User talk:Zero0000/2014

Kudos
You caught unsourced OR that had been in the Fundamentalism article since 2010 that the rest of us overlooked and thought was sourced. I still think this point ("A criticism of fundamentalism is the claim that fundamentalists are selective in what they believe.") needs to be brought out but it sourced from some critic of religion. Alatari (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:NPOV
Notifies you to update your comments on Template talk:NPOV since the debate continues. Thanks --14.198.220.253 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Suess 1967 paper
Hi -- I just noticed at WP:REX that you sent me the 1967 paper; I never received it, for some reason. Could you resend it? Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sent it again just now. Zerotalk 21:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Quote of 1st sources
Hello,

I may have not understood what you wrote but per my understanding you say we can quote a 1st source, such as memoirs, if we precise according to whom it is claimed.

If this is what you say, I don't agree fully. From my point of view we cannot as automatically quote a 1st source because we don't know if what we read is notorious and representative of the feeling of the author.

The memoirs and speecheds of the Mufti are a good examples. We can find contradictions between them and the interpretation can be sometimes very strong. We should only quote 1st sources when it was checked by historians that :
 * the quote is relevant of the global thinking of the author, eg that he didn't say the exact contrary or nuanced this at other times ;
 * the thinking is notorious enough and it has enough due weight to be quoted, eg quoting somebody who once in his life said something whereas he is very notorious for many other things (eg Einstein on the Zionism).

We can quote 1st sources with full confidence if :
 * the notoriaty and the relevance is proven by a secondary source;

Else, we can quote them with high care if we have checked by ourselves the author didn't say the contrary or if we can fairly conclude it is notorious for him. We can, but this is obviously WP:OR given we didn't find the 2nd source confirming our own (maybe true) deduction.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=592616490 your edit] to Woodhead Commission may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * * Woodhead Commission report

Re: Amudanan
Hi Zero,

Thanks for the update! It looks indeed like a better map, even if it's already outdated. The map is from the Israel Mapping Center ("Survey of Israel").

I am quite certain that the map is from 2011.

Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 19:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding terms
Hi. You made changes related to the subdistricts of Mandatory Palestine so I want to tell you that the usage of the terms is discussed at Talk:Subdistricts of Mandatory Palestine. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Haaretz
A dispute resolution resolution request has been filed regarding an issue you have been involved with. Dlv999 (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- PLNR (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2014‎ (UTC)

ANI-notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --PLNR (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for action on WP:ANI board, was Archive 830 without being resolved.. On a personal note, I'd like to note that I didn't held you as the sole or main responsible party for that incident, more like the "scapegoat" who enabled that string of tendentious editing by editors with long history on that arbitration case, intended to promote point of views by giving undue weight to sources/positions, through tangentially related subjects, with disregard to the article\section coverage as a whole. Hopefully it was a misunderstanding and we just started on the wrong foot and can continue to work together. --PLNR (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The issue was closed by Drmies with the statement: "No admin action will follow from this thread."     ←   ZScarpia  15:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Info on Metula
Hi! From a guide in Metula (Israel) I heard that starting around 1880, Jews from other parts of the world, as they were being persecuted and expelled, went to the United States and Israel. With money from wealthy Jewish families, like the Rothchilds, Montefiore, Hirsh and Turra, Jews PURCHASED land around Metula and established kibbutzim. This land was purchased from either the Turkish government or Arab families. Often times, the Arab did not want to sell to a Jew, so a middleman might be used. These early settlers were constantly being robbed by their Arab and Bedouin neighbors and hired other Arabs to guard their homes. How could I verify it? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni Turra 1 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

miss working with you
and as i have passed along many messages today thought i would tell you that too. hope you are well and thank you for all your continuing quality contributions.  T i a m u t talk 20:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

H.
Hi, you wrote: "Both Huldra and I have copies, feel free to ask."

Huldra left wp:en, didn't she ? Pluto2012 (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Chelo's itinerary
Hi. I have seen you and Nishidani remove mentions of Chelo's itinerary because it is a forgery. I see that he is linked from Western Wall and Victor Guérin. Perhaps you should remove that there too or the page about Guérin needs clarifying about this because of the way it is written. I don't know this case so I am just telling. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I came here with the opposite purpose. I saw you removed information from the Itinerary from at least two articles about Jewish sages. Even though the Itinerary is now considered a forgery, it is still a quoted source. Should we remove it at all? Perhaps it would be better to keep it and specify that it is now considered a forgery. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a good question. My opinion is that we should remove it, since a forged itinerary has no value at all, or even a negative value since it is actively misleading.  The only argument I can see is that it will keep coming back if there is no mention at all, but I don't think that's a good enough argument. Zerotalk 08:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Quoting it makes no point at all. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Paulet-Newcombe Agreement
Hi Zero, hope you're well. I made some amendments to the Paulet-Newcombe Agreement today - in particular giving the article a new (and, hopefully you'll agree, improved) name.

I was just wondering if you have ever seen the maps from the various 1920, 1922 and 1923 agreements, which were appended to the documents? They would be an interesting addition to the border, particularly as it relates to the Blue Line and the Sea of Galilee.

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a map of the 1920 agreement as interpreted by some British public servants; I think the agreement itself had no map, and you know the border was defined very roughly. The Golan part of that border shown in the map on that page was taken from that map after matching the description to standard maps of the time by myself and Doron.  The 1923 map is much more  detailed and I have several copies. Zerotalk 21:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Aha. I hadn't come acros Doron before, so wasn't sure. Btw the sourcing at File:GolanHistoricalBorders.svg doesn't mention the 1922/23 map, which made me question it originally.
 * I added this File:1949 Israeli-Syrian General Armistice Agreement (png).png from 1949 to show the armistice around the area, but it's not in colour so it seems impossible (at least to me) to identify which line is which - particularly which is the armistice line.
 * Anyway, if you have those maps in electronic form and can email them to me, I would be happy to try to add them into the relevant articles.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * PS - the map you made in 2007 seems to compare very well to e.g. this 2009 work from the US Institute of Peace. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK  [•] 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

1517 pogroms
Hi,

You participated to a discussion on that article. A short mind would be welcome here. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Merger of 1517 Hebron pogrom and 1517 Safed pogrom articles
Following your remark at the talk:1660 destruction of Tiberias, you are welcome to participate in merger procedure of 1517 Hebron pogrom and 1517 Safed pogrom articles into Jewish communities during the 1517 Ottoman-Mamluk war. Discuss it at talk:1517 Safed pogrom.GreyShark (dibra) 21:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Category Deletion Request
Hi,

We have never met on Wikipedia before but I just did random selection from administrators list :-)

Please can you please help delete ? I created a new one after recognizing I can request for speedy renaming. I will be glad you delete the first one. Regards. →Enock 4 seth (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to be gone already. Zerotalk 07:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah! Thanks. Another random admininstrator I notified did. Regards. →Enock 4 seth  (talk)

Arutz Sheva revert
Hi, can you please explain two things:


 * 1) How was my edit political? I was trying to clarify the relevance of the word "occupied", which I think should either be removed from the article as irrelevant, or at least clarified as to why it is relevant. This was discussed on my talk page.
 * 2) How did I violate 1RR? I waited 24 hours since my previous "revert" (minus ten minutes, but I don't see why that should matter).

--- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 16:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Claiming that the status of the occupied territories is not occupied but "controversial" is a minority political opinion. Here we state plain facts according to the majority of reliable sources.
 * 10 minutes less than 24 hours is less than 24 hours. The rule is clear, you should obey it. Zerotalk 18:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok sorry, I didn't realize we were so strict. And I did not claim that "the status of the occupied territories is not occupied but 'controversial'&thinsp;", I claimed that it is controversial and occupied (i.e. controversial because it is occupied). --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 19:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please explain your revert of my vote on a merge proposal on Talk:State of Palestine
Please explain your rationale and justification for reverting my vote (with very short explanation) on a merge proposal on Talk:State of Palestine. Please cite the WP policies you think justifiy such a revert. (Please note that I made no political comment. I was commenting on articles on WP, not states/countries/disputed territories in the real world.) Thanks. —ThorstenNY (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It was an accident that I reverted almost immediately. See the following edit. Zerotalk 05:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool! Somehow I only saw the original revert. Thanks. —ThorstenNY (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Linking to Oren's exact page, with word "compensation" highlighted.
http://books.google.co.il/books?id=TcD1bCMAP6AC&pg=PA306&dq=compensate+OR+compensation+inauthor:michael+inauthor:oren&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CidRU-KYLoydyASZwIDQBA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=compensate inauthor:michael inauthor:oren&f=false

Are you blind? It's right there in b&w: when the exact page number is cited & it's right there plainly in black&white (or whack&blite? :-) ), there can only be 1 thing blinding you and it's not your "eyes". ;-)

EDIT: fixed the link; you need to copy-paste the URL manually or else googlebooks only shows 1 page, rather than pg. 307, the page which was cited. But if you'd actually gone to googlebooks & searched for "compensation" in Oren's book, you'd see that the cited page, 307, contains it. 72.183.52.92 (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yalo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crusader (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Tzippori
Let's discuss it, shall we?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tzippori#Colonial_or_Imperialist

Evildoer187 (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

1RR
There was nothing on the talk page indicating that it was part of the Arab-Israeli conflict area. Nevertheless, I undid my revert, now you must undo yours (since you also violated the 1RR). If these conditions are not met, you are liable to be blocked.Evildoer187 (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The point of 1RR is so people will discuss on the talk page. It's not meant to encourage people to wait 24 hours and then revert again. That's why it was put there, though I did not see any such notice on that page.Evildoer187 (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Farhud
Hi Zero, hope all is well. Just wondering whether you have ever come across the "Report of the Iraqi Commission of Inquiry on the Farhud, issued in July 1941"? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, but there are 12 pages of it in Norman Stillman, The Jews of Arab Lands in Modern Times (pages 405-417 maybe). I have that somewhere...  Zerotalk 09:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Zochrot I-Nakba app
Hi, Zero. Perhaps you've already seen this, but perhaps it'll interest you:. Cheers!&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Subjective
You're using the word peripheral as a euphenism for subjective, when from an advertisers perception, you are experiencing the peripheral route to persuasion, or basically not thinking outside the box, allowing the box to think for you, based on your beliefs on how we should follow and administer the standards. It takes a lot of belief to understand how they are lying, but once you know, they can't lie to you know matter how hard they try. Stay thirsty my friend (for the truth, not dox equis) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:780:BE1:216:CBFF:FEBB:76C7 (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I used the word "peripheral" to mean "peripheral". Neither of the two articles contains information suggesting that they should reference either other.  Neither even mentions the topic covered by the other. Zerotalk 23:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jewish land purchase in Palestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jordan Valley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Your powers of research
Hi Zero, just thought you might be interested in the question at Talk:Expulsion_of_Egyptian_Jews_(1956). It just seems very odd to me. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Putting lipstick on a pig...
Recently you participated in a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard entitled "Is a publication found in a University professor's personal website a Self-Published Source or not?" 

I just you might find it amusing how the initiating editor, Mercy11, is portraying the discussion:
 * "Excuse me? No such "determination" ever came out of that discussion. Several editors shared their opinions but there was no consensus, let alone clear consensus, which would be more in line with your "it has been determined" qualification. No offense, but to state that an isolated posting of an (alleged) original document allegedly from the FALN coming exclusively from a single source (i.e., never confirmed by anyone else, not even the US Govt) and, namely, also a sole university professor's personal webpage, a professor known for his radical ultra-right views against anything Cuban, anything socialist and anything communist can hardly be considered by any NPOV editor to be anything but questionable at best and really brings the fairness of your judgement into question. The discussion over there ended in a stalemate with multiple editors shooting in different directions and with the one radical editor that took the stubborn stance and sided with the source being reliable never retuning to debunk the much more enlightened thoughts of editors that followed him. The fact that the quote is still in the article shouldn't give you the idea that it has been accepted by the other editors here (as you can see). At Wikipedia we do not wholeheartedly and unconditionally embrace as reliable sources with such a laundry bag of stigma surrounding it, especially when, as in this case, its reliability has been brought into question by several (established) editors. When there is a decisive agreement that the source is reliable, then you can make the sort of "mission accomplished", "it has been determined", statement above. Nothing personal, its the way we do "business" at Wikipedia. Mercy11 (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)"

Not looking for any further comments from you, just thought you could use a good chuckle! Cheers! Hammersbach (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 10 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Yafa Yarkoni page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=616310521 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F616310521%7CYafa Yarkoni%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * On the Daniel Kahneman page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=616308561 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F616308561%7CDaniel Kahneman%5D%5D Ask for help])

Israel West Bank Barrier
Hi. (Please forgive me if I don't get the talk protocol correct. I do not edit many articles and usually there is no need to discuss the edits.) On the IWBB, this was debated years ago with the resolution to include both / all points of view: the POV that the barrier will (speculatively) harm the economy and the actual data about the actual economy. See IWWB talk for more details. Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent 1RR AE Case
It was incredible, and must have been very frustrating for you, that the AE admins decided that the edit in the first diff given wasn't a revert. I'm one of those editors who's thought for a long time that the inconsistency with which what a revert is is interpreted is harmful and should be removed, either by insisting that editors either stick with an interpretation adhering fairly rigidly to the current policy definition or by producing a new, less ambiguous, definition.    ←   ZScarpia  01:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, interpretations vary from "almost everything" to "almost nothing". This problem is getting worse, but changing the situation will be a challenge.  People will jump in claiming that the definition is clear already. Zerotalk 05:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps part of the reason that the policy definition isn't adhered to more closely is just that editors, to varying degrees, don't want to interpret it that way. When it comes to enforcement, therefore, some arbitrators would rather say, it's not a revert, rather than it is a revert (because it fits the policy definition) but we don't want to have to treat the edit in the way that obliges us to. In the policy definition, the word which allows editors room for manouevre is 'undo'. I suppose a way to start to remove some of the inconsistency in the way that policy is applied at AE would be to tenaciously insist that admins explain how they personally define what a revert is, then to justify that definition relative to either policy or consensus, then to justify their evaluation of edits relative to definitions given.      ←   ZScarpia  11:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"Citations are not required for photographs taken by editors"
Hi, you have reverted my source request here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_of_Palestine&diff=619921757&oldid=619916778 Please, provide:

- a proof for your reason of revert ("Citations are not required for photographs taken by editors") in the form of Wikipedia rule,

- a proof that photograph is "taken by editor" (which editor? editor of what?)

-- A man without a country (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your question. "Editor" means "editor of Wikipedia".  The rules for photographs supplied by Wikipedia editors can be found at WP:Image_use_policy and WP:OI. While image captions are not permitted to express opinions or draw conclusions on the basis of what is in the image, they are permitted to state what the  image shows without the need for a published source.  This makes captions a bit different from other text, but we do that since otherwise few editor-supplied photographs could satisfy the requirements. You can check on the origin of the photo by clicking on it and following links.  In this case you will get to the Commons page of photo-journalist Justin McIntosh, who takes responsibility for the photo and granted us a sufficient licence.  We value such donation of images very much. You can challenge an image caption if you can provide a convincing argument that it is not correct (for example, if you can prove it is a photo of something else) but you can't demand proof of it without a good reason. Zerotalk 10:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer. I followed your link and unfortunately I haven't found in Image use policy confirmation that there is no need for confirmation of the image title (of course, if I simply missed it, I'd appreciate if you copy the exact phrase from there). Besides, if "editor" means "editor of Wikipedia", what is the link for Justin McIntosh's Wikipedia discussion page? Is he really Wikipedia editor, or just a contributor for Wikimedia (which is great, but different)?


 * Now I also have another question. If I understood you correctly, I can photograph myself, or for example my friend's daughter (Russian), may be even during the trip to Palestine, upload this photo to Wikimedia, and then add it to a lot of articles with a title "Palestinian boy / girl", and voila - it is totally in compliance with the rules (as you understand them), and no one can object, unless they manage to somehow find that friend's daughter (which after some years can be quite difficult, as children use to grow up) and manage to publish the thing in the media to get a reliable source? -- A man without a country (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Editor of Wikipedia" is anyone that edits Wikipedia articles. There are no special "editors" in the sense that a newspaper or magazine uses that word, though there are administrators (like me) and people with more power and authority. You are right that someone could trick us into using a fake photo, just as someone can forge a document or lie about the content of a source that's very hard to check. How do you know that my photograph of Danny Rubenstein is really him?  The system isn't perfect, but without such allowance Wikipedia would lose tens of thousands of great images.  The general principle is to assume good faith unless the opposite can be demonstrated.  I see no reason to not assume good faith in the case of a photographer who has obviously been to the place where he says the photo was taken, nor does it show anything surprising or suspicious.  If you want to get more opinions you can post a question on WP:NORN. Zerotalk 14:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer. Well, now I see that nearly everyone can be an editor of Wikipedia, as unregistered users are elso editors (although some pages are protected against anonymous edits), so the fact we don't know one's user page here doesn't mean he is not editor. And speaking of J. MacIntosh, I found his contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Just1pin
 * Now to the photograph. In fact, it is surprising. The girl portrayed in it is not a typical Palestinian face. Not only because of hair color, but also because of lack of tan. And we also see, that the photographer initially posted his photos with emotionally expressed titles, not description of the subject, and even posted a photo taken in Tel Aviv with a title of "occupation". He also is focused on photographing anti-occupation demonstrations. So it is hard to deem him as neutral. And all this together leads me to suspicions. -- A man without a country (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The hair color might be artificial (note the black eyebrows). However I'm not sure.  The blogosphere says that red hair is not so unusual among Palestinians, and someone looking different from average is likely to catch the eye of a photographer.  The lack of tan is commonplace: search for "Palestinian girl" at Google Images and you will find many examples of girls without tans.  It probably means her parents keep her inside most of the time. Zerotalk 00:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Jeffrey Herf
Hi Zero0000,

When I read this, I am convinced that Jeffrey Hert is nor honnest nor WP:RS. Anyway he has all the credits (Prof Emiritus of History who widely published on the topic and who is quoted). What is your mind ? How to argue he would not be wp:rs in compliance with wikipedia principles ? Because, at the end, it is just because I disagree with him(*) given the way he discards facts or some sources and use others... Pluto2012 (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC) (*) Hamas is of course an integrist and terrorist group; the issue is not there. It is all the extrapolations around this and other pseudo-facts that he makes that is the concern...
 * Yes, Herf is like a more competent version of Daniel Pipes. His obvious status as an activist means his claims should be attributed. I don't think there is a way to exclude hi altogether. Zerotalk 23:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I arrive to the same conclusions. Many thanks. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Incredible Efraim Karsh
Pluto2012 (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * israel-academia-monitor.com
 * Benjamin Pogrund,The 'guardians' of Israeli academia, Ha'aretz, 23 octobre 2009.
 * Hillel Fendel, Anti-Israel Academics, Beware!, Arutz Sheva, 22 avril 2010.
 * Dana Barnett (no less that a PhD thesis on her action with Efraim Karsh as supervisor ?
 * Dana, the sister of David ? ->

Palestinian land laws and WP:AE
Hi. There is an entry on WP:AE partly about content in the Palestinian Land Laws article. You might want to comment, since you made some comments on the talk page regarding this. I do not know the details because I was not involved in the edits. Kingsindian (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Your AE statement
Hi. At WP:AE, you alleged that certain editors are "edit-warriors" to varying degrees. Per the principle described at WP:ASPERSIONS, you must not allege misconduct by others unless accompanied by actionable evidence in the proper forum. Please edit your comments accordingly, or you may face sanctions. Regards,  Sandstein   02:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that my general assessment, in the AE context, is a violation. It is reasonable to point out that an accuser has a long-term record as bad as the accused and this practice has a long history on AE and other boards.  I did not assert specific instances of wrongdoing, nor did I expect action on the sole basis of my words. However, I have no time to be more specific so I struck my sentence. Zerotalk 03:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, a comment on someone's editing behavior is not a "personal attack". Zerotalk 04:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

My appeal of my restrictions
I do not know what forum to use to appeal my restrictions, is it possible you start the thread for me and then I fill in the details? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * They are Arbcom restrictions, so you need to appeal to Arbcom to overturn them. The proper place to do that is at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment - feel free to ask me if you have any problems with the templates or anything like that. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

New notification system for discretionary sanctions
Hi Zero. Your recent notice [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SeattliteTungsten&diff=618671229&oldid=78824735 for SeattleliteTungsten] is regrettably an old-style notice. Since Arbcom's motion of 3 May 2014 we are supposed to notify using i-p. Details are at WP:AC/DS and on the template page of DS/alert. Also under the new system we are no longer supposed to log notices in WP:ARBPIA: there is an edit filter that builds its own log. I can point you to the talk threads if needed. Any old-style notices issued prior to 3 May 2014 remain effective until 3 May 2015 and people in that group don't require a new notice. Except for that all notices expire after a year. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Bassam Tibi
Hi Zero0000,

Do you know this scholar ? What is your mind about him ? I am puzzled because in an article that sounds well written and neutral he praizes Kuntzel's work, which decredibilizes him. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, quite prominent and frequently cited. Don't know what the deal is with him and Küntzel. Zerotalk 09:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Profoundly unimpressed. I grew up in an area where Catholics were barred by a Protestant majority on the municipal council from opening any business, except as publicans, where you were stoned and taunted on the way to elementary school as you passed Protestant schoolyards, and you heard people like Ian Paisley froth at the mouth about us being "vermin". My father was denied entrance to clubs for the same reason. As a boy I read a tract from the 18th century which, had you changed the hysteria about papists and Jesuit conspiracies for Jews, would sound like the Protocols of Zion of later date. So when I read widely in anti-Semitism I always had this sense of similitude at the forefront of my mind: I failed to see the 'uniqueness'. The Irish had suffered genocidal policies in the 17th. century - brilliant minds like Edmund Spenser could theorize our extermination. There are so many taboos developed instrumentally over this area of discourse, confusing Israel's problems with the Arab world's 'mentality' for geopolitical advantage that it will take another generation to see through it, and the Tibis and Kuentzels of this world are tendetious bores. The hadith of the gharqad tree is mentioned everywhere in public polemics, its precedent, the Birkat haMinim is hushed with silence; the King's Torah doesn't ring a bell, whereas Sayyid Qutb's bigoted nonsense is chimed and pealing in every relevant forum. Nishidani (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks !
 * Nishidani, even if I knew the difference, I found interesting the idea that in Arab world there was shift from Judeophobia to antisemtism in parallel to the development of Islam ism . In a way, he goes in the same direction as you given he doesn't consider any hadith as antisemite but just judeophobe. But he sees clear antemitism in new publications ; even if as you said he forgot there are many publication of the same sort everywhere as there are some Jewish religious leaders who racism it totally crazy and... nobody take care on these.
 * Thank you Zero0000. My problem is that he has written that Kuntzel work is "brilliant". And Kuntzel is just a propagandist, even not wp:rs on wikipedia. Due to this, I am "perplexe".
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Making Bassam Tibi and the above mentionned publication WP:RS make the following ones wp:rs as well... Pluto2012 (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ugghh...choke...vomit... Zerotalk 23:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a very complex issue. With the list of Professors collaborating with ISGAP here we have to conclude the publications are wp:rs and we could even add notorious. The wp:rs scholars -even if sometimes controversial- who collaborate with ISGAP give official reliability to all of these... Pluto2012 (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie
I have noted your edit summary here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=623396185&oldid=623376809 This appears to falsely accuse me of adding unreferenced content. I did not add any content - I fact tagged some existing content that was unreferenced and which had been in the article for years in that unreferenced condition. You then deleted part of that existing tagged content. Please take much more care in your edit summaries. I also wonder why you deleted part of the unreferenced content and retained part of it, given that ALL of it was fact tagged and ALL of it had been in the article for a very long period of time. Why do you consider it more "plausible" that someone makes wild accusations of "glorifying terrorism" than someone makes wild accusations of "anti-Semitism"? I suggest you either restore the entire fact tagged content (best option) or delete the "glorifying terrorism". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Apologies; I misread your edit. It should be all deleted if there is no source, but I'll break 1RR if I do it today. Zerotalk 15:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources on Israel/Palestine
Hi. I have a question regarding reliable sources here. I am not sure of the policy and would like someone more experienced to take a look, if you have the time. Thanks. Kingsindian (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

SeattliteTungsten
Hi,

I noticed at the arbitration enforcement page that you suspected additional accounts. I've left the SPI case open so that you can provide evidence for the two other accounts, should you like the checkusers to perform additional checks. Best, Mike V  •  Talk  01:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have watched your administrative actions against the account of User:SeattliteTungsten. It is unclear to me what you hope to achieve. If your allegations about sockpuppets are correct, it appears that you have done nothing. The edits keep a' comin'! :-) or :-( depending on your POV. A cursory review of the history of User:SeattliteTungsten's edits and the alleged sockpuppet edits indicates that he/she edits semi-profusely but does not actually engage in edit wars and rarely reverts. I do not know where you live, but from where I live you appear to be attempting to plug leaks in a fishing net. I split my time between Rome(*) and Chicago(*). The locations of Starbucks(*), Il Fornio(*), FedEx(*), McDonalds(*), in these areas are in the hundreds. There are countless internet coffee shops with free WiFi. Even Albertsons(*), Winn Dixie(*), and Whole Foods(*) now typically have open WiFi. Sapienza Università di Roma(*) and University of Texas(*) offer open Wifi over acres of space. My quick look suggests that you have probably missed one or two sockpuppet accounts (false negatives) and closed one non-sockpuppet account (false positive), which means you have not had the desired effect and have bothered other (innocent) people. Given this, what do you hope to accomplish?


 * (*) illustrative purposes.


 * Your actions are an interesting experiment. I, personally, would not waste any of my time conducting it but observing it is very interesting. I will follow the results to see whether you have had any success and controlling the content of Wikipedia through these administrative actions. Time will tell. SevenOrEleven (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Intervention
User:Zero0000, shalom! There is currently a dispute between me and fellow editor about what is considered worthy or not worthy of publishing on a WP article page because of what may or may not be perceived by others as distasteful (bad taste). The editor in question has posted a Commons photograph of Israeli singer, Dana International, a photograph which I personally feel shows bad taste and tends to "flout" the dignity and self-respect of the Yemenite Jewish people. I voiced my concerns to the editor about my feelings of repugnancy evoked by the picture on a main article page that treats on ethnicity, namely Yemenite Jews. Most Yemenite Jews will feel a sense of shame by seeing this photo of "Dana International" on the page that speaks specifically about them as a people - and who, by the way, are mostly conservative to religious. Can you please help me resolve this dispute? Perhaps you can give me some guidelines as to how it is best to resolve this issue.Davidbena (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Nominating After Saturday Comes Sunday for deletion
Hi Zero0000, As per the Talk page, I just nominated this page for deletion. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Feghali Saturday Sunday.jpg
Saw your comment - you may be right, I'm not 100% sure. Maybe just type it in as text in a quote box. Note that it's not used in any articles - some bot/person will come along and tag for deletion as WP:F5, talk pages don't count. Ron h jones (Talk) 00:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Overlooked sockpuppet
Hi. Just noticed that User:HonourYoMama was judged to be a sockpuppet but overlooked and not blocked (see ). Yours, Quis separabit?  23:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my mistake -- it was blocked indefinitely, just not notated here. Sorry. Quis separabit?  23:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict
I see that you used to be involved in this page, if you have the patience, could you swing by? I am suggesting in the pre-1948 list, we adopt an approach that rather than simply list the villages/neighborhoods with the assertion that they were depopulated and sourced to a single, independent webpage, each village be reliably sourced. To establish that it did exist. Was depopulated. Whether it was depopulated because the land was sold or fro some other reason. And, if it is asserted that it was replaced by a specific kibbutz or Israeli town, that this be established. i am not asserting that such events did not take place. Only that events ought not to be listed as facts unless they can be reliably sourced.ShulMaven (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al-Aqsa Mosque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jewish Quarter. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Map of Tel Kabri and her vicinity
Heya, did you every get around to making that map of Kabri? I'm back on Wikipedia after a long hiatus, and I want to finally get that article shining. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 5 Tevet 5775 14:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent! All right, so I've started a new sub-section on my page under the Kabri map section. So let's continue things here. The name is a reference to an exceptionally corny joke we tell on our digs. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 6 Tevet 5775 00:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)