User talk:Zero0000/2006

2006 archive
Do edit any other subjects excpet Israel (and your line of research work) ? Why are you so obssed with Israel and the Tora ? Are you on a POV mission to remove any pro_israeli source fom Wikipedia ? Only pro-Palestinian sources are valid in your mind ? or maybe there is some hidden mesaage there that the rest of us don't seem to understand ? Zeq 13:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Move requires admin
Can you move Palestine (region) to Palestine. It requires admin powers. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed the double redirects (there were only 3). It would be nice to have admin powers here for these kinds of administrative tasks, but with the enemies I've made I don't think I'll ever win a vote. -- Dissident (Talk) 02:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is there a consensus on this move? --Leifern 11:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There was consensus enough in my opinion. The move makes it fit the standard pattern that a name is not a disambiguation page if one meaning is much more prominent than the others.  Compare Israel (disambiguation).  --Zero 11:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Jordanian annexation of Jerusalem
Zero, I found this in The Times, Editorial: 'Israel and Jordan', Friday, Apr 28, 1950; pg. 7; Issue 51677; col C: "The Government have announced their de jure recognition of the State of Israel and their acceptance of the Arab territory to the west of the River Jordan as an integral part of King Abdullah's dominions. In each case they make some significant reservations. The present boundaries of Israel, defined by provisional armistice lines, are not necessarily accepted by Britain as the final frontier, nor is Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish part of Jerusalem recognized until the status of the whole area is settled. The armistice line between Jordan and Israel is accepted as the boundary of the new territories only until a settlement is reached between the two countries, and no Jordanian sovereignty in the Arab-occupied portion of Jerusalem is recognized." The British government's acceptance of the Jordan union under the terms described was announced in parliament by Kenneth Younger, Minister of State, on Thursday, 27 April with the actual words "The part of Palestine which is now united to the Kingdom of Jordan includes a portion of the area defined in the resolution on the internationalization of Jerusalem adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1949. His Majesty's Government wishes to state that, pending a final determination of the status of this area, they are unable to recognize Jordan sovereignty over any part of it. They do, however, recognize that Jordan exercises de facto authority in the part occupied by her." (' House Of Commons' The Times, Friday, Apr 28, 1950; pg. 4; Issue 51677; col C). --Ian Pitchford 16:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's fascinating to see the actual report in Hansard. --Ian Pitchford 12:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello maybe you should have the information here : Pappé, Ilan, Britain and the Arab-Israel Conflict 1948–51. London 1988. Unfortunately I don't have this book. In another book "The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947-1951" I have read in French he doesn't discuss about Jerusalem but he underlines only UK and Yemen recognises the annexion de jure.
 * I went on working on the 1948 war article. Your comments are welcome Christophe Greffe 11:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Transjordan
In the article Definition of Palestine and Palestinian, it is stated that Transjordan was created in 15 Mai 1923 (mistake ?). In the article British Mandate of Palestine it is stated that it was in September 1922. In the article Jordan they talked about 1922. But I have read in Pappé - la guerre de Palestine en 1948 that Abdallah were crowned in 1921 and this is confirmed in the article Abdallah. May I assume that he moved to Transjordan in 1921 and that the British recognized him as Transjordan sovereign in september 1922 ? Thank you :) Christophe Greffe 18:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

cycle/cyclic graph
Hello Zero0000. You recently changed occurences of cyclic graph in the article cycle graph to the latter name. I believe that the more accepted term for polygonaly graphs is cyclic graph. See eg this link at mathworld. Furthermore, cycle graph has a specific meaning covered in the article cycle graph (group). Can you please explain your motivation for this change on the talk page. Thanks. Debivort 05:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

new historians
Hello zero. I would appreciate your mind about the talk in the article "new historians". This is related to what new historians claim. Maybe there is a misunderstanding. Thank you. Christophe Greffe 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Palestine move
Your move (pretty much unilateral) of Palestine (region) to Palestine has effectively caused an edit war on the article, because some editors insist on thinking of Palestine as a political entity. In the future, think about 100 times about making such moves, and ask around a bit more. I'm sure you meant well, but it's now turning into a disaster area. --Leifern 15:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This is only getting worse. Please show me where the move was put for discussion and vote. If it wasn't, I'm going to get an admin to move it back the way it was. --Leifern 18:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Palestine
It's possible you are right about the name (I haven't had time to think it through), but that doesn't solve the problem. What can be done about an editor who continues to insert factually incorrect, POV, and off-topic material into the article? What do you suggest? Jayjg (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's back and inserting again. Any ideas? Jayjg (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Zeq
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Jaffa
I will take a look. --Ian Pitchford 10:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Palestine
Disagreement ongoing, it would appear, over some fine propaganda inserted by an anon. You might like to take a look. I am too busy to pursue the matter unfortunately. Palmiro | Talk 16:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, the situation seems to be under control for the moment. Palmiro | Talk 18:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

GermanGov tag
Hi there, you recently uploaded an image under the GermanGov licence. This tag is invalid, and all images so tagged are now at Possibly_unfree_images. Please re-tag as appropiate. Pilatus 03:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Jaffa
Oops... I've corrected this. I was confused by the statement in the article that "In February 1948, Jewish workers were slain by Arabs in a factory after being disarmed by the British". I can't find any record of such an event in Jaffa. Do you know anything about this? --Ian Pitchford 09:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've deleted the section as it looks fictional and the terminology is wrong. --Ian Pitchford 15:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Safed
The Safed article remains extraordinary Jewish-centric, despite your comments on its Talk page. I wonder if you'll be getting back to that? --Macrakis 18:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, eventually...--Zero 10:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

informations
Hello Zero. I am sorry to have left the discussion about 1948 war. I have had many work on the professinal plan and have just some few free time now. I see that things did not move forward and that quarrel goes on but between you and Heptor. Sorry for that. I think it is better I work on the French wiki on the article but following what happens here because you are pretty well documented.

About that : you had promised me an information :-) ... And I have also another question. :-))

1. could you please confirm and eventually indicate a reference for April 1922 as the start of the British Mandate on Palestine and September 1922 as the foundation of Emirate of Transjordania.

2. I saw this on wikipedia : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/NYTimes_1948_Jews_in_Arab.jpg

Could you please confirm this is not a fake or written maybe by a propagandist ? Was the "potential" problem of jewish refugees discussed that soon in May 1948 - simultaneously I would say - with the start of the palestinian refugee problem ? Would you have more information (eventually with references) about when Jews started to leave or to be chased from arab states ? Would eventually have refence of Ben Gourion (or other leader) comments about this phenomenon and when the jewish politicians started to realize the problem or to decide to take care of this ?

Thank you very much.

Christophe Greffe 11:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Post on RfAr/Zeq
Could you please put your comments separatly from my original message? The text gets hard to read with comments on comments on comments on comments in every message. H eptor  talk 18:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well, I did it myself. -- H eptor  talk 18:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Zero0000. I don't know if this is the right place but I think this is a good start towards the right solution :. I leave you inform appropriate people if useful. Christophe Greffe 10:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Reminder
I want to remind you that Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Even if one is editing from Belgium this rule still apply.

Zeq 13:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL !!! Zeq is talking about my user page I think ! :-))). I removed information where I explain my job. Christophe Greffe 11:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

photo in palestinian exodus
Hi Zero. I think the photo is more than welcome but when I read the article with my laptop 15.4", it completely make unreadable the "table des matières" next it. Would not it be possible to move the photo a little bit higher or lower ? I don't know how to proceed. Christophe Greffe 11:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I tried. Image placement is hard as it depends on your browser as well as screen size and font size. Now probably someone else will say that it doesn't work for them ;-).  --Zero 11:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you ! Like this this is perfect -at least from my laptop- ! [:-)] Christophe Greffe 12:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

scholar source
Hello Zero.

What would you think about Hannah Arendt as a scholar source ? She was the first female Professor at Princeton...

Look at this :

"The Grand Mufti's connections with the Nazis during the war were not secret; he had hoped they would help him in the implementation of some final solution in the Near East", Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem, p. 13. 

Christophe Greffe 20:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right that searching quotes is not a methodology. But everybody read books in function of the time he has...


 * I have 2 comments and 1 question :


 * Please edit Hannah Arendt article to enter the information about the fact she is not a reliable source concerning nazism and antisemitism. Your claim clearly indicate you have relevant material about such facts and also, about Philip Mattar, Director of the Institute for Palestinian Studies and Associate Editor of the Journal for Palestinian Studies, you should edit his article to introduce the material that explains he is neutral and not at all controversed.


 * About his book -you have read- could you explain me the unrelevance of this quote : "His many comments show that he was not only delighted that Jews were prevented from imigrating from Palestine, but was very pleased by the Nazi's final solution" (scan of this book here : ). I know... This is because it is not a major point in his study. It is just written in it.


 * Do you know the word empathy ? I use this much in French. It is just to put oneself in the position of the other. Just have a few minutes empathy about me and put yourself at my place. (just a few minutes). Who would you believe : Zero or quotes taken from Hannah Arendt stating exaclty what is written in the book referenced by the same Zero. Christophe Greffe 10:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)~


 * Good evening from Belgium. I imagined nevertheless you were in the USA so I should maybe say good morning... My first point is that you don't answer to my questio... My second point is that your comments are not link with mine and so I add a question : "have both Arendt and one of both author you suggested to me wrote enougth so that we can state both the Mufti was antisemtic and he would have been pleased by the implentation of a "final solution".


 * About Library of Congress. The guy who told this to me is active on the French wikipedia. Precisely he just told me the Mufti broadcasts records were there. He didn't specify where and how to get them. He just gave me the website and precise it had a cost. He told me he had written an article about this. I don't have any idea how this guy is reliable and I don't feel enough interest in this topic to spend time for this.


 * But If you have some time I would be glad if you can specify to me when Emirate of Transjordania were precisely created as well as Brits received their Mandate on Palestine. This is for the French wikipedia. Thanks ! Christophe Greffe 18:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your theory is explained here . No comment. They also give another reference claiming the contrary : Simon Wiesenthal's website.

Valuable reference work
Zero, I thought you would be interested in the Encarta article on Abdullah I of Jordan: "King Abdullah was the only Arab ruler willing to accept the 1947 UN partition of Palestine between Jews and Arabs. In May 1948, immediately after the creation of Israel, he yielded to pressure from other Arab countries and led his British-trained army against the new state, capturing a large area of its territory". And people say Wikipedia is unreliable! --Ian Pitchford 14:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please do not use the edit summary to attack another editor; Just describe what you did. These are not appropriate. They may be seen as personnal attacks and can quickly become disruptive: Tom Harrison Talk 13:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "rv pathetic labeling. this is not a toilet door."
 * "rv. Zeq has been vomitting on the article again."

Mediation on Talk:Amin al-Husayni
Mediation has started; please join us. -- Cyde Weys 07:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I don't understand your agressivity. You call me Greffe, now ? I gathered all relevant quotes taking all your sourced information into account. As you could have seen, Schetchman, is not taken and for all that can be controversed, there is a link to who they are or why they are controversed when this is official.

There is nothing more and nothing less.

If somebody has external analysis that Mufti would have been anti-semitic, they will illustrate this. If somebody has external analysis that Mufti was the chosen victim of the israeli propaganda, they will illustrate this too.

These are just a gathering of statements about the topic. This is the only think that cannot be controversed.

Christophe Greffe 09:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Zeq
This arbitration case has closed. Zeq is banned from articles he has disrupted and placed on Probation. Zeq and Heptor are cautioned regarding sources. Zeq is cautioned regarding removal of well sourced information. Others are cautioned to use the procedures in Resolving disputes. Where applicable, these remedies are to be enforced by block. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Another request

 * Please explain your reverts. Please avoid reverting (or doing any edit) without proper explnation and also be civil to your fellow editors. You should also always asssume good faith. If you have proof that I should be banned you should have presented it already (so don't therten me please) or you should start a new ArbCom case. In any case you should follow policy in all your edits. Especially avoid edit wars. I expect that you will self revert your last edit war or explain why it is not according to policy. btw, Dror asked me to send his regards. Zeq 11:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I always assume good faith for all editors who have not proven they edit in bad faith. Draw your own conclusion.  --Zero 11:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not going to deabte you what the "proofs" you use. In any case please :


 * be civilized to other editors
 * Avoid edit war
 * explain your reverts

I am still waiting for explnation of your revert in machsom watch. Zeq 12:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting for explnation of your revert in machsom watch. Clearly NPOV means represneting both views  on the subject of the article  not both sides of a specific meeting. Zeq 11:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Weren't you going to leave Wikipedia? What's the delay?  --Zero 11:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You and others are nice to me again. I am able to make a big difference in articles such as Zionism, al-sarafand, Hamas and Machsom watch so i decided that although I came to work on only one article and my work on it is done I will stick around a bit more. I am dcided that you decided to work per policy and be reasonable again and agreeing to my requests. Thank you. Zeq 15:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Flashed Fred Bauder's page
You seem to have accidentially removed a lot of text from Fred Bauder's page. -- H eptor  talk 12:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ugh! What a mess!  I'll try to fix it. --Zero 13:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Lehi
I definitely see your reasoning about the group describing itself as "terrorist", and I agree with you that this fact is noteworthy in itself. However, instead of including the current passage in the introduction I think it would perhaps be a better idea to write something along the lines of "Lehi described itself as a terrorist group" and place it further down in the article. Do you agree with me?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would probably be better. --Zero 03:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the passage at the top of the "Actions" section.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. Do you know the context in which they made the statement? What was their objective when presenting themselves as terrorists?
 * They were a small group and their effectiveness depended a lot on the fear they instilled in the British. Anything they could do to portray themselves as ruthless was to their advantage. That's what I think the logic was. --Zero 09:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Villages
I had the same thought yesterday when I was re-reading Morris' book for the exodus article. As a first stage I was going to enter all of the place names and Morris' codes into an Excel spreadsheet to allow the data to be manipulated in various ways. I might have time later this week. --Ian Pitchford 11:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the level of detail it sounds as though Khalidi's book would be the best one to use. I don't have a copy, but should be able to get one within about ten days or so. If we create tables in the article or elsewhere with the agreed fields we can complete them as time allows. Best, --Ian Pitchford 13:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that plan of action. I'll create a wiki table and just use Excel for manipulation of the data. --Ian Pitchford 13:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

American Israel Public Affairs Committee
Do you think you could help resolve the current dispute between me and User:AladdinSE over the inclusion of a quote by Paul Findley. Aladdin stakes his claim on the basis that it is relevant because Paul Findley is still a "well respected former congressman" which I feel is farce, today Findley is definitely far from the mainstream for advocating beliefs such as that the Iraq war was launched primarily on behalf of Israel and that Congress is being led astray by a dictatorship of Israel and Aipac. I will support your ruling regardless of your decision, I just want to get out of this conflict. Thank you- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sprotect at Hebron
Not only will I support an sprotect there, but I'll do it myself. Jayjg (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid edit wars
The disputes we have, on checkpoint watch (see talk) and sarafend can be handlded differently.

Like in Husseini I am sure we can reach a solution. Please be civilized and avoid the reverts.

Zeq 22:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You are the single greatest cause of edit wars. Btw, how old are you?  You reason like a child.  --Zero 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I maybe (in your mind) the cause but it is you who edit war with no stop. You have disputed my edits, without reading the Or report (while I did) . Please follow Dispute resolution process instead of an edit war and I again ask you to stop the personal attacks. Zeq 05:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Request moved
I have moved your request regarding Zeq to Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Fred Bauder 15:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It is wise to accept mediation regarding any matter if the other party is willing. Fred Bauder 16:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)== current situation ==

Hi Zero.

The current situation sounds much to me as if you were a victim of some sort of provocation's campaign aiming at making you ban. I would advise you to keep cool and have this in mind each time you comment. Sorry for this and with you good luck :-). You know, it is not because one pov word or 2 are introduced in 1 article or the other that anything will change... Christophe Greffe 21:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Machsom Watch
Just about every intro I write contains criticism of the person or group, assuming there has been substantive criticism from reputable sources. Machsom Watch is not defined for you by the criticism that's made of it, but it is so defined by others. The point is to make sure that the criticism is not trivial, and that it comes from a good source. I added the criticism from the NGO Monitor. Zeq added the statement from the IDF chief, which personally I would leave out of the intro, so I don't know whether you're objecting to one or both. You'll have to show me where it says it's "normal practice" to leave criticism out of an intro. Intros should provide an overview of what's to come. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The criticism has to be from reputable organizations. Inserting criticism from Hamas into the intro of Israel would be like inserting an opinion from Stormfront into Jew. Here's what Wikipedia says about intros:


 * The perfect article: " ... begins with a definition and clear description of the subject; the lead section introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excess detail."


 * Lead section: "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." SlimVirgin (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't compare Israel and the IDF with Hamas. Regardless of your personal feelings about the first two, they're reognized throughout the world as being a legitimate state and its armed forces. Hamas on the other hand is widely viewed as a highly controversial terrorist organization, and because of that, there is criticism in the intro. It would be utterly bizarre if there weren't. Saying in their defense that they're the elected representatives of the Palestinian people would be like defending the Nazis just because they were elected by the German people. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am addressing the issue. I'm talking about the lead. The article (and intro) isn't about Machsom Watch's view of Machsom Watch, or the IDF's view of Machsom Watch, but both, and other credible sources' views too. We don't allow organizations to self-describe where the descriptions differs from that of reputable published sources. See WP:V and WP:RS. And the lead is meant to sum up the important points of the whole article, criticism and all. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we continue this on the talk page, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Octagon-warning.png|left|30px| ]]You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 12 hours. Here are the reverts in question.  Voice  -of-  All T 08:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Zeq
I'm not sure if editing the Talk: page counts as a violation of the terms of his remedy, but I'll find out. I'm pretty certain asking me to help mediate on the page is not a violation. Jayjg (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've asked the Committee for a clarification. Jayjg (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dates
Thanks. BTW, I first thought you are talking of dates. Nice to meet you. --Bhadani 07:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Plz enable your e-mail address as you have palced a notice without enabling the same. --Bhadani 08:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation policy
"Leap-frogged citations" are a major problem in Wikipedia. In particular people often cite scholarly papers and books when they've actually only copied material from a web page. --Ian Pitchford 18:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You flashed a page again
Be carefull, and do not use your feet to edit (again)

-- <b style="color:#000040;">H</b> eptor  talk 23:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For the life of me I can't understand how that strange set of edits resulted from mine. Hope it is ok now.  --Zero 23:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Other words for "group" in Lehi
Usually you can say use a word like organization or something, but that would be inappropriate for a group with less than a hundred members. what do you think of something like faction, band, maybe syndicate, I'm running out ideas. It seems like we should start using a thesaurus or something becasue the word group must occur like 40 times in the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we say "Lehi was an armed underground faction in Pre-State Israel that had as its goal the eviction of the British from Palestine to allow unrestricted immigration of Jews and the formation of a Jewish state." that way we show its goal as well as its armed nature and we don't use group:) - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, were you aware that the anon you reverted was Alberuni?-

I think "Palestine prior to the establishment of Israel" sound too lengthy and odd, how about simply "British Mandate of Palestine"- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

wait actually did they operate in what became Jordan? because what I said wouldn't be as accurate as what you said if they didn't.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a controversy, I guess I was just wrong about the territory, we'll just use Palestine then. Also would you object to moving the quotation section to wikiquote and adding a interwiki.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus
Hello Zero. Thank you for your comment. I change this. Christophe Greffe 06:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your modifications :-) That sounds good to me. He writes that arab authorities (Al-Husseini, AHC, AL AND national comittees) never wanted-asked-required-recommanded-prompted Palestinians to-for leave-flight-flee-goaway but they tried to stop it. And this is developped in the introduction, in a whole chapter and in the conclusions. I think this is an interesting source for this topic. Christophe Greffe 13:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Book reference
Zero0000, do you happen to own, or have access to, a copy of Fischbach, Michael R. (2003). Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231129785 ? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tips, they were quite helpful. Do you happen to know what footnote 137 on Chapter 1 says?  Is it that same JNF letter by Weitz? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Deir Yassin
I am not Francisco, his website is not a blog, and the link is directly under another link to a site which is also a histiographical analysis of the evidence that suggests that there was no massacre. Just because you may disagree with the conclusion does not mean you should prevent others from hearing a perfectly reasonable and well documented alternate theory of what happened. Ryan4 17:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's also saddening to me that you couldn't imagine the possibility that someone might care deeply enough about the truth to spend their time and energy spreading the well documented research of someone who they beleieve is right. Ryan4 17:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What is this personal vendetta you have? HIR and Emperor's Clothes are respectable alternative media sources whose authors take time and effort to ensure that every single claim they make is footnoted and supported by factual documentation. This is more than you can say for the entire mainstream media. In what way are these sites 'blogs'??? Ryan4 17:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Emperor's clothes (ie Jared Israel) was noted in the mid-1990s for doing a not very impressive job of trying to defend the Serbs from accusations of ethnic cleansing. He championed the Serbs and a magazine called "Living Marxism" over Serb concentration camps. Then Jared Israel/EmperorsClotes switched to doing the same for Israel. And they're doing it for money - lots of that available to deniers! Is it $3 billion a year the US gives them? PalestineRemembered 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Deir Yassin map by Zero
Well done for producing this map. Where's the road to Jerusalem - is it the red line? PalestineRemembered 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Palestine
Do you think it is necessesary to have half of this page devoted to History, I understand why we should go back to Ottoman times but should we really go all the way back to Roman times especially since we already have a History of Palestine article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, perhaps a solution is to keep the Roman section or at least the part about why they changed the name, and then delete everything else up to the Ottoman period.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And don't forget to link to the History of Palestine article like so:

--<b style="color:#0055aa;">Cyde Weys</b> 05:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, What specifically did I remove from the article that did not appear in more deatil in the History article?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

citing sources
Hello. I saw the modifications you added on the citing sources's article. I completely agree with this. If you think of me when you did it, note this is exactly what I did, maybe with a different precentation. For each quote, the author can go and check the text where I found this. Christophe Greffe 22:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ariel Sharon
Do you think that "the Butcher of Beirut" belongs in the introduction? I have tried to move it to another section as I feel it is too POV to be included in the intro, but my efforts thus far have been to no avail.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hebron vandal
I can do a CheckUser to find out, but I can't do it right now. If I forget, please remind me. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It turns out lots of different editors use even that small range of IPs. Sorry. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Lehi
Some prick at wikiquote removed the page, as well as some other pages that I created. Since I only know of the website through wikipedia it is probable that I didn't do somthing right I guess.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

lol

Qualification for the title intellectual
Hey zero, I was wondering what your position is on calling someone an "intellectual" in an article. I think isnce there really is no qualification per se then it should be avoided, and a less ambiguous alternative should be found like "scholar". Do you agree?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Do you think it would be okay if you readded the link to your talk page on your signature stamp?

Palestine map
"Nice map! However, all of Gaza is now administered by the Palestinian authority (since last year) so it should all be dark green."

Well, I did not draw "Palestine election map.PNG" map. This map is from Wikimedia Commons, and I just started its page on English Wikipedia and posted it into category "Palestine maps". Original map is posted on Wikimedia Commons and the person who created and uploaded this map is User:Astrokey44, so you should ask him to change the map. Here is the original page of this map on Wikimedia Commons:
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Palestine_election_map.PNG

PANONIAN  (talk)  20:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Chesin redirect to Mishael Cheshin
Hey Zero, When I first tried to create this stub I accidently mispelled "Mishael" "Michael", I fixed it but the old mispelled page still exists, how do I delete the wrong one. In case this was confusing let me just sum up- "Mishael Chesin" is the correct spelling Michael is the wrong one. Thanks- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Al Aqsa Intifada
People on both sides keep adding more and more POV images showing how bad the other side is. I deleted them because although I think pictures are great for an article it seems people started going overboard on this page. Of course some guy re-added one of them and in rapid succession they almost all returned. Do you think my initial action was justified and if so what should I do to ensure they stay out of the article?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Persian Jews
Hey Zero I was wondering if you know anything about Parthia. There are a couple of editors on the talk page insisting that the Parthian empire wasn't influenced by Helenism, which is quite silly if you realize their writing system was greek.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for the interesting and very relevant citacions you gave on Talk:Ben Dunkelman. You might be interested in checking out Haolam Hazeh, particularely this edit:. Regards, Huldra 19:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Israeli Arab transference from Israel
Your insights would be appreciated at Israeli Arab transference from Israel and its deletion page. -- Dissident (Talk) 23:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Here you go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fence_for_life - Now you cam learn about this grasroots movment and add your edits.

It was pitty you never heared of them before..... Zeq 13:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

PS Intersting material about their view about the Geneva convention was added.

Vrba
Didn't see any major ones. I'm popping it in now. Cheers. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 07:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Myths and Facts
Zero, I've seen you many times call this book "junk." If you want it not to be used as a source, please supply some articles by academics in that field who call it junk (or similar), so that we can consider what you say. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 09:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't say academics would cite it as a source. I asked whether there had been any serious reviews of it, and given how false and pernicious you say it is, I'd expect to find some reviews warning against it. Donald Neff is a journalist and the 2002 review you mentioned was in the Journal of Palestine Studies, published by the Institute for Palestine Studies, which we've discussed before as having been called the "academic wing" of the PLO by a State Dept official in 1982. The same issue that published the 2002 Neff review discusses the "dignity" of suicide bombers and how "nothing quite prepares you for the devastation" at Jenin.


 * Until you find someone with Bard's academic background and experience who agrees that it's junk or a poor source, it'll continue to be acceptable for Wikipedia. (I know of at least one major news organization that has handed Myths and Facts out to all its senior editors.) Alternatively, you could compile a list of what you see as its mistakes, and I'd be happy to go through it to determine whether they really are errors, or just differences of opinion.


 * As to whether I'd cite it myself, if I find reference A in reference B, I cite "A cited by B," until I've had a chance to look at A itself. But we can only request that editors do that; we can't insist, because the higher the citation standard we demand, the fewer citations we'll get of any standard. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * (excuse the interruption, but this is ridiculous) What some unnamed US official (hardly a reliable source regarding Palestinian politics) may have said about the JPS in 1982 is hardly relevant. It is a journal owned by the Insititute of Palestine Studies, an independent academic research centre with no links to the PLO. Name-calling by ill-informed foreign officials is hardly of any great interest. Palmiro | Talk 17:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Zero, I didn't say or imply that you'd stated an opinion about Neff, nor did I say or imply that I knew what your opinion was. Every time you respond, you set up a fresh strawman. My point is simply that, if you want to trash the book as a source, you need to provide evidence, either in the form of some trustworthy reviews, or in the form of a list of errors you believe he has made, so we can all check them out. It's hardly helpful just to keep on saying it's trash, and that you personally know what the entire community of historians the world over thinks about it, just because you can't find reviews. Absence of evidence isn't good enough. You have an exceptionally strong bias in this area, and a tendency to dismiss sources because you disagree with them. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but we need to see some good evidence that you're right, or it'll continue to be used as a source. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct, and because Bard has a Ph.D in a relevant field, and is a published author about the Middle East, he's regarded as a reliable source. That's all we have to show. If you want those credentials, exceptionally, to be insufficient, you have to provide evidence that the book is widely regarded as unreliable by people in a position to know. Alternatively, draw up a list of his errors (errors, not just differences of opinion) together with reliable sources showing that you're right and he's wrong, so that others can judge the merits of what you say. But the source can't be excluded based on a couple of editors' personal opinions. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Schmelz
Hi Zero,

I find it odd that your intrerpretation of Schmelz work is different from what others read into it. maybe you can bring exact quotes that support your understanding of the text ?

Thanks, Zeq 18:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is absolutely consistent, Zeq. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 18:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Zeq that some exact quotes from Schmelz to support Zero's interpretation of his work would be helpful. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  02:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But I don't see Zero interpreting anything, all he's doing is quoting Schmelz's figures on Arabs in Jerusalem/Hebron areas; that 5.2% of Muslims and 3.0% of Christians were born elsewhere in Palestine, and additionally that only 1.6 percent of Muslims and 3.6 percent of Christians surveyed were born outside Palestine. Schmelz goes on to break down this latter (born outside Palestine) group by country of birth. It's really quite simple, as I see it... Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 03:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't need to interpret anything but I did add together some numbers since Schmelz breaks down the figures into many categories. The full set of data given by Schmelz is in tabular form and so difficult to quote.  I decided to be naughty and upload the two required tables; please take your own copy because I'll have to delete them very soon for the obvious copyright reasons (see the slap I got below). I also uploaded [[media:SchmelzMap.png | a map showing the regions]].  To calculate the summary percentages I gave, you need to add together the values from [[media:SchmelzTab1.8.png | Table 1.8]] after weighting them by the population sizes ("full figures") given in [[media:SchmelzTab1.5.png | Table 1.5]].  Note the way Table 1.8 gives percentages, then expands a fraction into percentages of that fraction.  For example the first column (Muslims, Jerusalem City) involves 11,000 peope (Table 1.5), of which 78.0% were born in locality of residence.  Of the remaining 22.0% born outside the locality of residence, 7.5% (i.e. 7.5% of 22.0%) were born in Hebron city, and so on. Table 1.8 is the only place Asia, Africa and Turkey are mentioned quantitatively, so it's the only place Gottheil could have taken his numbers from. --Zerotalk 05:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SchmelzTab1.8.png
Thanks for uploading Image:SchmelzTab1.8.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Machsom Watch
Honestly I thought the generic description worked better. I think when you actually include the quote it makes it look kinda partisan. When it is summarized it looks less controversial. Are you pretty set on your version?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Your block of Zeq
It probably wasn't a good idea for you to do this because you're so often involved with him editorially. I'm going to take a look at the material he posted and I'll probably be reducing the block, depending on the seriousness of it. You're correct that an indefinite block for posting material like that can be warranted, but it rarely is after a first offense. I'm letting you know about this well in advance, because we're not supposed to undo another admin's blocks without a proper discussion, so please let me know if you have any thoughts. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem bus 2
Zero,

I agree with you that all must be remembered and that it is ugly what the Jerusalem municiplity has done.

The way to remember, all of them is the way we do it here in Wikipedia, we list  all  the names, without difference who is a jew or not a jew.

If you want to open an article about the Municiplaity of Jerusalem racist partices (there are many) be my guest. I am sure there are other municiplities and countries which behave in a racist way (toward Jews for example) which also desreve an article. I can give you example of such article was was the subject of a hot debate in wikipedia. Zeq 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
Hi! I know this is ages late, but it was only now that I noticed all the great historical info that was added to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. I wondered: Who did that? and it turned out to be you. Great job! It would be great to see more of the same for all the targumim. Dovi 18:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This edit summary
I know this is not the first time someone points this out to you:

 avoid making personal attacks in your edit summary 

Don't call other people work "trash" -  even if you disagree with them  you should respect other poeple edits and not insult  any wikipedia editor .

I am refering to this recent edit:

Zeq 19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Zeq on your insulting behavior. Just now on Zeq's talk page I saw this recent comment from you in which you said "I called it rubbish, not trash, but now that you mention it trash would be a fine description too. Like most of your edits."


 * Please do not make personal attacks on other editors. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please do not use the edit summary to attack another editor; Just describe what you did. These are not appropriate. They may be seen as personnal attacks and can quickly become disruptive: Tom Harrison Talk 13:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "rv pathetic labeling. this is not a toilet door."
 * "rv. Zeq has been vomitting on the article again."


 * Please be courteous to other users even if you disagree with their edits. Fred Bauder 12:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Zeq
Zeq is not an editor in good faith. He is an extremist with no redeeming features. In the case mentioned, Zeq claims that an article in Israel's most respected newspaper about the memorial to a massacre is not relevant to our article about the massacre. Does he really believe that? Could anyone really believe that? Of course he knows it is nonsense, but that newspaper article is damaging to his mission and has to be censored by any means possible. If the newspaper said things he likes he would would be copying paragraphs from it, unlike the very mild single-sentence summary I inserted. You are right that I should moderate my language, I agree with you on that. --Zerotalk 12:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * He is certainly a zionist, but as to redeeming features I would disagree. My dialog with him dates from his arbitration case, Requests for arbitration/Zeq, and I have found him willing to discuss matters in a reasonable way. That does not mean that I consider him to now be engaged in optimal editing. The link to the article was not good today, so I can't comment on that. I think you assume too much. You say, "Of course he knows it is nonsense". I think that, in fact, he does not know it is nonsense. But I do think he might listen to and understand a patient explanation presented in a courteous way. Now it may be that he will just get worse and probation, Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq, will have to be more and more vigorously enforced, but my hope is that he will gradually improve in his behavior. Keep in mind that "He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing." If that is necessary, please ask for it. Fred Bauder 13:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Terrorist categories
Hello again Zero, a number of editors have recently created a couple of categories that attempt to weasel around Words to avoid policy. I do not have a real problem when people mention in the article's body that a group has been accused of terrorism, but when a category is added it gives the impression that the accusation is more official. The two categories that I am aware of are: Category:Organizations accused of terrorism, and Category:Designated terrorist organizations. In my mind it might be okay to place such a category in an article about an Organization that is active internationally and whose goals follow a movement more than the achievment of a single goal such as the Jewish Defense League or Al Qaeda, but I do not think the categories are appropriate in such articles like Hamas, Irgun, or Hezbollah. Of course we really cannot create such subjective criteria so it seems to me that that the categories should be deleted as a violation of policy and for being excessvily divisive and inflammatory. What is your opinion on all of this? (Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg)
 * Categories like this leave me cold and I'd like to delete all of them. The chances of being able to do that is minimal alas.  If we have to have them, then we should use them accurately.  Lehi clearly fits "Organizations accused of terrorism" (it even called itself terrorist, in addition there are multiple governments, the mainstream Yishuv, and the world press who called it that), so it's hard to see a real choice there. I don't want to edit it (I'm not here!).  --Zerotalk 08:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Where have you been anyways?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Israel and the UN
Being subject to some considerable buffing and POV pushing - can you have a look please?

86.27.55.184 13:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Qana
Hi Zero, thanks for your message. The translation is quite relevant, but at the same time, that page is undergoing such continuous bombardment (no pun intended) at the moment that I would rather stay away for a few days until it (hopefully) dies down a little long enough for any serious new piece of information to stick. I saw that there was an attempt to provide the information in the translation but it got reverted, or deleted in the process of continuous rearrangement. Hopefully we can try again in a few days. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 20:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

warnning
Welcome back. You have been warned before not to belittle other people or their edit in your edit summary. You have also been warned not to remove sourced material and to make sure to follow NPOV so please fix this edit :  Zeq 17:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * thank you Zeq. Zero has now threatened to ban me. He said I use bad faith which is a wrong allegation, only because he disagrees with me politically. Amoruso 16:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR
You have violated WP:3RR on Faisal-Weizmann Agreement. Amoruso 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

you have also violated No personal attacks by calling users that they don't have a clue. Amoruso 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian refugee >> Palestinian people
Merge? -Ste|vertigo 03:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Un SC 242 article
Zero0000, the second part of the French representative's quote has resulted in an exchange between Ian Pitchford and me on our respective personal talk pages and within the talk page of the article that you may (or may not) be interested in taking a look at. My most recent message to him began "I have reconsidered your inclusion of the quote and now agree that it is relevant because the speaker actually explicitly drew the linkage himself; I admit that I did not originally focus on the manifest explicitness of this linkage"  --Just so you know. Thanks for your contributions to this issueDasondas 16:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It was for you
No, the comment was for you, in response to yours above it: "What counts in history is investigation, not repetition." What counts in Wikipedia is repetition, not investigation. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 10:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rashid Khalidi
Hi Zero0000, you might be interested in some of the editing on this page. I'm afraid I don't have the time or inclination myself, unfortunately. Palmiro | Talk 20:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

1948 arab-israeli war
Hello. Your mind is welcome on the talk page of this article concerning a rename. Thanks. Alithien 18:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Revisionist Zionism
Talk:Revisionist Zionism: Can you understand what is going on here? Amoruso's explanations are doing nothing to alleviate my confusion. - Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Fraid there's nothing to understand. Amoruso is here as a self-appointed representative of Etzel and Lehi.  He is not interested in Wikipedia rules or processes.  --Zerotalk 11:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly interested in staring into Amoruso's soul. I'm interested in understanding the purported reason for the removal of material. It seems to me that significant, well-cited information has been removed from the article. People are allowed to hold opinions, even extreme opinions, even repellent opinions, and remain active in Wikipedia. But it does not exempt them from the usual rules about editing articles. He has removed material that appeared to me to be well cited. He has given what at least has the form of a rationale doing so, but I literally don't understand his stated rationale. I'm not that interested in his deep motivations: I'm interested in whether the stated rationale is comprehensible to someone; I'm assuming good faith, but I've given up on his ability to explain his rationale in terms I will understand. Since you were also involved in the discussion, I was hoping that you might be tracking better than I. - Jmabel | Talk 16:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Remain Civil
It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. These allegations that accuse me of bad faith and personal attacks are not allowed on wikipedia. Thank you. Amoruso 22:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have repeatedly asked user Amoruso to show solid proof for his accusations that Bernadotte did not want jews on the White buses. If he does not provide solid references he should remove the allegations. If neither is done - I suggest we forward it to an admin so she/he can take care of it. Ulflarsen 09:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your threats are out of line and your abuse of power and false allegations are simply outrageous. The person who blanked material on the page is you. Your attempt to make content disuptes into something else is extreme bad faith and you should be banned for that behaviour. Amoruso 04:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Palestine
Hey, you reverted my attempt to stop deletion of what I considered a useful edition by another person to the Palestine article. I considered your edit summary a little rude, to be honest. I have looked through your edits and seen that you only seem to contribute to articles on very related topics ... please could you NOT just revert my edits to fit your own POV. Can we at least discuss if you really do disagree. I know I'm a new wikipedian but I am perfectly willing to engage! Thanks! --SandyDancer 01:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Here you are SandyDancer accusing another editor of POV, something you condemn me for on the George Galloway page. Zero0000, I advise you to take SandyDancers' comments with a large pinch of salt. MarkThomas 10:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your help is wanted
On the Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page, there are some serious disagreements right now regarding the NPOV policy. I'm trying to get as many people as I can engaged in editting this page to siphen out the garbage.

A student of history 05:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Palestine Navigation box

 * Have created a template for Palestinian related stuff Template:Palestine. Hopefully it will connect a lot of the articles out there and make it easier to navigate. Please help! See talk page Template_talk:Palestine Pockets23 15:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict
I notice that you had effectively failed to join WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict because of the involvement of User:OneVoice. Since he has not edited in over two years, I assume he has effectively left Wikipedia. - Jmabel | Talk 22:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

New_Historians: Hatchet-job edit
Your comments would be welcome at Talk:New_Historians. - Jmabel | Talk 18:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Francisco Gil-White
Hey Zero, I saw your an accusation that you levied at User:Ryan4 about being one and the same with Gil-White. I decided to do a little detective work and came to the conclusion that you were actually completely correct in your assertion. "Ryan" seems to have written almost the entire article about White, in fact the only people besides him that did anything to the article besides routine administrative stuff were anons who seemed to have a remarkably similar pov to Ryan. When I looked over the talk page I saw that Ryan had presented "E-mail correspondance" he carried on with White whenever it suited him. A few admins had talked about deleting the article but nothing ever came of it. I was wondering if you might consider helping me launch the afd if your interested?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Irgun and Lehi
Amoruso thinks this should be two categories (and put it up for deletion). I created the category and think it should be one, but I'm not absolutely married to the idea. I'd welcome your opinion (or anyone's really, this shouldn't be a particularly partisan issue). &mdash;Ashley Y 08:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, never mind... &mdash;Ashley Y 09:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Palestinian exodus
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. 200.21.85.205 12:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR Warning for Deir Yassin massacre
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Avi 14:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Zero may be suffering frustration that good material is being systematically excised from this article, while rubbish is being inserted in its place. Nasty revisionist material, since nobody really doubts that this was an attack on a friendly village and the dead were very largely non-combatants.
 * And the statements brought to "defend" these actions are often totally ahistorical, from laughably biased commentators (and in this case, an open supporter of ethnic cleansing) eg:
 * Emanuel Winston, a Middle East analyst and commentator, wrote: ... This Arab village in 1948 sat in a key position high on the hill controlling passage on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem road. Those villagers were no different than other nearby Arab villagers who were heavily armed, hostile and aggressive. They also hosted a battle group from the Iraqi army. They had incessantly attacked Jewish convoys trying to supply food and medical supplies to Jerusalem which was under siege and cut-off by Arab armies in linkage with those same villagers. They were killing many Jews. Deir Yassin was a staging area for the villagers and regular army from various Arab armies. They were not innocents as proclaimed by the Arab nations or the Jewish Revisionists.
 * Why people would wish to post such nonsense is a complete mystery - unless, of course, they are trying to conceal crimes from which they themselves are benefitting, similar to crimes they themselves have committed.
 * PalestineRemembered 18:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Zero0000, there is often tag team reverting waring with quick reporting if you take the bait. Sometimes it can seem as if it is designed to anger you and thus discredit you -- it is best to avoid revert wars. --Deodar 07:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Zero, I don´t know if you have noticed, but Isareg have reported you here, good luck, Huldra 08:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't know and didn't realise about 3RR. Oh well, I can use a break. --Zerotalk 08:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup needed for the section "Demographics in the late Ottoman and British Mandate periods"
I'm not entirely sure what the protocol is for the request for sysop moderation here, but this seems to be it. There are irreconcilable viewpoints in [Talk:Palestine], subsection Cleanup needed for the section "Demographics in the late Ottoman and British Mandate periods" that you are familiar with. This article needs moderation, and, hopefully, this is the right place to ask. Thank you Wood345 22:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hebron 1927
The whole thing took 8 hours. Saw that in the museum there in Hebron. About the rape, they where gang rapes but dont have to include for the tznius sheboi, wtvr. The British Policeman, I will be writing in article killed tens of arabs. His weapons are displayed in the Museam there in Hebron. Chavatshimshon 12:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop stalking
It's a breach of wiki policy. Amoruso 15:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Zero
Please keep in mind that there are rules in Wikipedia and you are not above them. Removing sourced info, a photo which is important is a clear violation - you don't want to end up with arbcom again and again and again. so please play by th rules. Zeq 19:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 04:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC).

Advice
Hi Zero --

I've apparently pissed off the group at the Zionism page now enough that they're following me around and reverting what I do. I'm guessing you may have experience with this: how do you deal with it? This strikes me as utterly bizarre. I wasn't insulting them; I've tried speaking on their talk pages, but they won't respond. See Folke Bernadotte. Can one request mediation? Their brazeness suggests to me I don't have a solution. Please let me know. Thanks! Mackan79 00:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I agree mediation isn't necessary on the Bernadotte page; thanks for adding that additional information.  As far as the Zionism page, is it just that it doesn't seem like a big deal, or that mediation on a page like that is generally fruitless?  I gather you try to avoid squabbles; I'm just somewhat curious, because it seems there's a lot of subtle and not-so-subtle bias in many of these pages, which I'd like to try to address, but I'm not sure if I'll simply be thwarted at every turn.  I'd also add I seem to be in a pretty similar situation as you, not being tied to any of the groups (well, except the Swedes), and without any political axe to grind, but simply being of the opinion that the articles would be a lot better and more useful without the POV.  Do you find it's simply not possible to address the subtle stuff, or perhaps its just better to avoid all contentious situations?  Unfortunately, that would seem to put a page like Zionism off limits.  Sorry for the long questions, but it seems like you know the environment pretty well. Mackan79 19:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One other thing: SlimVirgin has reported me for 3RR based on the Folke Bernadotte page. Since you probably know as much about it as anyone, and if it's something you do, please feel free to comment there.  Thanks, Mackan79 00:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Israeli official historiography
Post-Zionist and palestinian historians claim the "traditional Israeli historiography" didn't explain the events the way they happen. "Official Israeli historians" (who were maybe more propagandists than historians) built an history for these events. Right. They are many references for this in first quality scholar's works. As a consequence, isn't their point of view an important information to add to an article. Not to claim that what they say is (or may be) true but only to underline what they say and permits he readers to understand precisely the "size of their (alleged) lie"... I think Katz, Schechtman and other propagandists' pov would deserve a place in all these controversed articles but in a special section : "Israeli official history". Their Pov could be given and critics of their pov from other historians too. As I think I wrote some months ago (but without echo) :
 * if what they claim is (maybe) not true, it is true that it is what they claim.

This information deserves numerous lines in the articles because this is what all Israeli citizens and most western people learned unless they studied the matter deeply. Any comment ? Alithien 09:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. So you agree but doubt the other will agree :-).
 * Note these are not new historians such as Shlaim or Pappé but the historians you gave me are quite newer than Schechtman or Katz. But you are right anyway. This is the "old" official israeli point of view.
 * something else : I would not locate Gelber with Shapira. I think he is closer to Morris and together they took some distances with Pappé & all the Palestinian historians.
 * From what you know about the 1880-1950 conflict, is there an interesting point not developed by Morris, Pappé, Gelber, Shlaim, R Khalidi, W. Khalidi, Shapira or Karsh ? I mean, do you have some book to advice me that would bring something from somebody else ? Thanks. (NB: I advice you Henry Laurens but he only writes in French. Alithien 18:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested..
..in this:. Note User:Steve Hart "collection" of diffs. Also, on Naeim Giladi certain familiar editors continue to insert ref. to neo-nazi sites, Regards, Huldra 19:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikilogos
I thought you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Village_pump_(proposals) and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 08:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Qibya massacre
Hi. In the article it is written the operation was named shoshana operation by IDF. I doubt this. Did you hear about that ? Alithien 20:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Zero. Thank you for your answer !
 * I found the answer to the question. That was the name : Alithien 10:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Joke
"palestine remebered" as a WP:RS - good joke. btw, I heared that ... well never mind. Zeq 14:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)