User talk:Zero0000/2013

signature

hi, I always press on the signature icon after I write. Maybe it doesn't always work. I think I saw your comment on the Yevusi/Jebusite. would you like to discuss that?--Michal 23:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zahav511 (talk • contribs)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Masada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parthian (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) 11:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Relaible source noticeboard

Discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue which may interest you -- (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Nation source

Does it possible that you will send me the source?Thank you--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the source very interesting read.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hans Kohn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brit Shalom (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) 11:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Amudanan.co.il

Hi Zero0000,

While it doesn't say the exact year anywhere I looked, it is certainly either 2009 or 2010.

Hope that helps. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the road that you pointed to on Google Maps also exists in Amudanan, but maybe I didn't understand correctly? Is the Google Maps pointer you provided the exact road, or just the area? Anyway, it's possible that parts of the map are not from the same date, but judging by major infrastructure projects in the country that appear on the map, it's somewhere between February 2009 (Road 431) and December 1, 2010 (Carmel Tunnels). Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok I see. Do you know when that road was built? I think the explanation might be that there is a larger delay for small changes. I guess someone with knowledge of how the Israel Mapping Center operates might know more. In Jerusalem specifically, the map is from at least from May 2007 because it includes Jerusalem Road 9. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's the right way to check, because the road is clearly very minor and might not be marked on maps. I have print maps of Jerusalem at 1:11,000 from all the recent years, and this road was first marked in a 2008 map, even though it was clearly there before (it's there in Google's 2003 satellite photos, for example). If it's really important, I think a good solution is to send a query to the Jerusalem municipality. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Might you consider closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Whittleman?

As it happens, this is the very last AfD Discussion that still open that started before the ball dropped for the New Year!

More importantly, there seems to be a rough consensus, and it's kind of obvious if you take a look at the Article under discussion. It is precisely because you never commented in the Discussion that you are an appropriate candidate for Closing Admin. So, could you close this debate? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Needs more time after relisting. Zero^talk 07:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, so a full week after that last Relisting will be Tuesday, 15 January 2013. Somehow, I doubt it will be Relisted a 4th time, but waiting until Tuesday is indeed appropriate. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Another Admin closed it as "No consensus," so this is now a moot point. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:MountOlives2maps.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MountOlives2maps.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

1596 info request

Hey Zero, just started an article on the village of Tasil in the Hauran. Was wondering if you had the Hutteroth and Abdulfattah book. If so could you add the 1596 village info to the article? I think it's spelled "Tsil" in the Ottoman records. If you don't have the book, thanks anyway. Normally I would ask Huldra, but it looks like she's on a wikibreak. Regards, --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

p211, I'll add it. The name is shown as "Burd (dir nazd Tasil)". Do you know what that means? Zero^talk 01:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't know what that phrasing means, unfortunately. Try checking page page 198 mz13 for Tsil part of Nahia Jawlan Sharqi. I found the page number off Huldra's listing here. Thanks again. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zero000, whenever you have time, could you add the 1596 info to Qarfa? It looks to be part of Nahia Bani Malik al-Asraf, mz1 page 212. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:MtOlives1968.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:MtOlives1968.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough

At the arbitration enforcement page concerning Rich Farmbrough, you (and others) wrote things like " There is no ban on "writing something offline for copying into Wikipedia". Sorry, it just doesn't say that." While there is obvious disagreement about that, the thing is that this isn't even the issue here. Rich Farmbrough has claimed that he just used Excel to sort a few things, but this is patently untrue. He used a script (macro, bot, whatever) to make this long table, inserting multiple otherwise unexplainable errors in it (his "empty lines in the csv" claim makes no sense at all, that doesn't cause Excel sorting to introduce wrong reference indications or makes it loose every sub-item). He didn't simply use excel for sorting, he used automation bug time on this edit, and screwed it up big time as well. Fram (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one

Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved and ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

• • Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
• If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelpcengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email failure: Will resend codes

Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email success: Codes resent

Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

elHuseeni connection to the plan to mass murder the jews in palesinte

could you answer in the talk page of Haj Amin el-Husseini please ? I do think that information adds to the article as it referenced in several sources and have information that is missing in that page in English (this information does exists in the he Wikipedia) Ao5318 (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two question

Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could place the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Judges

Could you give me your mind about this ? Many thanks.Pluto2012 (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Your incredible hypocrisy viz. personal attacks

So after accusing me of personal attacks, you then launch several against me claiming that I can't read, and posting phony edit summaries, and that I should take a vacation. Unfortunately for you, I won't take a hike, while your hypocrisy speaks for itself. As does your failure to engage in conversations regarding the edits that you disagree with.

If you want to engage in dialogue and justify your opinions, here is the place.Wikieditorpro (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Request Your POV Concerning Your Conduct Recently

Is it appropriate to state that a user does not "know how to read?"

Is it appropriate to state that a user has "behavioral problems?"

Is is appropriate to tell a Wikipedia editor that they are "ruining their reputation" or that they should "take a break?"

Is there any preference for using sources with actual quotes?

If it is your own personal preference do you acknowledge that your edit was based on WP:DONTLIKEIT?

Is it acceptable to repeatedly defend your edit by placing the onus on the other person despite you yourself not having provided any reason for it except WP:DONTLIKEIT (thus violating WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY)?

Is it appropriate to use the most liberal translation available when dealing with biographical pages as per WP:BLP?

Is it appropriate to prefer out of context quote when dealing with a WP:BLP?

Is it appropriate to quote a paragraph verbatim but to change four words so to give it a different meaning?

Is it appropriate to retain the (distorted) text once it has been pointed out?

Does a consensus between two (clearly partisan) editors allow one to avoid having to give reasons for edits, or in and of itself avoid having to change distorted text?

Do you accept that those actions could be construed as using Wikipedia to promote certain ideological points of view?

Is it acceptable to continually threaten a user?

Is it acceptable to assume that a user is citing a source in order to promote extremist propaganda?

Is is acceptable to use all the above tactics to create a hostile environment on Wikipedia?

Do you agree that reasonable interpretation of those words and actions over the last few days is that you as a administrator were attempting to bully and intimidate an amateur and infrequent editor whose views you disagree with to leave Wikipedia?

This is an attempt at dispute resolution and I look forward to discussing this further with you. Wikieditorpro (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

74.104.157.194

You probably right that the user should have been blocked but you are WP:INVOLVED in the area.The best course of action IMO is rise the issue at WP:AN/I--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No one ever posts this kind of message on ClueBot NG's page. With 2,068,543 edits it must be one of the most involved users here by now. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Shrike is technically correct, although I didn't edit any of those articles in the past 3 years. However, since both "sides" were reverting it (Soosim as well as Sean) and there is no way any reasonable person would consider that that type of disruption was a normal content dispute, I chose to not waste another administrator's time with a no-brainer. Call me lazy, but the result would have been the same if I took the long route. There was also an overriding WP:BLP concern, eg this. Zero^talk 22:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Hi, I'm contacting you because you have recently contributed as a reviewing administrator to WP:AE. I've made a suggestion relating to the management of that page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Structural improvements to AE threads, and would appreciate your input. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zero, Thanks for your comments about my edit of the Zangwill page. I have changed the reference to reflect a better source for the quotation as follows: "This passage is quoted on page 131 of Theodore Roosevelt and the Idea of Race by Thomas G.Dyer 1980 Louisiana State University Press (Paperback edition 1992). A footnote shows the letter to have been written on November 27, 1912. This letter is held in the Roosevelt Collection, Library of Congress." I hope this is better (and that this is a good place to leave this message for you)Bkesselman (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Beit Liqya

zero - i am confused by your successive reverts on this page. don't they violate the wp:1rr? Soosim (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three

Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Israelophobia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Israelophobia 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israelophobia 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 04:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia finds mysterious typo that created a clandestine Jewish immigrant ship

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/wikipedia-finds-mysterious-typo-that-created-a-clandestine-jewish-immigrant-ship.premium-1.512933

Relates to the Hebrew Wikipedia, but I thought you might find it interesting. Dlv999 (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Francium hydroxide

It may no longer be relevant, but I've just noticed elsewhere your concerns about the solubility of FrOH. Your extract says Fr remains in solution when sodium hydroxide is added, therefore FrOH must be soluble since otherwise it would precipitate (it would be astonishing if it wasn't soluble, but that is OR) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Coordinate precision

Hi Zero0000,

While I can understand where you're coming from, indeed I was aiming at a building, which would be in accordance with the guideline you mentioned. If Google Maps isn't that precise then it's another problem altogether—maybe we should be using another service which is more precise and it's easy to center on specific buildings (Amudanan's maps aren't detailed enough for that). Still, since one of the main uses for these coordinates is for people to be able to click on the link and get a location on Google Maps (or OSM, Bing Maps, etc.), I think there is room to leave it like it is.

In any case I don't think we should go around changing these coordinates unless there's a good reason to change them.

Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Request to check information

Hi Zero0000, could you please give me your mind about this information about al-Qassam ? That seems dubious to me. Thank you, Pluto2012 (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"According to Shai Lachman, between 1921 and 1935 al-Qassam often cooperated with Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. They were on good terms, and al-Qassam's various official appointments required the mufti's prior consent. He suggests their cooperation increased after the 1929 riots, in which one source claims al-Qassam's men were active. The two fell out in the mid-thirties, perhaps due to al-Qassam's independent line of activism. When the Mufti rejected his plans to divert funding marked down for mosque repairs towards the purchase of weaponry, Qassam found support in the Arab Nationalist Istiqlal Party. Qassam continued his attempts to forge an alliance with the Mufti in order to attack the British. He was not successful for the Mufti, who headed the Supreme Muslim Council, was still committed to a diplomatic approach at the time. Qassam went ahead with his plans to attack the British on his own.

Hi Zero,

Is there a book that you would not have ? I was not expecting that you would have the book. So, I didn't ask you to check this. The book is on googlebooks anyway. I wonder if the information is reliable. Morris (in "Victims.") doesn't mention any collaboration between al-Husseini and al-Qassam. Shai Lachman suggests the contrary. Who follows the mainstream point of view ? And who is Shai Lachman by the way ? How can we trust him ?

Many thanks,

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, good question. Shai Lachman was a PhD student at the time his article was published, and seems to have then vanished from academia. However the place of publication and the existence of a fair number of citations in serious places would make a WP:RS challenge difficult. Looking at the text, the first sentence "often cooperated" is not supported anyway; Lachman does not say that, but only what is in the following sentence. The sentence "He suggests..." is pure speculation; he actually writes "may well have increased" with no evidence whatever and then adds "this is not confirmed in other sources" which we should include if we include anything (I suggest we don't). I checked lots of sources and did not find any claim of cooperation during the 1920s. Some specific comments on Lachman:

• "Standard Zionist accounts deny the national and radical social content of the Qassamite movement and the Arab Revolt and describe the peasant rebels as gangs of bandits, rioters, or terrorists", with reference to Lachman. Joel Beinin, Workers and Peasants in the Modern Middle East, p97.
• (Referring to 1930s): "It was and remains controversial to what extent the Mufti supported these individuals and organizations, even if covertly." Footnote: "Lachman (1982), pp. 57- 59, postulates this without evidence". Kramer, History of Palestine. p259.
• "Official public Zionist treatment of Qassam has remained consistently and relentlessly antagonistic. Israeli historian Shai Lachman's study of Qassam exemplifies the academic version of the party line. ... Shaykh Qassam's movement, Lachman concludes, was "the first Arab terrorist movement in Palestine". Given the West's ongoing panics about terrorism, such a designation is a potent means of disqualifying the Palestinian past." Swedenburg, Memories of Revolt, pp 11–12.

Zero^talk 13:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Zero0000. That's quite clear.

I understand now why Morris doesn't mention this in 'Victims'.

History without documents ! Yoav and Benny should not be happy ! ;-) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pluto2012 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Dhinnaba/Tulkarm/Shweikah

Hi Zero000, just curious if you know anything about the situation of Dhinnaba and Shweikah, two villages/suburbs of Tulkarm, or if you have any sources on the matter? It seems that Dhinnaba was previously its own village, but was later absorbed by Tulkarm either officially or unofficially. There are no demographic stats on the village in the PCBS censuses of '97 and '07. Same with Shuweikah. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Both were separate villages. PEF map: Shuweikeh to the north, Dennabeh to the east. 1931 census and 1940s topo: Shuweika, Dannaba. 1967 Israeli census (do you have it?) Shuweika, Dannab. Dannaba was annexed to Tulkarm in 1964, Shuweika in 1967 (under Jordanians). Village of Irtah also annexed. I'll send you a paper about it tomorrow. Shuweika at least has enough material for an article I think. Zero^talk 05:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Zero, as always you've come through ;) Yes, please send me that source. There's a decent amount of info on Dhinnaba as well, so maybe we could create an article for each of those villages, including Irtah—if we could find material about it. Of course, we would also incorporate some information about them in the Tulkarm article itself. This seems to be similar to the Jabaliya-Nazla situation. I don't have any of the pre-2005 Israeli censuses. Anyway, thanks again. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have given some sources on Talk:Tulkarm#3_villages, could you please send me the paper, too? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Already sent.. Zero^talk 19:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! (Should have checked my mail first ; ) ) Huldra (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverted text from Fatah

Hello, why did you remove the edits I made here? This isn't a matter of opinion, but facts. Yambaram (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC

A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Overprecise coordinates

I've seen you trying to make coordinates a bit more sensible over the years. Just in case you haven't seen it, there's a bot to fix overprecise coordinates now. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it is too precise: about 10 cm for degrees, 30 cm for d-m-s. The tools generally available (like Google maps) do not even provide that degree of accuracy and what sense does it make to locate a village within 30 cm? Zero^talk 01:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Street signs in article

Greetings, Zero0000. I agree that simple street signs add nothing to the article Hadassah medical convoy massacre. But these are no simple street signs. They contain biographical information (translated in the photo caption) which provides a relible source corroborating the information in the article text. ("A picture tells a thousand words" kinda thing!) I hope you will agree that these are no mere street signs. (We take our street signs very seriously, here.) I also repositioned one photo to place it nearer the relevant text in all screen sizes. Kind regards --@Efrat (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I still don't think they add much. More like trivia. Zero^talk 08:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can argue the point of trivia with regards to the photo of the "Haim Yasky Street" sign. It merely lends photgraphic evidence to the last sentence of the article, which is, in any case, properly referenced. But the rationale for the "Ha Ayin Het Street" sign is much more meaningful. There are varying numbers of killed in different sources: Laurens, La Question de Palestine-76, Encyclopaedia Britannica-77, Hadassah Medical Center-78, The Jewish Chronical-80. Considering the years-long vetting process for naming streets in Jerusalem, I would expect the street sign to be the most well researched and the officially agreed upon number. To complicate the issue, the number 78 refers specifically to Jews as can be seen in the Hebrew writing of the memorial plaque. 78 does not include the 1 British soldier! But he is mentioned in the article text based on other sources. --@Efrat (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't agree that a road sign is a reliable source for anything except the name of the street. Who is the author of this information? Also the severe space limitation on a sign means that no subtleties or caveats can be presented. Zero^talk 11:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't give you the name of the author (actually team of authors). They were part of various committees of both the "Israel Department of Transportation" and the "Municipal Government of Jerusalem". These are not signs put up by people in the neighborhood. They were officially sanctioned after years of deliberation. If you disgree with the details which appear on the signs, then you have a healthy disdain for government, as do I! But there it is. Kind regards. --@Efrat (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither the Department of Transport nor the Jerusalem municipal government are authorities on historical questions. Which historians did they consult? Zero^talk 12:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

They base their decisions after consulting with well known historians such as Meron Benvenisti and Benzion Netanyahu. (Please don't ask me at this time for the specific names of people connected to the signs in question.) The committees which choose street names don't make these decisions without thorough research. The process takes several years. As of late, Justice Jacob Turkel presides over the municipality's committee. As a judge, he is in the habit of listening to all views and verifying the veracity of all claims. The street signs in the article have existed for many years and I am prepared to accept them as is. I would, in the meantime, like to back up a few steps and say that showing photos of things which commemorate the event described in the article is reason enough to justify their inclusion. Maybe they don't add much, but they do add something. Wikipedia's Manual of Style on Images states that images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal. Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: finalising drafts

Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.

So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.

Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by the end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Usurpation of identity ?

Hi,

This gentleman is assumed to be editor of the Middle East Quatterly. Isn't this an usurpation of identity ? Pluto2012 (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step four

Hello everyone. We are now at step four of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, where we will decide the details of the RfC implementation. This is the home stretch - the RfC proper will begin as soon as we have finished this step. Step four is also less complicated than the previous steps, as it is mostly about procedural issues. This means it should be over with a lot more quickly than the previous steps. There are some new questions for you to answer at the discussion page, and you can see how the RfC is shaping up at the RfC draft page. Also, when I say that this step should be over with a lot quicker than the previous steps, I mean it: I have set a provisional deadline of Monday, 20th May for responses. I'm looking forward to seeing your input. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: final countdown

Hello again, everyone. I have now closed all the questions for step four, and updated the RfC draft. We are scheduled to start the Jerusalem RfC at 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC). Before then, I would like you to check the draft page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and see if there are any errors or anything that you would like to improve. If it's a small matter of copy editing, then you can edit the page directly. If it's anything that might be contentious, then please start a discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#The final countdown. I'll check through everything and then set the RfC in motion on Thursday. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC has started

Hello again everyone. We have finally made it - the RfC is now open, and a few editors have chimed in already. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I'm sure you don't actually need me to tell you this, but please go over there and leave your comments. :) You are the editors most familiar with the Jerusalem lead dispute on Wikipedia, so it would be very useful for the other participants to see what you have to say. And again, thank you for all your hard work in the discussions leading up to this. We shall reconvene after the results of the RfC have been announced, so that we can work out any next steps we need to take, if necessary. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

==Good Job!==108.207.243.46 (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Kalandia

My interest is in the fairness and accuracy of the content. I believe it stems when on another thread at YouTube, I claimed that Palestinians are not in themselves to blame for the camps, that Israel is responsible for two. My adversary quoted the Wiki article to claim that is not so. I am intimately familiar with the history and the camps, and knew that wasn't correct, I have met people from there. But my personal knowledge is not good source. I have repeatedly politely posted sources after source on the talk page of Mcnary1948, who I suspect based on the sudden creation of the account, was my adversary in the aforementioned discussion on YouTube. I suspect based on the comments I have received that from the party (s)he is more interested in having my account terminated that any actual search for the "truth".

1948 Arab–Israeli War - British Diplomacy

I would like to hear your opinion , concerning the 1948_Arab–Israeli_War - British Diplomacy. During the latest editing of "Peel Commission" and "Flapan - Golda Meir" we succeeded in having objective discussion, in which I have not hesitated to apologize . So it seems strange for me the difference between us concerning the British Diplomacy issue (Exclusive of the British policy inside Palestine). BTW I wrote about yours Golani Article . Ykantor (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Tendentious editing at The Exodus. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

First Intifada

I see you have a huge history here, and have been around for 11 years. Thanks for all the hard work!

I just wanted to stress the latter half of my edit comment: that an equally concise, yet more truthful comment could be placed there. But to call the entire event unarmed, would be misleading.

The article itself said that the first death of the "official" event was a young boy who was killed father throwing a petrol bomb. And I don't know if you've seen videos of the rock throwing during protests, but it wouldn't be technically considered "armed" (which would be equally misleading), and it also definitely wouldn't be considered "unarmed".

The inclusion of the "unarmed" phrase is charged, and significant in portraying context....a context that isn't upheld throughout the rest of the article.

Just as well, there were armed attacks on the civilian population of both sides using weapons. Whether they were limited or not might add value to the description, im not sure, but it could very well be a more valuable and valid replacement ("was a largely unarmed uprising"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widgety Function (talk • contribs) 10:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A little help to conclude

Hi, we need to discuss objections here or here, or conclude/vote here, thanks. --Krauss (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC: breakdown of results

Hello again everyone. Now that the Jerusalem RfC has been closed and there has been time for the dust to settle, I thought it would be a good time to start step six of the moderated discussion. If you could leave your feedback over at the discussion page, it will be most appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Operation ATLAS

Hello Zero0000,

I am not familiar with this event but the text doesn't sound neutral, focusing very much on al-Husseini. Could you have a look and give your mind about this ?

Thank you, Pluto2012 (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems ok : [1] unless Bar Zohar is the only source. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Or not : this may be the original source...

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have long been doubtful about many of the alleged details of this story. Something indeed happened, but what exactly? About a year ago I asked the UK National Archives for a copy of the file, but they wanted about 250 pounds for it so I gave up. Meanwhile, this statement from no-nonsense historian Wolfgang G. Schwanitz caught my attention. It is from a revue of Dalin's book: "The claim that the mufti got "ten containers with poison" to kill a quarter of a million people via the water system of Tel Aviv in exchange for the five Palestinian paratroopers in late 1944 (61) is not substantiated in British or German sources. If the authors can now show really hard proof, this would be a discovery, since the British police report of 1944 on file is very detailed." I suspect that the poison part of the story is from Bar Zohar only, but I didn't spend much time on this. (Jewish Social Studies, Spring 2009). Zero^talk 22:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Poison is talked about here : [2] at the last page of text but it is introduced more like a "detail" than as if it was the main target. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Request that you remove talk page interruptions of my remarks

Hi, thanks for your caring enough to comment at the POV template discussion. Later I will reply, maybe, at the thread. I am writing your here because in this edit you chopped up my comment by inserting more than one response in midstream. Per WP:TALK ("If an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted and another way to deal with the issue found.") please revise your remark by simply threading it below mine like normal. For each of your points, you can easily cross reference the letter of my paragraph to which each of your rebuttals refers.

Thanks for your attention NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, that's speedy response time! Thank you for such extra prompt attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Gary North

Wellllll...... how about a comment for the RfC? – S. Rich (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For being such a clear eyed viewer of reality during recent contretemps!

User:Carolmooredc 19:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Arab leaders, although willing to accept a last-minute American proposal and delay the invasion, had to give in to Abdullah

will it be possible for you to have a look at the reasons to delete this sentence:"The Arab leaders, although willing to accept a last-minute American proposal and delay the invasion, had to give in to Abdullah" .

This the Diff page of this sentence insertion, together with a supporting cite.

I will accept your decision without argument ( I would like to know the reasons of course). Thanks. Ykantor (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Greetings,

Official notification language:

==Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion==
This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Rujm el-Hiri: in 'Israeli-administered' or 'Israeli-occupied' Golan?.
Thank you.

Explanation: We've had a good faith discussion about the use of 'occupied' vs. 'administered' when applied to Golan, e.g. in the 'Rujm el-Hiri' article, and it's clear we're not going to reach consensus. Although we've been able to work out many other difference while working on other articles , we're not achieving anything productive by becoming adversarial on this argument over a single word. I and several other editors have expressed our case that 'occupy' used in this context is aggressively prejudicial, arguably misleading, and divisively offensive. You and several other editors have consistently rejected every aspect of that case, and have argued that it's important to retain this specific word and the article link. I'm sure we all agree that dialog and dialectic are beneficial, though 'contradiction' is only entertaining in a Monty Python sketch. Accordingly, I've created a new section on Neutral point of view/Noticeboard about this issue. Four editors have been named in the posting: you, Nableezy, Tiamut, and Supreme Deliciousness. The section may be accessed via
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Rujm_el-Hiri:_in_.27Israeli-administered.27_or_.27Israeli-occupied.27_Golan.3F

Of course I invite you and all others to make your own case and look forward to seeing your edits. It will be interesting to see how this gets decided.

Let's hope for a final settlement on this particular intellectual-territorial dispute soon and return to fruitful collective labor. :-)

--Ron
Ronreisman (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Kfar Etzion massacre- 'after their surrender'

concerning "Kfar Etzion massacre after their surrender" ,I will appreciate it, if you decide whether the term "after their surrender" is correct. Moreover, what is your opinion concerning this discussion? thanks Ykantor (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

15 May - 30 may situation map

Hi Zero0000,

Ykantor convinced a contributor to draw this map, which is a great improvement in comparison with the former one : [3]

I see many mistakes. I think it's worth gathering all minds before asking the designer to make corrections. Would you have a few minutes for help ?

What I am sure of :

• Ramla and Lydda were located in the territory allocated to the Arab state, not the contrary
• Yishuv troops occupied territory along the coast up to the Lebanon (kibbutz of Anita).
• The size of the Syrian pocket north of Tiberiade should be removed
• Gaza should be in green
• the continuity between the coastal plain and Jerusalem should be removed - it was blocked again end of April
• south of Eilat should be in blue :-)

What I wonder :

• After operation Yiftah, I don't think that ALA occupied territories allocated to the Jewish State in Galilea.
• Same regarding the coastal plain. I think front line followed the "separation line" of the Partition plan (on 15 May)
• Caesaria is much more at North as well as Hadera ; they are both unsignificant.
• this map is complex : West Bank area should be removed
• Egyptian army followed 2 parallel lines ; the didn't enter from Gaza there separated in two armies with a part driving back after Hebron (???)

Thx, Pluto2012 (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Many of your notes are correct

• Concerning colors: The Map is actually composed of of 2 maps- as of June 1948 and the other map for the armistice period. Hence the different colors for the Gaza strip and the west bank.
• the continuity between the coastal plain and Jerusalem: This is a rather vague point. At the 26 May the Hagana occupied 2 Arab villages, and thus a continuum was created. However, it was not worth much, since there was no road there. Within a couple of weeks The Burma Road (Israel) was built there. The main obstacle was a 2 km section of rocky and steep slope, in which porters and moles were used. Temporary water and fuel pipes were built in this section. The road became fully operational at 10 June 1948. Ykantor (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a similar map on page 184 of Morris 1948, labeled "May-June 1948". To a large extent it is very similar. One difference is that the area of Israel control on the north coast extends to the border (Kibbutz Hanita was taken in May). Also some of the dates differ, the largest discrepancy is the Iraqi incursion: the map says 15/05 but Morris' map says 22-23/5. Also Morris shows the Iraqi incursion ending north of Qalqilya, not passing through Qalqilya. Zero^talk 10:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the territory near Lebanon, the situation is rather vague. The Haganah occupied this territory during the "Ben Ami" operation, brought a 3 months supply to a couple of Kibbutz's , evacuated their children, and retreated to Naharia, in an anticipation of an imminent Lebanese invasion. Hence the zone was a no man land for a while. Ykantor (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hanita kibbutz is at a few hundred meters from the border, not to say on it. It is just North of Naharia. And it was a military center. Fosh was created there. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hanita is 9 km (driving distance) to the sea. As said, the Hagana force brought 3 months supply to the Kibbutz, evacuated their children and left in the same day. Ykantor (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

History of Jerusalem

I see you commented on someone copying material from another article into this one. Most editors probably don't know that without clear attribution via a link to the original article this is a copyright violation. Thought you'd like to know. Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it was copied from another Wikipedia article. Sorry that wasn't clear. Zero^talk 01:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

clearly contradicts the result of the discussion

Right. ;) How did you figure it out? What is so special about this archeological site comparing to other sites in the same region? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You are almost entirely alone in your opinion at WP:NPOVN. Even the original poster agreed to "Israeli-controlled". Zero^talk 08:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Right, it is in Syria ;) Tell me who your friends are, and I'll tell you who you are... Sometimes good things do grow out of Sweden. Could you respond to the point, on the talk page? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously though, the result of the discussion is location simply as "the Golan Heights" on first mention, though more details are in some cases provided further on.. So if you do not object I will change the article accordingly. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I do object, the consensus was simply not what you say. Zero^talk 01:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I see, initially it was suggested here: I believe the best solution would be to simply state "the Golan Heights" without further description., but anyway your position is clear. AgadaUrbanit (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jerusalem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beit Guvrin (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) 11:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Arab Liberation Army

Hello,

You collaborated to the debate about this "emblem". Would you mind giving your mind and analysis on the talk page of the article regarding this topic ? Pluto2012 (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Excavations at the Temple Mount 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• who visited the site in 1998 and claims to have been prevented from meeting Israeli officials (in his own words, "Mr Avi Shoket, Israel's permanent delegate to UNESCO, had repeatedly opposed my
• all our estimations, are from a structure in one of the outer courtyards in the [[Holy Temple]]."{{subst:cn} Archaeologist [[Zachi Zweig]] said a tractor used to dig the trench damaged the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Nuremberg Laws

Hi, I noticed that you added a historical journal article as a source. I was wondering where you found that article, if you don't mind me asking. I would like to read it if I could. Thanks. Herzlicheboy (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You can send me mail and I'll give you a copy. Zero^talk 10:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Lebanon-Golan border

Hi Zero,

It appears to me from a number of sources that it's on the Lebanese side, but it's not certain. Maybe the official straight border passes elsewhere, but I'm sure that the border fence isn't straight and depends mostly on topography.

Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

My report

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Yambaram (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Iranian Jews

Thanks for your help. I've found best possible source for this issue: article Israel ii. Jewish Persian Community from Encyclopædia Iranica, written by Jewish professor David Yeroushalmi (NOT this one) from Tel Aviv University, leading expert on that particular topic. Article is comprehensive and updated very recently (April 5, 2012). Cheers. --HistorNE (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Latrun

Greetings, Zero0000! You recently made a minor change to Latrun. You are correct - boni instead of bonu according to proper Latin grammar. As for your comment for a better source, how about - Walter Pick's entry in the Jewish Virtual Encyclopedia. While Baraq is a Jewish Agency bureaucrat, Pick is/was a respected historian. But then Pick says domus (house), instead of castellum (castle). If I change the source to Pick, I will also change the text. I have used the Baraq source in another article and will change both depending upon your response. Regards, --@Efrat (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS ?

Any idea of who could be : "Givati, Moshe (1994). In the Path of Desert and Fire. Ma'arakhot Publishing. ISBN 965-05-0719-1" ?

According to you, is this a reliable source for events regarding the '48 war ? Pluto2012 (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a book published in Hebrew by the Ministry of Defence. I know little about it except that I see it cited occasionally (e.g., Morris and Tal). Zero^talk 01:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Renaming of List of artifacts significant to the Bible

Hi, just to let you know that we're in the third and final stage of the RM discussion at Talk:List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible#Requested_move_09_November_2013. I'm sending you this message because you participated in an earlier stage of this discussion. We'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Oncenawhile (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ho Hum ...

You've been mentioned.     ←   ZScarpia   14:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: The 1948 document

I think the confusion stems from the official and the common name for the document. As far as I know, the document is called The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel (ההכרזה על הקמת מדינת ישראל), but it is commonly known as The Independence Scroll (מגילת העצמאות). I have never seen the official name spoken anywhere. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: WP:RX#Yechiel of Paris (2)

Hello, Zero0000. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Casement Report

Nice work on the Casement Report, Zero0000. John M Baker (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Chricho ∀ (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		To say thanks for your help with sourcing for Hulda Stumpf, which I added today, and generally to thank you for your kindness in supplying sources whenever you can. With best wishes, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Zero^talk 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions please

Hiya! Good catch on the maps thing. I read it like two or three times and then wrote it down with reservations, but this may well have been the product of sleep deprivation. On another note, can you think of anything that could be done to improve the Tel Kabri article? I want to get it to GA status and eventually FA. I just changed the referencing system to make it more exact (Harvard style with page numbers rather than just pointing at sources), and I've a few ideas like expanding Kempinski's section (I have all of his preliminary reports now), adding a table of stratigraphy, and maybe hitting up the Kibbutz at some point for their records though my Hebrew comprehension is no longer what it once was.Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 2 Tevet 5774 19:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Tel Kabri Site Map

So here's the map from Kempinski's final report (2002; 3): http://i.imgur.com/EexyAU1.jpg?2 For the most part we've worked in Area D. There was going to be something in Area E in 2011, but it never materialised for a number of reasons. So he only area that needs extra work from what's seen there is D. Both D and F are much larger. The placement of the trench by D is absolutely correct, by the way. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Kabri_2013_palace_aerial.jpg -- the hideous light grey pipe you see in the photo is carrying water along the original lines of the '61 Mekorot trench. (which I didn't realise until I started editing this article). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 9 Tevet 5774 00:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

1947 Aden pogrom AfD

Just curious to know why the creator of the article wasn't notified of the AfD. Coretheapple (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Zero^talk 22:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're very welcome. I was as surprised by the lack of notification as I was the AfD itself, to be quite frank. Coretheapple (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Weird Japanese ip

Brilliantly weird indeed. I love the self-reverts with accusation of vandalism. Maybe we should make it an administrator so it will block itself.

Thanks, that made me laugh.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Resource exchange request - any luck?

Sorry, I don't mean to badger you, I was just wondering if you ever found Nahon's Inscriptions hébraïques et juives de France médiévale, which you kindly offered to get for me.

I'm in no rush since, as you can see at my draft page, I edit at snail's pace, but since I now have full access to the source that cites Nahon, I would very much like to compare it to the original.

Thank you very much, הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Check your email. Zero^talk 20:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Received, thank you very much. It was especially thoughtful of you to include the related entries 76-78, which I did not think of asking for. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps you should consider archiving part of your talk page - my browser gets into fits when editing it. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)