Shevat 5775 18:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
Thanks for correcting auto-correct's idiocy.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 8 Shevat 5775 00:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC) |
Hi zero! I appreciate jokes as much as the next man, but what was that about sending me an email? Arminden (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden
Thank you for your reply! Sometimes I'm quite slow. OK, I get it now. My personal email address is quite a private thing, and I forgot that I must have given it when I registered with WP. I guess it's firewalled somehow, otherwise it would be a joke, even considering Snowden & the NSA. Btw, I just got an email from WP regarding your message, so it does work. Maybe the NSA guy just went out to the loo for a minute and set it all on hold? How do they say, you don't need to be paranoid, sometimes there is indeed somebody following you :-)
Victor Guérin
I have tried to find Victor Guérin´s "La Terre sainte" over at archive.org, but have had no success. I suspect it is there under another author-name? Cohen & Lewis refer to it on Al-Daraj, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct of User:DaoXan
You may be interested in this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
TRANS/JORDAN
Hi. Sorry, but I won't even try to look for primary sources. Jordan is as messy a place as you would expect, which is part of its charm. As you yourself have pointed out on the discussion page, they had officials still using the old name in 1949 and the new coins were one step from going to the mint with the "wrong" name. The constitution cannot have mattered much in formal issues, the king was and still is the only authority able to make major decisions, the parliament is just a joke where they can let off a bit of steam and the government is at the service of the Palace. The real issue for King Abdallah I was how to expand the territory AND get recognition. I guess the new name really became more of an issue once they did hold territory on both banks of the river, trans and cis. But even that might be an over-interpretation. If the formal aspect plays a role for me, it's from the international p.o.v., and EVERYBODY seems to have called them Transjordan until 1949. Same story as with the "Arab Legion", which was called this way throughout the 1948-49 war even if the official name was probably another one by then, since they weren't just a local "legion" of the Imperial British Army anymore. Btw, the article "the" in "of the Jordan" has also been abandoned, if they ever did insist on it. I guess any Jordanian other than that minister you're quoting there would mark us both for decapitation for aggravated silliness for wasting time on such matters. Even the very British Mr. Lawrence came back from that country mocking anyone who tried to nail him on using one consistent system of Arabic-English transliteration, let alone truthfulness in his war stories. OK, coffee time. Have a great day! ArmindenArminden (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
That photo
Apparently it's Bar Rafaeli as a munchkin. [7] Its use doesn't add anything to the article as it shows nothing of the park, but it is likely taken in Israel however the original description is kind of silly considering Rafaeli's fame. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18 Shevat 5775 14:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Dan Bahat
Thanks, and well done! He's a great guy. Right now I'm preparing for an exam, I should be focusing on other things :-) , but I'll put it on my list.
West Bank
Good day!
→Transportation and communications: in source: "4,686 km includes Gaza Strip"
"Undid revision 646929098 by Радион (talk) so fix it, don't just delete"
- Listed there to the length of roads in the West Bank with the Gaza Strip. This is twice as much territory.
- There is not expressly stated, is that the West Bank is no unpaved roads: they probably just do not taken into account. This is not Monaco to there actually was not a single kilometer of unpaved roads, and backward country.
- I do not speak English enough to rewrite this sentence, and you unfortunately returned false information in the article.
Радион (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- It's much less than twice, but otherwise you are quite correct. Until we find a reliable source with just the WB, I changed it to match the source. Thanks! Zerotalk 19:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
-
Mandatory Palestine
Hello Zero0000. Question: What state was the successor of the British Mandate in Palestine: All-Palestine Government or really controlled Gaza strip Kingdom of Egypt? Yours respectfully--Poti Berik (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Poti Berik: I'll take it that you are referring to the Gaza Strip, not to the British Mandate as a whole. If the All-Palestine Government had been internationally accepted, there is no doubt that it would be the successor state. However it was only recognised by a handful of governments, so nobody except those governments would regard it as the successor state and in any case it disintegrated after a few years. Without the All-Palestine Government as successor state there would be none at all until the State of Palestine came along (and there is plenty of disagreement about the present status). Egypt did not annex the Gaza Strip and military occupation does not create state succession, so there is no chance that Egypt was ever the successor state. All this is my opinion and I'm sure there is no general agreement on your question. Zerotalk 12:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Understood, thanks for your reply. Yours respectfully--Poti Berik (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Golan Arch. Museum
Hi Zero! Hope you're fine & relaxed. Please, don't make me worry :)) So if you are a tourist preparing to visit Israel (or the "Syrian Golan" for all I care), or a student somewhere in need of data, where would you look up info on the archaeology of the Golan and museums specialised on this topic? On a Damascus-based website? And if you end up planning to go visit the Katzrin museum, would you expect to find Syrian history displayed? Have you actually visited the museum? I didn't think I'd find you on the "politically correct" but unrealistic side of life. That museum is a stone-and-concrete building with a location and a content, with opening times and an entry fee, not a UN resolution. It needs not be dealt with in a PC way, but in an informative one. Call it names in the text (it's full of "Talmudic Period" and has nothing from 1300 years of Arab presence in the Golan, if I do remember it well), but to ignore it's in the N District of Israel?! Like with the Druze villages in the Golan, add "Quneitra District" or whichever Syrian admin. region it potentially belongs to, but don't fight de facto with de iure ON WIKIPEDIA! It's not the right place. Anyway, I should cut down on this WP thing, it's becoming a nuisance, too many crusaders around. Hope to find you in a more relaxed environment than that basalt-blackened Golan. Have a great time.Arminden (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden
"Wadi-Chanin"
Hi. Still around.
Zionist sources have stuck to German "Wadi-Chanin", with or w/o "Bindestrich", for a long time, until the end of WWI for all I could figure out. Just google for "Wadi Chanin" (add "Jewish" to keep out most German pages) and you'll find some 100 hits, pre-WWI or probably copying from such sources. There are also several who wrote it "Wadi al-Chanin". Still quite close. The Survey of W Pal. map doesn't have it yet - at all.
1918 American source: Kh-, not Ch-, but otherwise the same idea: http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Jerusalem_Its_Redemption_and_Future_the_Great_Drama_of_Deliverance_1000248956/195
It's when German and Dutch Jews in Palestine were still having fights with the Hebrew-speakers over teaching in German at the yet-to-be-established Haifa Politechnic (Technion). I'm sure by now that it was used this way before 1918; hard for me to establish if it was for sure the most common way or not. If I'm wrong in terms of frequency... So be it.Arminden (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden
Hey
Hello. I am new in Wikipedia. I am sorry if you take my edits in a bad faith, but this is not the point here. The point is that arguments that come from single sources are to be shunned. We have to work together to find and prove or disprove these claims. It does not matter if "Armenians are Amalekites" or if "Zionists are not Palestinians", I care about the topics because of a general interest in the subject. I apologize if I was insensitive before. Greetings. --92slim (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:HOUNDING
Re: [8] - watch it, I'm losing patience with your repeated violations of wikipedia policy I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thats cute: [9] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- I found a WP:HOUNDING section added to my talk page as well, it states:
-
- Re: [10] - watch it, I'm losing patience with your repeated violations of wikipedia policy . Next stop will be WP:AE, where I expect to bring up your obvious sock puppetry, as well. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
-
- As I have never used a sock puppet, it should be interesting to learn how it could be "obvious" that I have. Can anything be done about this guy? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Hi CosmicEmperor (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
How does semi-protected status get requested?
Hi Zero0000, Do you know? The King David Hotel bombing article has been a target of many sockpuppets in the past, and there recently appears to be a number of accounts created solely for the purpose of editing that article (for example, User:Lockerbie's child ). I think it would benefit from protection from brand new editors. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Moved your section at the RFC
Hey Zero, I hope you don't mind, but I moved your section here in a way that I thought it would fit in better with the rest of the section (in my overall reordering of things on that page). If you dislike its placement though feel free to put it back wherever you please, of course. I won't feel bad or anything. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16 Adar 5775 02:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
A delivery kitten for you!
x2It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16 Adar 5775 04:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Edit War
The IP has broken 1R on the Arab Cultural Capital. See here: [11][12]. AcidSnow (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sadly, Bkalafut and RebSmith still fail to recognize the problems with their desired version of the article. Bkalafut has even decided to make personal attacks against users including you; stating that "Your dishonesty is transparent. Shall I give up with him and let WP:BOOMERANG take its effects? AcidSnow (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Help!
Hi Zero. May I ask for your assistance? There is an Israeli far-right press & online hasbara professional who has a WP page to his name and is, very obviously, self-editing all criticism radically out of it. He is, maybe with some assistance from friendly helpers, but always using the same modus operandi and identical wording in the edit summaries, taking out large chunks of relevant material (usually 50% of the article) in 2 consecutive steps claiming to remove "irrelevant editorializing". Most such edits are done anonymously, under an IP identity. Now I've had enough and promised to block these "anonymous" editor(s) out, but that's an empty threat insofar that I have no clue whom to approach for that. Can you please help? Thanks!
Here some data: The edits done openly by Mr Seaman himself:
"Giladraz": [18:35, 16 September 2007], [11:36, 17 September 2007], [21:48, 17 September 2007], [21:52, 17 September 2007]
"The attributed article is 5 years old, I do not live in Gilo, so get off it already." "As I said the so called reliable source is 5 years old - there is no greater a source than myself - stop vandalising I live in the city vf jerusalem and not in gilo"
"Giladraz" is possibly identical with 147.237.73.201, 199.203.233.40.
Less "open" edits done under IP "identities", which I would like to see blocked - at least the latest one:
79.178.37.65
79.179.196.125
109.66.143.41
Edit summaries: "restoring factual information", "removing editorializing", "inaccurate media coverage and irrelevent to present" -- very evidently inaccurate and dishonest for a public persona.
One anonymous editor explains how it's done, by using untraceable Orange IDs "shared by some Orange cell phone subscribers in Israel" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:192.118.11.112#August_2010) Arminden (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden Arminden (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden
Invitation to comment
Would you be able to revisit the discussion on my talkpage? I am trying to get editors to comment on the real issue, after they strayed away a little. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Request at dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)
Hi. I have filed a request at WP:DRN about an issue in an article that you have been involved in. Welcome to discuss it there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Is this under WP:ARBPIA?
I've protected the article Islam and antisemitism. Also noticed the recent debate at Talk:Islam and antisemitism#Muslim Clerics as sources. Do you think this article is covered by WP:ARBPIA? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: In principle it is not part of ARBPIA, but in practice it is. For obvious reasons, a large fraction of the huge polemic literature on this subject comes from people whose Israel-related motivation is clearly evident. Also a lot of the "evidence" comes from an organization that, whatever they say, is an unofficial branch of the Israeli government. So I think it is justified to include the article under ARBPIA and I think we would be better off if it was. Regards. Zerotalk 02:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- What organization are you thinking of? EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:AE#Result concerning Calypsomusic
Ping re WP:AE#Result concerning Calypsomusic. Thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
High definition maps of Palestine
Yes please! Though the map you have is 1940's - the ones I have are from a 1932 survey. Can I get access to them? Many thanks Padres Hana (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Martin Gilbert still WP:RS ?
I don't know how to manage this : [14]. He quoted Bat Ye'or and Joan Peters. He even praised the 1st here. But according to wikipedia, he is WP:RS. What is your mind ? Pluto2012 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- For decades I've been wondering how Martin Gilbert earned the esteem he has, since his history books range from terrible to appalling. It's hard to see what can be done about it, though. Zerotalk 12:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Burqin
Sunday on the wiki looks better with your contribution - Thanks Victuallers (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Admin help
An editor suggested I needed to contact an admin directly about this. Do you agree that is what I need to do and, if so, would you be an appropriate admin? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Gouncbeatduke: I can't do anything myself since I'm "involved" in this subject area. The first thing to do in the case of iban violation is to bring it to the attention of the admin who imposed the iban. If you get no response, try one of the other admins who approved the iban. The names are here. Zerotalk 03:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 26 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Temple Mount page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Block of 87.69.45.70
Hi, you blocked 87.69.45.70 for a month with the log entry "Vandalism-only account". I assume this was a mistake, because obviously an IP cannot be a vandalism only account. However, you also blocked account creation and disabled email and talk page access, which is rather unusual for an IP block, as opposed to a softblock with only anonymous editing disabled. Is there some reason for this that I'm missing? Thanks, Conifer (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
P.S. – I believe semi-protection of one's talk page is frowned upon, because then new and unregistered users have no way to contact you. Per WP:UP, "In rare cases, protection may be used but is considered a last resort given the importance of talk page discussions to the project." Conifer (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
It's been a few days now, and I think policy is very clear on these two matters. Per the blocking policy, you should not disallow talk page access by default: "This option is not checked by default, and typically should not be checked; editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page." Per the user pages guideline, you also should not protect your talk page, especially as an admin, without extreme circumstances: "In rare cases, protection may be used but is considered a last resort given the importance of talk page discussions to the project." Conifer (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Yaakov Moshiach
I understand your reaction. But it just so happens that I have reliable inside information about this event. There is nothing slanderous about Yaakov Moshiach being named as the starter of these fires. This is simply a matter of fact. I don't see why you would want to censor this from the public. They have a right to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesread77 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Ooops?
Hi Z, feels good to be back here. I've just done a revert (not just, added source + balanced the usual way, fatalities on one side plus, not versus :), fatalities on the other side.) THEN I noticed that our friend, the not-at-all-Monochrome M., has been blocked for smth. related to this bit. I more or less stumbled upon that paragraph, saw that the Israeli 2nd Intifada casualty numbers have been deleted by "emotional" editor, while ISR as well as PAL numbers are indisputably a highly relevant issue, they've changed public opinion and official policies hugely on both sides, so however people will decide to package the facts, they deserve mention. Since the end of the 2Intif. is not clearly datable, you'll never get the same figures even from even-headed people. That leaves you? us? WP? with a nice dilemma. But ignoring essential facts of history because full consensus about the figures cannot be reached, would turn our entire enterprise here into a joke. Looking forward to hear your opinion (see your solution?). Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden
Censorship
Hi, accusing me of being the arsonist in question was completely unwarranted. If you feel you have a crime to report perhaps the Israeli police would be the place to go and to go throwing unwarranted accusations on an online encyclopedia talk page. Anyway, browsing through your contributions it is plain to see that you have vested interests in matters pertaining to the Middle East. Whatever your motivations for trying to censor information about arson attacks which were clearly in protest to the Pope's visit (hardly a soapbox event, clearly one of international importance) I assure you that one way or another the information will get out there and that your attempts to censor the information only expose your bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesread77 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Children in the I/P conflict
@Zero0000:
Hello,
I am writing in regards to your undoing of my revision to the page 'Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict'. I removed a source from 1999 that 1) made claims that were not supported by the evidence provided and 2) is directly contradicted by recent studies, such as the one that I linked from 2012, which shows that Israeli children are not, in fact, some of the "most violent in the world", and actually display less aggressive behavior than Palestinian children.
In regards to my first point, the claim that Israeli children are among "the most violet in the world" rests on 2 (outdated) statistics provided by the author, which are: 1) 43% of Israeli children have admitted to bullying others (bullying was not defined as physical violence and there were no comparisons made to children of other nationalities) and 2) that 1/4 Israeli boys admitted to carrying a knife to school for protection.
The only way I could see these two claims beginning to help justify the argument that Israeli children are among "the most violent in the world" is if a similar study was conducted on children of other nationalities and, comparatively, Israeli children experienced higher rates of bullying and were more likely to admit to bringing a knife to school for protection. And yet still, I wouldn't find those two statistics alone to be sufficient to argue that Israeli children are abnormally violent- more accurately I would argue that they are more vulnerable to bullying, which is not, as we all know, in any way limited to physical violence.
Regardless of Professor Kaufman's questionable conclusion, the study he cites is over 15 years out of date. His commentary, made in 1999, is inaccurately presented as being applicable to Israeli children in 2015.
Moreover (and this brings me to my second point), the claims are directly contradicted by a 2012 study that I cited, which reveals that of Palestinian, Arab Israeli and Jewish Israeli children, the latter group actually demonstrates the least aggressive behavior. The claim that it is the latter two groups that are conversely among the "most violent in the world" is simply not grounded in evidence.
Sammy1857 (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine
@Zero0000:
I am writing in regards to your undoing of my revision to "United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine".
I removed text that was not sourced from the section 'Reactions' subsection 'Arabs'; the text in question is the following: "Zionists attributed Palestinian rejection of the plan to a mere intransigence. However, Palestinians and Arabs as a rule always reiterated that a partition was unfair".
The "Zionists" attitudes are not sourced, neither are those of the "Palestinians and Arabs", which are presented as having a uniform opinion and rejecting partition because it was "unfair".
These are claims that need to be sourced. This is a section dedicated to Arab reactions, and yet not a single citation in that paragraph leads me to any Arab from 1947 making any of the stated arguments. Moreover, there is evidence that directly contradicts them (such as Arab leadership rejecting Peel in 1937, despite it giving them 80% of the land, eroding the argument about rejection stemming from unfair land allocation). Until these claims are sourced, they should not be made.
Sammy1857 (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Sammy1857: Please post on the article talk page so that other people can contribute. In fact, someone else already did. Zerotalk 10:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Haifa
Hi & thanks. Buuuut... I did try with just one quote, and saw what happened? Smb. had the chutzpah to say it's unsupported, quoting... Resnick, who gives the very quote I put in additionally, and which only strengthens the case. As I was writing to King Shabazz, the only case of Jewish military valour from 614 until (more jokingly) 1821-22, the Farhi brothers' siege on Acre, that would be at least 1200 uninterrupted years of Jews being content to die with a prayer, if it weren't for Mr. Albert's chronicle. Thank you for adding Prawer, I wasn't aware of his opinion, but he's by now at least as outdated as Albert of Aachen. And even less of an eyewitness to the events. And btw, what's his theory, why would Albericus, a man of the Church, hail the Jews all of a sudden and with no good reason? Whatever, spoiling a good story, shame on him. Good night, Arminden (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden
- @Arminden: Nobody knows where Albert got his information from. Presumably from people who went on the Crusade, but he never went to Palestine himself. I can't guess why he would write this story as he did, assuming that it isn't true. The idea of writing history as a factual account of what happened is a modern concept that did not exist in Albert's day anyway, which is why accounts even by eye-witnesses need to be taken with a grain of salt. The comparison with Prawer is not accurate since Prawer was a scientific scholar who clearly tried to be as accurate as possible, and this area was his specialty. He doesn't dismiss Albert's account out of hand, but he does express disquiet over the very limited evidence for it. Others disagree, of course. Zerotalk 03:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Zero. C'mon, I didn't slide from listening to good-night fairy tales straight to reading history. That's all very obvious. We both know how "specialised scientific scholars" develop theories and stick to them, come what may. Prawer is old, I just had a relatively well-established younger historian contradicting his theory about the First Crusade going up the Ascent of Beth Horon instead of Wadi Ali, which Prawer described as a fact although there isn't a shred of information about it. It's been written that Prawer and Runciman became THE specialists in their time because of literary talent, as much as for their scientific prowess. So if Prawer comments an event in a certain way, I'm absolutely happy to learn about his point of view and try to remember it along with all other dissenting ones, but nothing more. Usually, once we're in the field of speculation, plausibility is the best argument. That's why I asked the (rhetorical) question, why would a Frankish canon from Aachen/Aix start praising the Haifa Jews for "manliness" on no factual grounds? That's all. It would be interesting to know if there is anything hinting at such chronicles being read by anyone else than the Christian clergy and aristocracy, i.e. if Jewish scholars could or bothered to read them. But that's a very far shot. And even if that did sometimes happen, they certainly weren't Albert's "target reader". The other theoretical option would be that Albert followed some other immediate educational or political purposes, but which could those be? I cannot dismiss anything, but in terms of plausibility, Prawer's take on the episode doesn't go too far. Take care, Arminden (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden
- @Arminden: Albert didn't have any "facts"; he had stories conveyed to him by persons unknown. Someone told him a story he liked and he wrote it up, but we have no knowledge of how much he added his own spin to it. I don't find anything strange about a Christian chronicler writing such things. If the story didn't match his stereotypes about Jews, that would have enhanced the entertainment value of the story in his eyes. Zerotalk 10:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Zero. C'mon, I didn't slide from listening to good-night fairy tales straight to reading history. That's all very obvious. We both know how "specialised scientific scholars" develop theories and stick to them, come what may. Prawer is old, I just had a relatively well-established younger historian contradicting his theory about the First Crusade going up the Ascent of Beth Horon instead of Wadi Ali, which Prawer described as a fact although there isn't a shred of information about it. It's been written that Prawer and Runciman became THE specialists in their time because of literary talent, as much as for their scientific prowess. So if Prawer comments an event in a certain way, I'm absolutely happy to learn about his point of view and try to remember it along with all other dissenting ones, but nothing more. Usually, once we're in the field of speculation, plausibility is the best argument. That's why I asked the (rhetorical) question, why would a Frankish canon from Aachen/Aix start praising the Haifa Jews for "manliness" on no factual grounds? That's all. It would be interesting to know if there is anything hinting at such chronicles being read by anyone else than the Christian clergy and aristocracy, i.e. if Jewish scholars could or bothered to read them. But that's a very far shot. And even if that did sometimes happen, they certainly weren't Albert's "target reader". The other theoretical option would be that Albert followed some other immediate educational or political purposes, but which could those be? I cannot dismiss anything, but in terms of plausibility, Prawer's take on the episode doesn't go too far. Take care, Arminden (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden
Jordan
Would you please explain what is wrong with this edit.I don't think Palestine still exists. Is Dead Sea does not bordered Israel? ---zeeyanwiki discutez 21:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Zeeyanketu: You aren't allowed to imply that the West bank is part of Israel. Also see State of Palestine. Zerotalk 00:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Children in the I/P conflict, history
@Zero0000: A history section is meant to provide background on the topic; a single weapons display event in Efrat from 2014 does not provide background on the topic at hand. It is ephemera. Please explain your reversal of my edit. Sammy1857 (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Sammy1857: You don't need to ping someone when you write on their talk page, it is automatic. I'm copying your text to the article talk page, which is where discussion of an article should take place. Zerotalk 00:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Changing article names
Hi Zero, and thanks for helping with the picture.
Could you please take a look at the talk pages of Kal'at Al Mina and Ashdod-Sea? The article names were probably Google-translated from Hebrew and don't correspond to the names commonly used in literature. It might be the same with Ashdod Light, even Google suggests Ashdod Lighthouse if you take the words one by one, but that's a modern site, no mention of it in the history books I'm used to :) and my lack of Hebrew stops me from properly checking in the Heb. article. Thank you! Arminden (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden
- @Arminden: See Talk:Kal'at Al Mina. Regarding "Ashdod-Sea", I agree it looks like a crude translation only and I don't see it called that in serious books. Actually the few dozen mentions in my files all use "Ashdod-yam" or "Ashdod-Yam" and I think that might have the best case. The Hebrew name of "Ashdod Light" seems to use a word that means "lighthouse" specifically, and not just "light". I don't know this place at all and have no idea if it has an English name. To just make up a name or translate the Hebrew name, "lighthouse" would be more likely. A purist might avoid "lighthouse" since nobody lives there (the "house" part of "lighthouse") but popular usage doesn't respect that. Zerotalk 05:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Conifer (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
DRN Notice about Pearl S. Buck
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
Fighters' List ambiguous reference
In your edit of Fighters' List you inserted the reference <ref>Heller, pp. 268–283.</ref>, but unfortunately, there was already one Heller book and in the same edit you introduced a second Heller book, so which one is it? Please fix. —Anomalocaris (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Discussion about Christian Persecution Category
Hi! You were recently involved in some disagreement at the article on the Semiramis Hotel bombing over whether [[Category:Persecution of Christians]] should be added to it. This is currently being discussed on the article's talk page. Please head over there to discuss your thoughts about this and reach a consensus. In the meantime, please keep the page as it is and do not edit war. ~ RobTalk 11:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
Reference errors on 5 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Haj Amin al-Husseini page, your edit caused a cite error (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
- Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
- Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
- Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
- Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
- Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
- Research coordinators: run reference services
Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Proposals for a Palestinian state
Thank you very much for your contributions! --Miraclexix (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Reverts
I'm somewhat bemused by your reverts of an IP earlier today (e.g. this). The changes made by the IP were actually an improvement, as linking to Palestinian people is clearly more appropriate than linking to Palestinian territories (which the articles have no link with). Adding the word Arab also helps clarify the situation, as pre-1948, all residents were Palestinians. Why did you revert them? Number 57 10:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Number 57: If someone wants to make a politically sensitive change to multiple articles they should explain their purpose and get some consensus beforehand. This IP hasn't touched a single talk page or even given a single edit summary. Certain of its edits, like this one don't give me confidence that encyclopedia improvement is its purpose. Zerotalk 13:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure how a more appropriate link and disambiguating term is "politically sensitive". The IP may well have made some inappropriate edits elsewhere, but it's hardly an excuse to rollback everything they've done. Number 57 15:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Number 57: This IP only improved the link in a tiny handful of cases, which I now fixed. It didn't ever add it when there was no link. And the reason for the addition of "Arab" is obviously denial, not disambiguation. I know a pov-pusher when I see one, and so do you. Is this the work of a good editor? Zerotalk 10:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Denial? Clearly your last diff is not a productive edit, but if unproductive edits were a reason for mass rollbacking edits of editors in this field (even in cases where the edits were positive), I can't think of more than one or two editors in this field who should not receive the same treatment. Number 57 11:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, but several different editors (including me) have warned him/her on their user-page, and they do not respond, ever. The IP reminds me of User:Motique, who likewise continued stubbornly, without ever listening or engaging with other editors. Not a good sign, Huldra (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Denial? Clearly your last diff is not a productive edit, but if unproductive edits were a reason for mass rollbacking edits of editors in this field (even in cases where the edits were positive), I can't think of more than one or two editors in this field who should not receive the same treatment. Number 57 11:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Number 57: This IP only improved the link in a tiny handful of cases, which I now fixed. It didn't ever add it when there was no link. And the reason for the addition of "Arab" is obviously denial, not disambiguation. I know a pov-pusher when I see one, and so do you. Is this the work of a good editor? Zerotalk 10:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure how a more appropriate link and disambiguating term is "politically sensitive". The IP may well have made some inappropriate edits elsewhere, but it's hardly an excuse to rollback everything they've done. Number 57 15:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
A beer for you!
Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC) |
-
- Yummy! Zerotalk 10:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 27 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the League of Nations page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies
Would you take a short glance at 2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies, if you have the time? Apart from one incident about fake photograph controversy by a Reuters employee, the rest of it is random, unconnected, referencing bloggers, and all sorts of other no-nos. I am unsure of policy and since you're one of the few admins active in I/P area, I would like your opinion. I am not experienced in WP:AfD, but if in your judgment it should be merged/deleted, I would be willing to put the necessary work. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- An unbelievable pile of garbage. I'll get back to this. Zerotalk 00:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Palestinian Refugees
Without adding that Palestinians called for unification with Jordan, readers will assume that Jordan's annexation of the West Bank was an act of aggression rather than something done with the consent of the Palestinians. Octopus1066 (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC) (UTC)
- Octopus1066, I keep fixing your addition because it's incomplete and misrepresents what the source says. Please stop cherry-picking to push your POV. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Palestinian refugees
How does it misrepresent the source? Octopus1066 (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) (UTC)
- Because the quote is incomplete. The Palestinian delegates didn't "call for the unification of Palestine and Transjordan", as you put it. According to the source, they supported a resolution that called for "the unification of Palestine and Transjordan as a step toward full Arab unity". The second half of the resolution is of vital importance. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 01:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Q
Hi dear "Georgia_guy"
Is the sentence below grammatically correct? thank You.Alborzagros (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Respecting to some idiots will make us feel slighted by them.
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Protection needed
Protection needed on Palestine Liberation Organization. An Argentinian sock deleted 12 edits at once yesterday and earlier more. --Qualitatis (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Qualitatis: It looks too much like a content dispute for me to do it, since I'm "involved" in that subject. Ask at WP:RPP. Zerotalk 09:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1952 Beit Jala Raid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestinian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Rafiah
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines: "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted." Rafiah and the whole Gaza Strip were de facto part of Israel between 1967 and 2005; therefore, according to the guidelines, the Hebrew name is permitted -- especially since the transliteration of the Hebrew name is already there. --My another account (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Israel reverts
I misunderstood nothing. Wikimania self-reverted to avoid breaching 1RR, not because there were substantive problems with the edit. As I discussed at AE, the text in question was deleted by an involved non-admin before the governing RFC had been closed. Unless you have a sound policy-based case for acting before the RFC had been validly closed, I ask that you restore the status quo ante bellum. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, but the status quo ante bellum was without the text. That was edit-warred in, just in case you hadnt actually looked. nableezy - 04:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Temple Mount
I knew the edit that you reverted had something of editorializing in it, but on the other hand, the fact remains that the four changes to the status quo are all to the detriment of the Jews, and that nevertheless, surprisingly and paradoxically, the Arabs claim that the Jews are those who are trying to change the status quo. Could you agree to keeping the first statement, regarding that the changes were to the detriment of the Jews, which is after all a fact and a summary of the four changes, if I agree that we don't need the word "paradoxically" or something like that. I mean, I could probably easily source that, although I don't want to stress the conflict overly much. Debresser (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Debresser: A regulation that prohibits Jews from praying on the Mount is to the detriment of those Jews who want to pray there, but to the advantage of those Jews who believe no Jews should go there at all. By using words that only represent the views of the first group, you are taking sides. You shouldn't do that. In any case it is obviously a opinion, and opinions should be attributed. Zerotalk 00:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- Leaving aside the question of those opinions, and without catching me on the word "detriment", the fact remains, that all four changes were restrictions on Jews only. Debresser (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Debresser: It is still commentary, and it doesn't matter whether I agree with it. However, after looking at it more closely I don't agree with it. No non-Muslims are allowed to enter the mosques; that is not a restriction only on Jews. Similarly the visiting hours are for all non-Muslims. Writing the paragraph as if nobody matters except Jews is not reasonable. It is also (though here the source doesn't help) a pity that the paragraph doesn't say who imposes these restrictions. I'm sure the mosque entry is controlled by the waqf. The other restrictions, afaik, are imposed by Israel. Zerotalk 00:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Leaving aside the question of those opinions, and without catching me on the word "detriment", the fact remains, that all four changes were restrictions on Jews only. Debresser (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
rv
Re this, no need for a sorry. Honestly I didnt even look at the edit, just saw the last two edits from a NoCal sock that were the latest in an article and reverted on that basis. Cheers, nableezy - 08:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
1919 map
Hi Zero, hope you're doing well. Quick question - have you ever seen a copy of the original map presented by the WZO to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Oncenawhile: No, I don't think I ever saw an original. If you come across a reference (even UK archives) I may be able to help you get it. Zerotalk 00:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Oncenawhile: Actually I wonder if there was a map in the original proposal, rather than a verbal description as here. Zerotalk 01:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- I had been looking for a reference to underlying source, but I can't find it anywhere. The best i could find was on page 18 of this, but it sounds verbal as well. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Question about Edit on "Bayt Nattif" Article
My friend, User:Zero0000, I wanted to ask you a question about style and accuracy. Don't you think that it is better to write "During late 1948, because of continued hostilities on both sides, the IDF destroyed housing structures in some villages, causing their inhabitants to flee. Among these destroyed villages was Bayt Nattif," rather than "During late 1948, the IDF continued to destroy conquered Arab villages, in order to block the villagers return. Among these destroyed villages was Bayt Nattif." Our friend, Huldra, is insisting on this one edit, without citing a reference for the statement, and, without citing a reason for the IDF to expel some villagers. She argues that the former edit (my edit) is too general in scope (i.e. relating to the 1948 war), but she doesn't recognize that her own edit is also very general in scope. IMHO. Your advice please.Davidbena (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Tsunami
I probably picked the word Tsunami from a Hebrew article I read. A country with some lakes and a Mediterranean shore doesn't need too many words for shock-waves, and even less from snow :)
Cheers, Settleman (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The Sergeants affair -- advice sought.
Both Brad Dyer/Bad Dryer and No More Mr Nice Guy have made edits removing the second sentence in the following text in The Sergeants affair article, citing WP:SYNTH (see the talkpage):
- Menachem Begin claimed in his book The Revolt that the "cruel act" was one of the events which tipped the balance in the British withdrawal from Palestine.(cited to a website written by Yehuda Lapidot) However, well beforehand, in the White Paper of 1939, the British government had stated its intention to terminate the Palestine Mandate, which was supposed to take place within ten years of the publication of the paper.(cited to a website displaying a copy of the White Paper)
WP:SYNTH states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."
The policy gives the following example, which is quoted by Bad Dryer on the article' talkpage: "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world."
In the example, the separately sourced parts of the sentence 'combine' to imply something not sourced. Specifically, the second part of the sentence uses the stated purpose of the UN, given in the first part of the sentence' to imply that the UN has failed.
It does not look to me as though the two sentences at the centre of the dispute in the Sergeants Affair article 'combine'. The second sentence does not use the first sentence to imply anything unsourced. In Wikipedia it is normal, when events have different narratives, to juxtapose or contrast the narratives. That is a method used to achieve neutrality. The first sentence states what Begin had to say about the effect of the hangings on the British, that it was one of the events (likely, the others he had in mind were also Irgun attacks) that made the British decide to get out of Palestine. There is another narrative, though, that since the White Paper of 1939, which was issued in the wake of the 1936-1939 Arab revolt, the official policy of the British had been to try to end the mandate (and therefore British governance), attempting to negotiate independence for Palestine within ten years of the paper's publication. Contrary to Begin, therefore, it could be said that the British had actually decided to 'leave Palestine' long before the hangings. The second sentence is an attempt to describe a possible flaw in Begin's statement.
If the second sentence did in actual fact contravene WP:SYNTH, could you explain to me how?
← ZScarpia 19:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted
Hi Zero0000. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))
Reference errors on 24 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Yibna page, your edit caused a cite error (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Zionism
It was a good edit, thanks for NPOV-ing it. BTW, "remove analysis not in the source, clarify context, correct quotation, expand citation" - actually my term "rabid antisemite" was taken verbatim from the (biased) newspaper article, if you look closely:
” The English people,” concludes the rabid anti-Semite, ” arousing the unanimous indignation of the entire civilized world, ...
Zezen (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Zezen: Thanks for your mail. Yes, the source says that and (assuming the factual information in the source is true) most people would agree to the description. However, as a matter of style more than anything, I don't think Wikipedia should use words like "rabid" without stating them as an opinion of some named person. Somehow it would detract from the cool neutral style that is best for an encyclopedia. Personally I think that calling him an author of multiple antisemitic texts is enough to inform readers that he was a rabid antisemite without the need for actually using the word. Zerotalk 08:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you. I am happy you work to NPOV principles. I welcome you to professionally fix his WP entry, which I have been heavily updating today. I am astonished he has not gained more prominence in historical or WP research. Zezen (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
November 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Leon Uris may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- to be a conscious attempt to show that the culture of an entire people is rotten to the core."<ref>{{cite journal | author = Jeremy Salt | title = Fact and Fiction in the Middle Eastern Novels of Leon
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ANI discussion
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Zero0000. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Leon Uris and Exodus. Thank you. --Light show (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tegart fort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bassa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Pls use talk, I'd rather not template an admin. Widefox; talk 00:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Clarification request archived
Your request for clarification has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Richard Meinertzhagen
Hello, Zero0000, about this diff, I added the cite from The Economist to the Richard Meinertzhagen article to try to give a reference within the article for the term "bumf," which is defined in Wiktionary and, of course, the OED. I thought of The Economist, as a publication, to be a reliable source, not original research and that the explanation within the article might be helpful to others. "Bumf" as a definition doesn't deserve its own article, so wikilinking was not an option. Linking to Wiktionary is contra to the Manual of Style and the OED is a paysite. Still and all, is there a better way to include an explanation of the term in the Meinertzhagen article? It could be helpful to those for whom the term is not at the top of their everyday parlance. Geoff | Who, me? 22:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Glane23:. Hi, it isn't clear to me why the word "bumf" is in the article at all, since it appears in Wikipedia's voice. Even more so regarding "Australian bumf" (what is that?). If it was a quotation then we could discuss how to deal with the word, but in our text we should just replace it by something readers will understand. Unfortunately that paragraph has very unclear sourcing and I can't tell if the word "bumf" originated in one of the sources given or whether it was introduced there by some Wikipedia editor. The word does not appear in the Official History cited; I don't have "Army Diary" handy to check. Actually I believe it is a paraphrase of the book of Grainger (cited next), which has "This, of course, relied on the enemy’s understanding of the peculiar Australian attitude to discipline and ‘bumf’."(p107). That makes sense, but our phrase "comprehension of Australian bumf" doesn't make sense, which suggests that whoever put it into the article didn't understand it. The following sentence "The main consequence was a swap in the German High Command, and Mustafa Kemal's resignation." is also clearly derived from Grainger, but Grainger does not attribute any of that to the haversack ruse. I'd like to remove the whole paragraph; objections? (Also, this should be on the article talk page.) Zerotalk 00:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. I copied the above to the article Talk page and replied there. I've no problem with losing the term and agree the article can use some copyediting. Geoff | Who, me? 16:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi
Yes agreed, that's what it is. I have a preference at this point to try to broaden out the scope, as an overview of the travel books would be good. What we have at the moment is worse than sub-par.
By the way, I would be highly appreciative of your thoughts at the RFC at IPCOLL.
Oncenawhile (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Could I add later members and additional enemies.
Iron max 3 (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Iron max 3 Iron max 3 (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
WWHF is a reliable source
The WWHF is a reliable source. It's a government agency of Israel. It is not a private agency. It interacts and deals with archaeologists and historians. Why would you claim it is not reliable? Sir Joseph (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Because it isn't reliable. The State of Israel's position on history is also not reliable. Neither of them are scholarly sources. Zerotalk 23:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Sir Joseph: And note how that source says "Nevertheless, most historians believe that the Western Wall became a popular prayer area only since the Ottoman conquest of Jerusalem in 1517 (5277)." That is indeed the consensus of historians. Zerotalk 00:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- That is because popular means easier and less restrictive to get to. (due to crusades and war etc.) Not that Jews didn't pray at the wall. So then the WWHF should be a RS anyway?? Sir Joseph (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Sir Joseph: No, unreliable sources often include correct statements. Government departments are only used without attribution for matters clearly within their competence and not subject to dispute. For example, we cite the Israeli Bureau of Statistics all over the place. For matters as sensitive as the history of the WW, there are legions of scholars to rely on instead. Zerotalk 00:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- That is because popular means easier and less restrictive to get to. (due to crusades and war etc.) Not that Jews didn't pray at the wall. So then the WWHF should be a RS anyway?? Sir Joseph (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Sir Joseph: And note how that source says "Nevertheless, most historians believe that the Western Wall became a popular prayer area only since the Ottoman conquest of Jerusalem in 1517 (5277)." That is indeed the consensus of historians. Zerotalk 00:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Guy Le Strange
Re: [15], is he not a RS? Chesdovi (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
@Chesdovi: Sorry, I didn't see your question. See my answer in the section below. I'll add: also we have to be careful with sources 126 years old. Zerotalk 14:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Question
I noticed this edit. You removed information as OR, although it is sourced. Did I miss anything? Debresser (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Debresser: The source does not connect this information to the issue at hand. It is only some editor's opinion that it is related. Lots of gate names have changed or moved around over time; it requires an expert to know what conclusions to draw from a particular example. Zerotalk 23:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Western Wall
Does this page fall under WP:ARBPIA, in your opinion? Since you are an admin and have edited that page, you might have some ideas. The section on Western Wall#Views does raise questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Hi Ed, good question. The only possible yes/no answer is "yes" since that place is a historical flashpoint between Jews and Muslims. But there is a longer answer. Usually topic-bans are enforced with some allowance for the nature of the edits. Two illustrative examples: (1) User Gilabrand has a well-deserved topic ban from the I-P conflict but frequently edits articles which are clearly under ARBPIA. However, I won't report her if her edits remain restricted to matters that do not involve the I-P conflict by a reasonable interpretation. (2) The article List of state leaders in 2016 is clearly as a whole not under ARBPIA, but there is a war going on there over the single line that refers to Palestine. I would say that I-P-banned editors are not allowed to partake in that war even though they are welcome to edit the parts of article about, say, Iceland or Japan. In the matter under discussion, you should also be aware that it largely comes out of an intra-Jewish conflict (Chesdovi belongs to a thread within Judaism that is largely despised by the mainstream). Chesdovi is overall not a worse editor than Debresser and far better than Sir Joseph. Cheers. Zerotalk 22:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- thanks for the gratuitous attack. What makes him better then me? I'm not an SPA. I don't create obvious POV articles and then when those articles are deleted insert insert the pov pointy into main space. Don't make it seem like you're not uninvolved without a pov. His edits are extremely combative and disruptive to the project.Sir Joseph (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's my honest opinion of your editing practice. And you are the last person who should complain about attacks. Zerotalk 23:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's why I stopped dealing with him. I don't know how much you have seen of him dealing with me. As for the issue at hand, I am not in favor, in general, but for him, when he edits he makes it an Israel/Palestinian issue, but in general I don't think the page should be under ds, similar to Jew or other pages.Sir Joseph (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's my honest opinion of your editing practice. And you are the last person who should complain about attacks. Zerotalk 23:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- thanks for the gratuitous attack. What makes him better then me? I'm not an SPA. I don't create obvious POV articles and then when those articles are deleted insert insert the pov pointy into main space. Don't make it seem like you're not uninvolved without a pov. His edits are extremely combative and disruptive to the project.Sir Joseph (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- If I may be allowed to add my opinion here, I would like to do so. Especially since my name has been taken in vain here. Otherwise, I would suggest somebody move it to EdJohnston's talkpage.
- First off, I completely fail to understand why an admin would have a more qualified opinion about this question than a non-admin, and in my humble opinion WikiProject pages like WP:JUDAISM, WP:ISRAEL and WP:PALESTINE are the obvious and correct places to inquire regarding this question. That is even disregarding the fact that in the ARBPIA area Zero himself has a clear POV, meaning that I find it strange and worrying that his opinion is the only one EdJohnston asked for.
- To answer the question itself. There is no straightforward answer. Part of articles like Western Wall is ARBPIA related, while the majority of the article is not. The degree varies, but in this case it is fairly easy to isolate the problematic sections. In this I completely agree with Zero. I would like to note on this occasion, that despite our different POVs, I much respect Zero, and we have solved many difficult issues together. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- I do disagree with the statement that "Chesdovi is overall not a worse editor than Debresser". That is in addition to the fact that I fail to understand why the question as it was posed necessitated in Zero's opinion an answer regarding any specific editors. Chesdovi is an extreme POV editor, who cherrypicks his sources and uses them in grossly misleading ways, as I have suspected for many years and has been proven recently with three examples on the talkpage of Western Wall. The same can not be said about me, and has not been said about me. Debresser (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Debresser: Both you and Chesdovi have views quite different from mine, but I respect you both and can work with you both as I have demonstrated many times. Often when you claim that Chesdovi is misrepresenting some source it sees to me that he is just reading it with different colored glasses from the color you wear. I suspect that your antipathy towards him is as much to do with the fact that you find his opinions "disgusting" (your word) as with his actual editing behavior. Zerotalk 05:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Although I know I am not a paragon of virtue, I really feel that I am able to divest my editing from my personal opinions. My attitude is helped by the fact that I was raised in Europe (not in the Middle East), and enjoyed a classical education, including university studies in the exact sciences.
- I think the simple fact that Chesdovi and I agree on many of his edits, including as proposed by him on the talkpage of that very same Western Wall article, proves this. Same can be said for editing with User:Hulda, for example, who has a very pro Palestine POV, and even you. That is why I really don't appreciate when editors accuse me of POV editing or, in other contexts, "being too close to Judaism-related articles" etc.
- In short, I would like to repeat that I think your comparison between Chesdovi and me is not justified by our respective edits and editing patterns, and can only hope that if you re-read the pertaining section on Western Wall carefully, you will see for yourself that Chesdovi is indeed guilty of misrepresenting sources. Debresser (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Debresser: Both you and Chesdovi have views quite different from mine, but I respect you both and can work with you both as I have demonstrated many times. Often when you claim that Chesdovi is misrepresenting some source it sees to me that he is just reading it with different colored glasses from the color you wear. I suspect that your antipathy towards him is as much to do with the fact that you find his opinions "disgusting" (your word) as with his actual editing behavior. Zerotalk 05:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Seaman
Hello Zero. I really appreciate what you wrote about me (and to the issue) re. the Seaman arbitration issue. Thank you.
For what it's worth, here is, in my opinion, what we are dealing with there. Mr Seaman was until recently one of the policy makers organising the covered payment of government money to sympathetic students in- and outside Israel, who would then support the current government's politics on Facebook, Twitter etc. pretending to act as private, objective contributors. He managed to get fired by his own gov't right before launching the programme on a grand scale, for making quite rude and undiplomatic political comments on his private FB page. His "friends" (or himself?) usually try to whitewash his WP page anonymously, Plot Spoiler is the only exception in a very long time, but the most extreme one of them all. Here he displayed all the hallmarks of Mr. Seaman's own system-savvy and aggressive style, but WP isn't the Gov. Press Office. Thankfully. But I would bet anything I have that this isn't the end of it, perseverance is the other "Seamanship" top characteristic.
I didn't add anything to the article, I only brought back in what Plot Spoiler had blighted. I have rearranged one lead paragraph setting the events in a more logical, chronological sequence and addressed Plot Spoiler's formal complaints re. subchapter headings. The only additional material comes from our dear Dr. Dr. Nishidani, WP's highly regarded Oxbridge luminary.
I am trying to concentrate on real life for a change, stay as civil as possible, and keep my distance from "The Conflict", but Mr. Seaman & Co. will always have my undivided attention; manipulation of public opinion, censorship and aggressive behaviour from people acting as civil servants are to me like the red rag to a bull. Thanks again and all the best, ArmindenArminden (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Emmaus-Nicopolis
(Note: I have posted the same message on the Emmaus Talk-Page)
Shalom, User:Zero0000. It's good to communicate with you again. I wanted to ask your opinion about the necessity of mentioning areas now fully under Jewish legal control and jurisdiction as being, formerly, under the control of the Arab Legion during and prior to the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, in other words, what some call the "West Bank." Since the term "West Bank" implies that it was formerly under a different jurisdiction, but is no longer under that jurisdiction today, what good purpose is there in mentioning that a city is "in" (note present-tense) the West Bank? If we take Emmaus Nicopolis, for example, it is fully under Israeli law and jurisdiction, whereas not even the Palestinian Authority controls the region. It seems terribly misleading to write in that article: "The site today is inside Canada Park in the West Bank, and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." It tends to ignore current historical facts about the site's legal jurisdiction. As we know, the Arab village, Imwas, was a border-line village. The Arab legion occupied the nearby Latrun monastery during the war in 1948. The result of the campaign to expand the Jerusalem Corridor as far as the western foothills of the Judean mountains, freeing it from pockets of resistance, helped, in the final analysis, to determine the border of Israel with Jordan during the 1949 Armistice Agreement. See: Har’el: Palmach brigade in Jerusalem, Zvi Dror (ed. Nathan Shoḥam), Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishers: Benei Barak 2005, p. 273 (Hebrew). Remember what Ben-Gurion said during the War in 1948 about a region then occupied by the Egyptian army: "In the Negev we shall not buy the land. We shall conquer it. You forget that we are at war!" (See: Mêrôn Benveniśtî, Sacred landscape: the buried history of the Holy Land since 1948, p. 120). The Arabs, meanwhile, also vied with Israel over the control of territory by means of war, while the Jordanian Arab Legion had decided to concentrate its forces in Bethlehem and in Hebron in order to save that district for its Arab inhabitants, and to prevent territorial gains for Israel. Thus is it stated by Sir John Bagot Glubb, in his book, A Soldier with the Arabs, London 1957, p. 200. You see, the same principle applies today. Now that Israel has taken full-control of these territories after the Six Day War in 1967, there is no reason to insist on its former entities, since it is a way of politicizing what should be our intent as editors to remain neutral. IMHO.
Writing about this place, in particular, that it is located in the "West Bank" is a contentious issue, and I think that we'd do best by avoiding it altogether. For one reason, on the "West Bank map," the village actually sits in a Gray Area, not clearly demarcated. For another reason, it is more of a political statement than a reflection of the reality, where Israelis recognize the area as under Israeli jurisdiction. Thirdly, Israelis themselves do not call this area by the name the West Bank. Davidbena (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: The position of the Green Line was determined in the armistice agreements and Imwas was on the Jordanian side. I really don't see what else there is to say; it is in the West Bank and nobody disputes it. It is definitely not a "contentious issue". So we should say it is in the West Bank. It isn't our job to help Israel annex the West Bank by pretending that facts are not facts. I also don't think you are right that it is "fully under Israeli law and jurisdiction"; actually it is in Area C, which is under Israeli control but not sovereignty per Oslo agreements and the international law of occupation applies according to Israel as well as everyone else. Zerotalk 22:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, User:Zero0000, and let me thank you for your reply. Let's just say it was on the Jordanian side. But today's Israeli border is NOT the 1948 border. Today, the village is in Israel. Can we then compromise on this issue and write instead, "The site today is inside Canada Park in what was formerly Jordan (i.e. West Bank), but now in Israel and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada."??? Does this sound better? The reason why I'm asking is because the current edit ignores current political facts. It's like saying that "The city, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, is in the Sioux Indian Nation," rather than in the United-States. To this very day, many Lakota native American Indians do not recognize the sovereignty of the United-States over their ancestral homeland, but it does not change the fact, does it? Israel has sovereignty over Emmaus-Nicopolis, and it should be mentioned as in the State of Israel. IMHO. One more thing: The Oslo Accords did not give full sovereignty of lands to the Palestinian Authority, but was only a means to achieve administrative cooperation between the Palestinian Arabs working in conjunction with and under the auspices of the Jewish State. As for its current status, see Oslo Accords#End of the interim period. Davidbena (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Emmaus-Nicopolis is, indeed, within the territorial bounds of the State of Israel, just as all of Jerusalem is in the State of Israel, even though it too was divided until 1967. Ask any Israeli citizen, or check maps published by the Government of Israel, the village of Emmaus is NOT listed as being in another State or country, nor in the West Bank (a term rarely used by Israelis). Furthermore, to deny this fact is very strange to me. We're talking here about Israeli sovereignty (military or otherwise) over this territory. The Oslo Accords were meant to settle the final status of the territory, but it did NOT, as yet, settle the final status. Meanwhile, the place (Emmaus) is still in Israel. Article X (IX), Annex II, in the Oslo Accords specifically states:
- Okay, User:Zero0000, and let me thank you for your reply. Let's just say it was on the Jordanian side. But today's Israeli border is NOT the 1948 border. Today, the village is in Israel. Can we then compromise on this issue and write instead, "The site today is inside Canada Park in what was formerly Jordan (i.e. West Bank), but now in Israel and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada."??? Does this sound better? The reason why I'm asking is because the current edit ignores current political facts. It's like saying that "The city, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, is in the Sioux Indian Nation," rather than in the United-States. To this very day, many Lakota native American Indians do not recognize the sovereignty of the United-States over their ancestral homeland, but it does not change the fact, does it? Israel has sovereignty over Emmaus-Nicopolis, and it should be mentioned as in the State of Israel. IMHO. One more thing: The Oslo Accords did not give full sovereignty of lands to the Palestinian Authority, but was only a means to achieve administrative cooperation between the Palestinian Arabs working in conjunction with and under the auspices of the Jewish State. As for its current status, see Oslo Accords#End of the interim period. Davidbena (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- "It is understood that, subsequent to the Israeli withdrawal, Israel will continue to be responsible for external security, and for internal security and public order of settlements and Israelis. Israeli military forces and civilians may continue to use roads freely within the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area."
-
Quick clarification
I noted that in your comment at WP:AN/I you happened to assume that I am a female editor. I'm not, and I am a male editor. The "Neve" part is basically just the word even—just happened to be the first word to enter my mind for a username—backwards.--Neve–selbert 08:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Neve-selbert: Ok, thanks for explaining. I'l refer to you as "he" henceforth. Zerotalk 08:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Edit Reverts
Friendly question for you. Also not sure that this is the proper place to ask, but am wondering why you reverted my edit? Hoping that you are friendly to newbies & are willing to reply here as I have not set up my user page (still finding my way). SeaBeeDee 08:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)SeaBeeDeeSeaBeeDee 08:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC) SeaBeeDee 08:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your constructive advice on unnecessary links. I have sent you a Smiley Award. Looking forward to becoming the best Wikipedian that I can be, thanks to friendly advice like yours! SeaBeeDee 00:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeaBeeDee (talk • contribs)
Map mistake
Hi Zero0000,
You or I made in mistake in the localisatio of Imwas. See both these maps: [16]. I think that you put it on the Monastery location. I don't remember which sources I have used at the time (should be Morris - 1948) but I had asked Yoav G. to check my maps... What is your mind ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I lack time and have to go.
- But this map is false. The fort was in the Jordanian territory and east of the 1949 line. How else could it be ? Did the Israeli get the evaucation of this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Pluto2012: Yes, the latitude and longitude give for Imwas and Emmaus Nicopolis are wrong, and different from each other. I'll try to fix that soon. In this map that I made, I copied the armistice lines from an official Israeli source of the 1950s, which differs a bit from Google's version. Zerotalk 16:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Pluto2012: @Huldra: I adjusted the coordinates but the fact that maps don't exactly agree is a problem. I'll try again later. Please be more specific about what problems you see. On this map, Latrun village is shown but not the Police Post (fort); I'll try to add it. Also the location of Emmaus Nicopolis is just to the left of the red blob "Imwas". Zerotalk 00:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Zero0000
- Between my post and you reading of it somebody changed the article and removed a map...
- I wonder if this map of 1948 is right:
- [17]
- I am not sure but it defers from yours.
- I think I based mine on this one and I used the road alongside Ayalon valley as a reference to locate Imwas when it turns. Pluto2012 (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Pluto2012 (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Pluto2012:. One thing to realise is that the main NW-SE road through the Latrun Interchange did not exist in 1948, nor I think in 1967. It is newer. My map shows the new road, but your map and this one show the old roads. That's the main reason things seem to have moved in major ways. For the armistice line I used this map. Note how it passes through Latrun village, as it does on this one but not on your map. Cheers. Zerotalk 09:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Zero0000,
- Thank you for your input.
- There is also a mistake for Deir Aiyub on my map.
- Pluto2012 (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Smiley Award for you!
For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted: Random Smiley Award (Explanation and Disclaimer) |
Thank you for your advice! SeaBeeDee 00:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC) SeaBeeDee 00:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeaBeeDee (talk • contribs)