User talk:Zero0000/2012

Nomination of Azzam Pasha quotation for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Azzam Pasha quotation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Azzam Pasha quotation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem
Hi, I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs)

Proposed deletion of Azzam Pasha quotation


The article Azzam Pasha quotation has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Same material appears in Azzam Pasha article

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Geewhiz (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Mandate
Hi Zero, i'm not sure if you were the original creator of but i wanted to discuss something with you.

As you can see here Talk:Transjordan, I believe this image is very misleading. It propagates confusion and misunderstanding which has been used by some elements to suggest that the Balfour declaration was originally applicable to TransJordan. You may fine that absurd, but I have seen it used both in wikipedia discussions and outside (e.g. a popular video on youtube called "Debunking the Palestine lie").

With respect to the image, this picture never existed in reality:
 * The area which the Mandate document referred to was never governed as a single entity. All de facto aspects of the governance of British controlled area was through two separate governments right from the start, when Abdullah I of Jordan was made Emir in 1921 following the end of the Franco-Syrian War. Britain never militarily controlled Transjordan, as is clear from Hansard discussions in 1921 - the Arab legion was employed by the Emir.
 * The Mandate as a legal document was drawn up as one document for the whole British area, irrespective of the number of territories it was to be divided in to. The same approach was used for the French mandate to the North, which was also intended to be governed in two or more pieces. It is likely that the only reason that the mandate title didn't include the words "Palestine and TransJordan" (mirroring Syria and Lebanon) is because the word TransJordan hadn't been formalised yet as it had not yet been agreed exactly where the Eastern border of Palestine would be (e.g. apparently Herbert Samuel was still trying to get Aqaba in to Palestine, despite his speech at Es-Salt in Aug 1920).
 * In addition to never being governed as a single entity, as Article 25 shows and supported by copious records of the discussions at the time, it was also the clear intention and understanding of all that the Mandate area was to be governed in two territories going forward.
 * As you know, the Mandate did not become legally binding until 1923, after TransJordan had already been split, so the picture suggests a formality which was not in fact the case
 * The South of the country (Aqaba and Ma'an) were part of the Kingdom of Hijaz until 1925, and the Eastern border with Saudi Arabia had not been agreed at this time, as article 25 also makes clear. (see also . So the picture is anachronistic

The map showing both countries suggests some kind of Federal setup, with the whole being called "British Mandate for Palestine". This is the most important misleading aspect, as there was never a "country or territory" with this makeup, only a "document".

In summary, I think the picture should be deleted, and all references to this confusion between the name of the territory(ies) and the name of the document should be clarified throughout wikipedia. What do you think? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a terrible map, especially the lack of a boundary between the two parts. I'm yet to see a good map that shows actual boundaries as they appeared at different times.  Zerotalk 11:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I found two very interesting things - (1) Yitzhak Shamir wrote an article in 1982 which included the claim that Jordan was 77% of Palestine - you can see from google books how this spurious statement has multiplied and evolved ever since; (2) I found a couple of maps which show clearly which borders were agreed and which were not during the critical period 1920-22. The sources are shown here Talk:British Mandate for Palestine. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Josef Mengele and other articles
Hi Zero0000, I've run into an issue with User:Mystichumwipe at Josef Mengele and a couple of other articles. I think my assessments of the issues and situation are reasonable, but he has accused me of bias and is asking for outside eyes to look at it. I know we often disagree on issues, but I believe you to be honest and fair; would you mind taking a look? Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for commenting. Jayjg (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could I ask you to read my response.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josef_Mengele#Why_do_survivor_accounts_of_.22a_gentle.2C_affable_man.22_keep_getting_deleted.3F
 * What we now have is that a sentence has been included of which a part of has been deleted purely because it contains a positive assessment from eye witnesses. MANY twins DID give interviews in which they described Mengele only as "a gentle and affable man" who befriended them, etc. This is a statement of fact, do you agree so far?  To include a sentence that then goes on to explain that positive assessment  but then to delete  the positive opinion itself, how is that NOT censorship? How is the reader allowed to be informed and decide for themself with this deletion?


 * Here is the original source: Many recalled his friendly manner towards them, his gifts of chocolates and they described him as a gentle, affable man who befriended them and became a sort of father figure to them. The older ones "recognized his kindness as a deception - yet another of his perverse experiments to test (our) mental endurance.


 * Here is the current article version: Many recalled his friendly manner towards them, and his gifts of chocolates. The older ones "recognized his kindness as a deception--yet another of his perverse experiments to test (our) mental endurance."


 * He himself claimed "I personally have not killed, injured or caused bodily harm to anyone." And here are eye witness accounts (plural) that on the face of it support that, which are being deleted. By all means include the 2ndary sources explanation for that anomoly. But surely we have to also include that anomoly itself!? As I see it, to not do so goes against Wiki presenting information neutrally and without bias.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Zero0000,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Safed Plunder
Hello Zero, I just wanted to know if you're claiming the Safed Plunder and other massacres carried out upon the indigenous pre-Zionist Jews of Israel or theOld Yishuv by the Muslim Arabs who take over the area did not happen? Also, if you do not have an agenda why can other genocide or massacres be mentioned within any other nation's history but not so-called Palestine's. DionysosElysees talk 09:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Reuters articles on Bernadotte assassination
I could be totally wrong, and this is a long shot anyhow, but I believe some eight years ago you added citations to the Folke Bernadotte article, both 1995 articles sourced to Reuters. They were "Israel belatedly condemns U.N. negotiator's murder" and "Israel tries to ease tensions with Sweden". I'm currently writing a research paper on the Bernadotte assassination and its consequences, and those two articles would be extremely helpful if I could just find a primary or secondary source that isn't Wikipedia. This is a big favor, but if you still have a source location on hand, could you let me know? Or if you can maybe just steer me in the right direction? Thanks. GallowsMaker (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Send me email and I'll send them to you. Zerotalk 10:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. GallowsMaker (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited East Jerusalem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Evans (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) 11:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ... what's next?
Hi, Zero. Thanks for your comment on []. Now that user:Uishaki's edits have been established as incorrect, can i simply go back and revert the vandalized pages? that wouldn't be construed as an "edit war", would it? Cheers, Kamran the Great (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

1834 Safed pogrom
Hello Zero0000. in this comment you mention reverting yourself because it was not yet 24 hours. Is it your impression that this article falls under the ARBPIA 1RR? This question is of interest because there is a current AE request which complains about editing of 1834 Safed pogrom by someone who is under a topic ban from ARBPIA. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no ARBPIA banner on that page, but it seemed to me that there was at least a good chance it would be included so I reverted myself on the "better safe than sorry" principle. On reflection, articles about Arab-Jewish violence in the past few centuries should be included in ARBPIA because many current protagonists in that conflict regard it as an episode in the same story. Also, more or less the same set of Wikipedia editors will be involved so the need for the 1RR dampener is there.  On the other hand, I don't think the inclusion of 1834 Safed pogrom in ARBPIA is so obvious that someone couldn't have an honest disagreement on it. Rachel's tomb, however, is obviously included. Zerotalk 00:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11
Hi. When you recently edited Defence (Emergency) Regulations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lehi (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) 11:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

JCPA
Has it been established that JCPA is an unreliable source? I'd be very surprised if that were the case.—Biosketch (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A diatribe by a political opponent comes nowhere near the requirements of WP:BLP. Besides that, the quote it gives from Haaretz is ambiguous on whether Tibi or the crowd said the alleged words while the report in the article was not ambiguous. Zerotalk 14:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Jewish tribes of Arabia
Hello

It would be nice if you could give your participation on the above article.

As you can see at Talk:Jewish tribes of Arabia, an user keeps reverting and inserting
 * (1) claims that some Arabian Jewish tribes were Sadducces, while the received scholarship is that Sadducceism died out after the fall of Jerusalem;
 * (2) A prophetic, hence teleological interpretation of history cannot be falsifiable, therefore it is unscientific and non-historical.

I've resquested a Third Opinion, and it would be nice if you could mediate that.

Thanks --Francatrippa (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Yummy! Thanks. Zerotalk 11:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Land without for people without
I accept that my addition is, strictly speaking, a violation of Wikipedia's ban on original research, but you surely agree that it is trivially obvious the British view of South Africa was identical: unpopulated', so we can move there". Anyway, I won't add it back unless I ever find an acceptable source that makes the point. Best etc. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. When you recently edited Kfar Kama, 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) 11:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Al Husseini's birth
Could you possibly check Mattar over the next few months, to see what he has to say about the ex-Mufti's year of birth? I note, while correcting the lead, that there is a question mark as to the pages in Mattar dealing with this. In anticipation, thanks Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (I didn't even need to get out of my chair...) Mattar on p6 writes 1895, but in the endnote on p156 he says that it can't be pinned down. In 1921 and 1923 Amin wrote 1896 on visa applications, and between 1926 and 1934 he wrote 1895 on passport applications.  Mattar suggests that the difference might be due to the fact that the Islamic year 1313 A.H. spans both 1895 and 1896 (starting June 24, 1895) so Amin might have been correcting a mistake in calendar conversion when he changed from 1896 to 1895.  Mattar also notes two other years (1893 used by some biographers, and 1897 used by Amin later in life) but says he couldn't find any documentary evidence for them. Zerotalk 02:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 21:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Re: Jewish Legion
Hi Zero0000! Thank you for working on the article. It's something I've always wanted to do but didn't dare because of lack of time and not so good knowledge (as opposed to topics like the War of Independence). I agree that the Zion Mule Corps could have its own article—it would make sense to separate that from the rifle units. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Shaw report
Hi Zero, was wondering if you had any idea where I could get a copy of the Shaw report for the 1929 Palestine riot article. I would have thought it would be available somewhere as it is a government document, but I haven't been able to find it. Even google books will not let me look at the a preview. Any ideas appreciated. Dlv999 (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Check your email after about 30 mins. Zerotalk 22:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, much appreciated. Dlv999 (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

1929 Palestine riots
I make no attempts at concealing that I am interested in presenting the Israeli view in this article. That being said, I try to operate in accordance with Wiki policy, and I have reverted my edits, and will continue to do so, where I infringe upon this. I simply do not understand your concerns regarding the "Bregman 6+110" and politely request that you expand upon it. I sourced the figures to three different sources, in response to your "isolated tertiary source" claim. I have accepted altering the language to accommodate the Shaw report "inconsistencies" which says 7 and not 6. Can you please elaborate on the contradictions, which you feel have been ignored, and I assure you I will not neglect your POV. Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  14:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Zero, there is a discussion at WP:RSN you may well be interested in. Dlv999 (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Stern, Stamp, Morton

 * Hi Zero, I've commented on the talk page. I can't shed any real light on this, as my wife's grandmother had already been taken out of the flat when Stern was shot, so is not in a position to assess who is telling the truth here. I can find the Black article online, but Guardian articles before 1999 are archived behind a paywall so I cannot access it. RolandR (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

RSN
Would you mind taking a look at this section of WP:RS? Its been without a response for a pretty long time. Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

1929 Palestine riots is being discussed at AE
Hello Zero0000. I notice that you were part of the discussion on this article. Currently it's at AE, per Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Though the AE has not mentioned you at all, if you choose to do so, it would be helpful if you would add your own comment just to explain what this whole dispute is about. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"I do not have a personal connection, either by family, descent, or religion, with the people and places I write about in Wikipedia."
I believe you; thousands wouldn't. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

1847 in Jurasalem
I actually found that there was case of blood libel in 1847 here is more descriptive account  do you have this book?It maybe included in blood libel article.--Shrike (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of maps
Hi Zero0000,

You made a few comments regarding Using maps and similar sources in wikipedia articles. I have added some new material and would appreciate yopur comments. Martinvl (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Given your objection
Given your objection of 13:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC) to a particular editor who's decorating his user page with a selective quotation from one of your comments, perhaps you might like to search AN/I for "19:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)" where the same editor is again citing the same passage. His choice to again use your comment as some kind testimonial or blanket refutation of bias seems very poor practice, given that you'd already objected to such use. The more so, still, since the comments you made are largely about his misuse of sources to push a POV, which is precisely the same thing he stands accused of in the AN/I thread. --OhioStandard (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)    page temporarily watchlisted

Atlas
Could please explain why it not reliable.Routlege is academic press house as far as I know.--Shrike (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a popular tertiary source that can't be relied on for details. The information it provides is severely constrained by the format (only room for a few sentences on each topic) so it is simplified way too much for our purposes.  You can see it yourself in this page where it says the Arabs were killed by the police, but in every detailed account you will find that both the police and military were responsible (there is no dispute over that at all).  This encyclopedia wrote "police" instead of "police and military" because it was simpler and took up less space.  We should be basing Wikipedia articles on sources that are more detailed than our own article, not on sources that are simplified to a level well below our article. Zerotalk 15:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Apology
No need to apologize and I apologize to you for casting dispersion over your research methods.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
' Ankh '. Morpork  10:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And another.' Ankh '. Morpork  23:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

test
test

Talkback
Shrike (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Nazareth
Hello Zero. I'm trying to do things properly here, though I'm a novice at Wiki. However, I have the information someone has asked for about the slope of the hill at Nazareth. The allegation is that the information is fabricated. Please see talk pages of Guy Macon and Sean Hoyland. I'll send the scan to whoever wants to see it. Thank youRenejs (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Mughrabi
Could you send me Israeli rights group blasts army over boy's death. Reuters News, 14:38, 14 November 2001.? Also see User:Nableezy/sandbox. Ive re-written most of it, pretty much everything before the "According to B'tselem's report" in the B'tselem section is new.  nableezy  - 16:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In your mailbox. Zerotalk 02:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Maps
I have wanted to update User:Huldra/HA with the Syrian places, alas, I have a problem in that I don´t have any good maps over the area. Do you know of any (online)? More specifically, now, the place Najran, Syria...is it the one mentioned on p.218? An alternative is to find my way to the Department of Geography here (still don´t know where it is, but there is one!), and hopefully they have some good maps. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Check your mail. Cheers. Zerotalk 10:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! Not as good as Palestine/Israel1942-59 -maps, but fine enough to identify the HA-places. Which is all I need, Cheers, and thanks again! Huldra (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Zero, is it possible to email the Hutteroth map to me as well? Thanks a lot! Yazan (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I need your email address. If you send me mail using the link on the left, I'll reply with the map. Zerotalk 08:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am in some doubt about Al-Hirak, Syria,  I wonder if it is a case like  Beit Sahour; that the modern town encompass two old villages. In this case al-Harak al-Garbi and  Harak as-Sarqi,  that is:  mz46  and mz51, both on p.  213 in HA. I am using maps  Souida200K  and  ni-37-13-as_suwayda-syria-jordan. Care to take a look? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, the grid references (Levant grid) given by HA place Harak as-Sarqi at the center of modern al-Hirak, and al-Harak al-Garbi 2km to the west. Don't Garbi and Sarqi mean West and East?  I forget.  I don't know if the modern city is large enough to include the al-Harak al-Garbi site; maybe Google Earth will tell.  I just found that I have access to two editions of the 1:50,000 Levant map that HA refer to, but only on paper.  I'll take a look next week if I can.  Meanwhile, I think it is fine to report that HA list those two villages, without stating anything explicit about how they are related to the modern city. Zerotalk 07:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks!
 * Just for comparison: Baqa al-Gharbiyye is the western (inside -48) while Baqa ash-Sharqiyya is the "eastern" (inside -67). I leave it until you have had a chance to check about Al-Hirak. Both al-Harak al-Garbi and  Harak as-Sarqi are 7+-places.  If you are going to check; could you also take a look at Al-Harra, Syria (≈mz1, p. 207) and Tell Shihab? They both give me a head-ache....
 * Also, eventually, I think we should also do the Jordan-1596-villages; when you look at an article like Huwwarah (=likely a 1596-village), one can see it is needed. Alsas, for that we need the Jordan-maps...Hint, hint. (No hurry: it is not exactly as if I am running out of work!) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have the Jordan 250K maps used by HA. Busy downloading and joining... I'll be sending you a new map collection in a few days. Zerotalk 09:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I got distracted, but how is the map-project going? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, there seems to be a mixup between Tuqu' and Tekoa (ancient town). Should not the 1596-data go into Tuqu'?  And I´m not sure it should be 2 articles, Kh. Tuqu is clearly part of  Tuqu'? Huldra (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Qana
I am not sure what is going on but I don't think its improvement.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your latest removal in list of Jewish villiages depopulated
Huaran was an area that had been depopulated (including 8 villages) Naharaim and Tal Or miss the info on the English wikipedia but have that info in the hebrew wikipedia (and I add reliable source in the comment).

Huaran have that info in the page itself.109.226.49.34 (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Your English is so bad that your edits are almost incomprehensible. You should desist. Zerotalk 18:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As you suggested I stop for a while (also reverted allmy work here in order not to trouble the other editors).109.226.49.34 (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Rs in Huaran page
I checked with the RS from Golan page and it stated the same "n 1921–1930, during the French Mandate, the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PICA) obtained the deeds to the Rothschild estate and continued to manage it, collecting rents from the Arab peasants living there.[57] In 1944, the Syrian Land Settlement Campaign refused to recognize the foreign owned PICA as the legal owners of the land and the Syrian government confiscated it without compensation on the grounds that "it was contrary to Syrian policy to allow Jews to own land in Syria."[57] The JNF still lays claim to the land.[57]" , in the edit you have reverted that but why ? (the book stated in 1944 and not between 1944 and 1948)109.226.49.34 (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't even give the same page number, so why does that make your edit valid? In any case the Golan page misquotes Fishbach as well and I'll fix it. Zerotalk 18:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

 * To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

'''This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!'''

Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.
 * Background

Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.

An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.


 * Progress so far

Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.

As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)

Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.

Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:
 * Proposed changes

1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum. 2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Dispute resolution.
 * Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN.
 * Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum.
 * Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum.
 * Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee.
 * Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise.
 * Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired?
 * This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
 * It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
 * If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
 * The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
 * Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
 * Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
 * Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.

3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

al-Husseini
Hi Zero0000,

Regarding this, it is indeed what they claim but in no case, it should be in that article and they don't make the link. I don't know if you read this book but the authors don't make any comment on the fact it was a 12-people unit. That is not much to claim the intent of perpetrating a genocide. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible error
Hey Zero!

I was wondering whether you meant to make this edit. Your edit summary says "rm cat, no support for this in the article," but as far as I could tell, you did not remove a category. Instead, you added information to the "part of." While I don't object to the edit, I'm wondering whether you meant to make this, or something else. Thanks. -- Jethro  B  23:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed you reverted now, but then reverted that, writing that something strange is going on. What's happening?  In my window, it appears that you reverted after I notified you about this, and then self-reverted that b/c of something strange. Is there a bug maybe with your editing window? I've been having some Wiki problems as well. -- Jethro   B  02:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just got your message on my talk page, I'll respond there. -- Jethro  B  02:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Languages
I know man; it is my way of attracting attention to some mistakes... Thank and best wishes. --E4024 (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: image
A wikimedia administrator will remove the image if the source isn't reliable. Until then, the image stays.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ' Ankh '. Morpork  14:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification of impending report
Did you read the policy pages WP:BURDEN and WP:Consensus that I referred you to? I suggest you also read WP:PERSONAL, since I see at Talk:League of Nations mandate a large number of personal insults directed at other editors. In my opinion as a Wikipedia administrator for many years, you have broken the rules beyond the point where action should be taken to prevent you from continuing. I very much dislike filing reports against other editors, but that's what I'm going to do if you don't start obeying the rules. Zerotalk 22:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I know these rules. Futhermore, I didn't insult anyone in the talk. But, if you realy read this talk, you will see other editors say that I was "racist", "arabophob", "extremist", just because I was not agree with they... We can not have serious discussion with people like you. And now you threaten me because you think that I "insult" somebody? Well, where? Maybe because I'm not agree with you? I hope you're jocking...
 * Whatever, this discussion doesn't interest me. I prefer to speak in the Talk:League of Nations mandate --FireJeff (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "You obsession to invent a right for Arabs reveals your malicious purpose" and similar remarks are personal attacks. You can criticise an argument that someone makes, or a source that they bring, but you cannot charge someone with malicious purposes.  Meanwhile, since you think David Singer should be cited and the ICJ not cited, you should also read WP:NPOV, which is one of the core policies of Wikipedia that you are severely violating. Zerotalk 09:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, don't you read Gotip's speech? It was clearly antisemitic, speaking about "zionism conspiracy" (like "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion"). He said that my opinion was "absurd" and "extremist", that my sources were "extremists", "racists, "obsessed with Arabs", "an genocidal mania", and "an absurdum narrative", making me pass to arabophobe (or islamophobe).
 * So, don't try to be the "devil's advocate". I just answer to Gotip's attacks, which are forbidden by wikipedia rules! Gotip's purpose is clear : he want to remove the Jewish right to create a Jewish State in Palestine, and gives this right to the Arabs (named today "Palestinians"), by using Arab propaganda close to Hamas and Hezbollah. This means the destruction of Israel. How can you believe people like this?
 * Futhermore, if you read the article, you will see that the ICJ is quoted (Paragraph 70 in the ICJ Advisory Opinion, July 9, 2004).
 * Regards --FireJeff (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Gotip crossed the line too, that much I agree with. Many editors don't know how to handle serious rule violators and start misbehaving themselves.  Oh, and read WP:OWN too.  It is really quite impossible that your fringe version of this matter can stick in the article.  Sooner or later it will reflect the mainstream view in accordance with the rules.  If someone (like me) files a report against you, you don't have a chance. This is my honest opinion based on more than 10 years of experience. You should give up. Zerotalk 11:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw that you remove the original article to yours. But if you can't accept a wiki's article with only the Eli Hertz's analysis, I can't accept an article with only you're opinion. You said before that you will rewrite the article to add my sources, but you change nothing!!! Your modification didn't say that somes sources prove Palestine was not a Class A mandate, which is a "sui generis" mandate (in comparison with Syria, Libanon, Mesopotamia), where paragraph 4 of Article 22 was not applied... Futhermore, you don't respect wiki's rules, because you threaten me to impose your biase opinion. Well, it's not working. And I will never accept your biased article, with only the anti-israeli opinion. Because of this, the neutrality of the article is still disputed, and I will add my sources soon as possible. --FireJeff (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Workshop on Wikipedia and the Middle East
Hi Zero0000, I noticed that you edit a lot of articles about the Middle East and I'm organising a workshop for a group of researchers from the University of Oxford and the American University of Sharjah, about representation of the Middle East and North Africa region on Wikipedia. We held a workshop in Cairo for Wikipedians in October 2012 to discuss barriers to participation on Arabic Wikipedia. Our next workshop will be taking place in Amman, Jordan on the 26th-27th January 2013. We have funds to pay for participants' travel, accommodation and food. This workshop will concentrate more specifically on the representation of parts of the MENA region on Wikipedia and the ability of local editors to contribute to those representations. We are therefore looking for participants who edit articles about the MENA region (can be places, local historical or current events, local people etc.) We wanted to invite you because we noticed you have been involved in editing about contentious topics in the region and would really value your input. If you want to know more about this workshop, please contact me on wikiproject@oii.ox.ac.uk. Many thanks, Clarence (Project Manager)--OIIOxford (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mandatory Palestine
Please comment on that. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)