User talk:Zero0000/2015

Western wall

I see you removed my explanation about the top layers of the wall being added by Montefior. Even in it is untrue and a mere urban myth as you claim, it should still be include in the article, not as a true explanation of the top layers construction but as a widespread and notable urban myth pertaining to the wall. Additionally, if the Montefior explanation is untrue there must be some other explanation for the the construction of top layers made of smaller stone. Without any explanation the aritcle is sorely lacking. (Personally I would be very intrested to know any explanation you might be aware of; this is what led me to the Western Wall article in the first place.) Naytz (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Sources for Montefiore's contribution: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Western-Wall-stones-in-danger-of-crumbling http://blog.bibleplaces.com/2008/04/western-wall-stones-crumbling.html

Bibleplaces.com is a biblical literalist site. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

U haz a mail!

o hai, i brought u a mailz n ated ur cereal.

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.

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 12 Tevet 5775 13:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Operation Entebbe may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just 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:

• UN Secretary General [[Kurt Waldheim] told the Security Council that the raid was "a serious violation of the sovereignty

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Jericho

--deleted. No longer necessary. 108.217.108.193 (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Derogatory comments? by Number 57 on the Talk Page of Israeli Declaration of Independence

I have read the policy article Wikipedia:No personal attack. If the remark of Number 57 - despairing wikilawyer - on Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence were derogatory, the lead gave me the right to remove them. Whether the remark were derogatory is open to debate. At the very least, it does not help the discussion.

My concern here is that the main body of the policy article does not mention the word derogatory; rather it refers to personal attacks. It may be that the comment was derogatory, but not a personal attack. The inconsistency between the lead and the main body of the policy article need to be resolved, but not by me.

(I have left the comment on the Talk Page, if only so that a later reader can make up his/her own mind). Trahelliven (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Nrg

Hi Zero,

NRG was part of Ma'ariv, but as far as I know, it's now part of Israel Hayom, while Ma'ariv itself is part of The Jerusalem Post.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

IP indef-block

I just noticed you indef-blocked IPv6 2606:6000:FD07:E900:A1A3:E8AE:9A34:9F13. IPs usually should not be indef-blocked because they might be re-assigned to other people. Would you consider shortening the block length? Huon (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It is probably an open proxy since if was used by a vandal coming from a large number of different IPs. But I don't know how to tell for ipv6 addresses, do you? I changed it to 2 weeks. I'm under attack by some little boy. Zero^talk 13:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

... for cleaning up Nableezy's page. Could you oblige also on my NSH001 talk page, please, where he's also been at work? Many thanks. --NSH002 (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Replies

Heya, got back to you on the Kabri map project and also the Jericho article as well. I'd like to take it on (having her reports handy and having gotten to spend an hour handling a Jericho skull, which was amazing!), but I don't think I'll have the time for something that big right now.... Also, looking at your talk page history, you do seem popular—though not necessarily with the right people—lately, haha. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 7 Shevat 5775 18:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for correcting auto-correct's idiocy.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 8 Shevat 5775 00:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

mail

Hi zero! I appreciate jokes as much as the next man, but what was that about sending me an email? Arminden (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Thank you for your reply! Sometimes I'm quite slow. OK, I get it now. My personal email address is quite a private thing, and I forgot that I must have given it when I registered with WP. I guess it's firewalled somehow, otherwise it would be a joke, even considering Snowden & the NSA. Btw, I just got an email from WP regarding your message, so it does work. Maybe the NSA guy just went out to the loo for a minute and set it all on hold? How do they say, you don't need to be paranoid, sometimes there is indeed somebody following you :-)

Victor Guérin

I have tried to find Victor Guérin´s "La Terre sainte" over at archive.org, but have had no success. I suspect it is there under another author-name? Cohen & Lewis refer to it on Al-Daraj, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct of User:DaoXan

You may be interested in this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

TRANS/JORDAN

Hi. Sorry, but I won't even try to look for primary sources. Jordan is as messy a place as you would expect, which is part of its charm. As you yourself have pointed out on the discussion page, they had officials still using the old name in 1949 and the new coins were one step from going to the mint with the "wrong" name. The constitution cannot have mattered much in formal issues, the king was and still is the only authority able to make major decisions, the parliament is just a joke where they can let off a bit of steam and the government is at the service of the Palace. The real issue for King Abdallah I was how to expand the territory AND get recognition. I guess the new name really became more of an issue once they did hold territory on both banks of the river, trans and cis. But even that might be an over-interpretation. If the formal aspect plays a role for me, it's from the international p.o.v., and EVERYBODY seems to have called them Transjordan until 1949. Same story as with the "Arab Legion", which was called this way throughout the 1948-49 war even if the official name was probably another one by then, since they weren't just a local "legion" of the Imperial British Army anymore. Btw, the article "the" in "of the Jordan" has also been abandoned, if they ever did insist on it. I guess any Jordanian other than that minister you're quoting there would mark us both for decapitation for aggravated silliness for wasting time on such matters. Even the very British Mr. Lawrence came back from that country mocking anyone who tried to nail him on using one consistent system of Arabic-English transliteration, let alone truthfulness in his war stories. OK, coffee time. Have a great day! ArmindenArminden (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That photo

Apparently it's Bar Rafaeli as a munchkin. [1] Its use doesn't add anything to the article as it shows nothing of the park, but it is likely taken in Israel however the original description is kind of silly considering Rafaeli's fame. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 18 Shevat 5775 14:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan Bahat

Thanks, and well done! He's a great guy. Right now I'm preparing for an exam, I should be focusing on other things :-) , but I'll put it on my list.

West Bank

Good day!

→‎Transportation and communications: in source: "4,686 km includes Gaza Strip"

"Undid revision 646929098 by Радион (talk) so fix it, don't just delete"

1. Listed there to the length of roads in the West Bank with the Gaza Strip. This is twice as much territory.
2. There is not expressly stated, is that the West Bank is no unpaved roads: they probably just do not taken into account. This is not Monaco to there actually was not a single kilometer of unpaved roads, and backward country.
3. I do not speak English enough to rewrite this sentence, and you unfortunately returned false information in the article.

Радион (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's much less than twice, but otherwise you are quite correct. Until we find a reliable source with just the WB, I changed it to match the source. Thanks! Zero^talk 19:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Mandatory Palestine

Hello Zero0000. Question: What state was the successor of the British Mandate in Palestine: All-Palestine Government or really controlled Gaza strip Kingdom of Egypt? Yours respectfully--Poti Berik (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Poti Berik: I'll take it that you are referring to the Gaza Strip, not to the British Mandate as a whole. If the All-Palestine Government had been internationally accepted, there is no doubt that it would be the successor state. However it was only recognised by a handful of governments, so nobody except those governments would regard it as the successor state and in any case it disintegrated after a few years. Without the All-Palestine Government as successor state there would be none at all until the State of Palestine came along (and there is plenty of disagreement about the present status). Egypt did not annex the Gaza Strip and military occupation does not create state succession, so there is no chance that Egypt was ever the successor state. All this is my opinion and I'm sure there is no general agreement on your question. Zero^talk 12:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Understood, thanks for your reply. Yours respectfully--Poti Berik (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Golan Arch. Museum

Hi Zero! Hope you're fine & relaxed. Please, don't make me worry :)) So if you are a tourist preparing to visit Israel (or the "Syrian Golan" for all I care), or a student somewhere in need of data, where would you look up info on the archaeology of the Golan and museums specialised on this topic? On a Damascus-based website? And if you end up planning to go visit the Katzrin museum, would you expect to find Syrian history displayed? Have you actually visited the museum? I didn't think I'd find you on the "politically correct" but unrealistic side of life. That museum is a stone-and-concrete building with a location and a content, with opening times and an entry fee, not a UN resolution. It needs not be dealt with in a PC way, but in an informative one. Call it names in the text (it's full of "Talmudic Period" and has nothing from 1300 years of Arab presence in the Golan, if I do remember it well), but to ignore it's in the N District of Israel?! Like with the Druze villages in the Golan, add "Quneitra District" or whichever Syrian admin. region it potentially belongs to, but don't fight de facto with de iure ON WIKIPEDIA! It's not the right place. Anyway, I should cut down on this WP thing, it's becoming a nuisance, too many crusaders around. Hope to find you in a more relaxed environment than that basalt-blackened Golan. Have a great time.Arminden (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden

"Wadi-Chanin"

Hi. Still around.

Zionist sources have stuck to German "Wadi-Chanin", with or w/o "Bindestrich", for a long time, until the end of WWI for all I could figure out. Just google for "Wadi Chanin" (add "Jewish" to keep out most German pages) and you'll find some 100 hits, pre-WWI or probably copying from such sources. There are also several who wrote it "Wadi al-Chanin". Still quite close. The Survey of W Pal. map doesn't have it yet - at all.

1918 American source: Kh-, not Ch-, but otherwise the same idea: http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Jerusalem_Its_Redemption_and_Future_the_Great_Drama_of_Deliverance_1000248956/195

It's when German and Dutch Jews in Palestine were still having fights with the Hebrew-speakers over teaching in German at the yet-to-be-established Haifa Politechnic (Technion). I'm sure by now that it was used this way before 1918; hard for me to establish if it was for sure the most common way or not. If I'm wrong in terms of frequency... So be it.Arminden (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Hey

Hello. I am new in Wikipedia. I am sorry if you take my edits in a bad faith, but this is not the point here. The point is that arguments that come from single sources are to be shunned. We have to work together to find and prove or disprove these claims. It does not matter if "Armenians are Amalekites" or if "Zionists are not Palestinians", I care about the topics because of a general interest in the subject. I apologize if I was insensitive before. Greetings. --92slim (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING

Re: [2] - watch it, I'm losing patience with your repeated violations of wikipedia policy I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thats cute: [3] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I found a WP:HOUNDING section added to my talk page as well, it states:

Re: [4] - watch it, I'm losing patience with your repeated violations of wikipedia policy . Next stop will be WP:AE, where I expect to bring up your obvious sock puppetry, as well. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

As I have never used a sock puppet, it should be interesting to learn how it could be "obvious" that I have. Can anything be done about this guy? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Hi CosmicEmperor (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

How does semi-protected status get requested?

Hi Zero0000, Do you know? The King David Hotel bombing article has been a target of many sockpuppets in the past, and there recently appears to be a number of accounts created solely for the purpose of editing that article (for example, User:Lockerbie's child ). I think it would benefit from protection from brand new editors. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested, Huldra (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved your section at the RFC

Hey Zero, I hope you don't mind, but I moved your section here in a way that I thought it would fit in better with the rest of the section (in my overall reordering of things on that page). If you dislike its placement though feel free to put it back wherever you please, of course. I won't feel bad or anything. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Adar 5775 02:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A delivery kitten for you!

x2

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.

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Adar 5775 04:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit War

The IP has broken 1R on the Arab Cultural Capital. See here: [5][6]. AcidSnow (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, Bkalafut and RebSmith still fail to recognize the problems with their desired version of the article. Bkalafut has even decided to make personal attacks against users including you; stating that "Your dishonesty is transparent. Shall I give up with him and let WP:BOOMERANG take its effects? AcidSnow (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Help!

Hi Zero. May I ask for your assistance? There is an Israeli far-right press & online hasbara professional who has a WP page to his name and is, very obviously, self-editing all criticism radically out of it. He is, maybe with some assistance from friendly helpers, but always using the same modus operandi and identical wording in the edit summaries, taking out large chunks of relevant material (usually 50% of the article) in 2 consecutive steps claiming to remove "irrelevant editorializing". Most such edits are done anonymously, under an IP identity. Now I've had enough and promised to block these "anonymous" editor(s) out, but that's an empty threat insofar that I have no clue whom to approach for that. Can you please help? Thanks!

Here some data: The edits done openly by Mr Seaman himself:

"Giladraz": [18:35, 16 September 2007‎], [11:36, 17 September 2007‎], [21:48, 17 September 2007‎], [21:52, 17 September 2007‎]

  "The attributed article is 5 years old, I do not live in Gilo, so get off it already."
  "As I said the so called reliable source is 5 years old - there is no greater a source than myself - stop vandalising I live in the city vf jerusalem and not in gilo"

"Giladraz" is possibly identical with 147.237.73.201, 199.203.233.40.

Less "open" edits done under IP "identities", which I would like to see blocked - at least the latest one:
79.178.37.65
79.179.196.125
109.66.143.41

Edit summaries: "restoring factual information", "removing editorializing", "inaccurate media coverage and irrelevent to present" -- very evidently inaccurate and dishonest for a public persona.

One anonymous editor explains how it's done, by using untraceable Orange IDs "shared by some Orange cell phone subscribers in Israel" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:192.118.11.112#August_2010) Arminden (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden Arminden (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Invitation to comment

Would you be able to revisit the discussion on my talkpage? I am trying to get editors to comment on the real issue, after they strayed away a little. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Request at dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

Hi. I have filed a request at WP:DRN about an issue in an article that you have been involved in. Welcome to discuss it there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this under WP:ARBPIA?

I've protected the article Islam and antisemitism. Also noticed the recent debate at Talk:Islam and antisemitism#Muslim Clerics as sources. Do you think this article is covered by WP:ARBPIA? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: In principle it is not part of ARBPIA, but in practice it is. For obvious reasons, a large fraction of the huge polemic literature on this subject comes from people whose Israel-related motivation is clearly evident. Also a lot of the "evidence" comes from an organization that, whatever they say, is an unofficial branch of the Israeli government. So I think it is justified to include the article under ARBPIA and I think we would be better off if it was. Regards. Zero^talk 02:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What organization are you thinking of? EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: MEMRI. Zero^talk 05:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

This article should indeed be covered by ARBPIA : [7]. Islam/Antisemitism/Islamophobia are an important topic in the propaganda war in the I-P conflict. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:AE#Result concerning Calypsomusic

Ping re WP:AE#Result concerning Calypsomusic. Thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

High definition maps of Palestine

Yes please! Though the map you have is 1940's - the ones I have are from a 1932 survey. Can I get access to them? Many thanks Padres Hana (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Martin Gilbert still WP:RS ?

I don't know how to manage this : [8]. He quoted Bat Ye'or and Joan Peters. He even praised the 1st here. But according to wikipedia, he is WP:RS. What is your mind ? Pluto2012 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

For decades I've been wondering how Martin Gilbert earned the esteem he has, since his history books range from terrible to appalling. It's hard to see what can be done about it, though. Zero^talk 12:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Burqin

Sunday on the wiki looks better with your contribution - Thanks Victuallers (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Admin help

An editor suggested I needed to contact an admin directly about this. Do you agree that is what I need to do and, if so, would you be an appropriate admin? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gouncbeatduke: I can't do anything myself since I'm "involved" in this subject area. The first thing to do in the case of iban violation is to bring it to the attention of the admin who imposed the iban. If you get no response, try one of the other admins who approved the iban. The names are here. Zero^talk 03:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Temple Mount page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Block of 87.69.45.70

Hi, you blocked 87.69.45.70 for a month with the log entry "Vandalism-only account". I assume this was a mistake, because obviously an IP cannot be a vandalism only account. However, you also blocked account creation and disabled email and talk page access, which is rather unusual for an IP block, as opposed to a softblock with only anonymous editing disabled. Is there some reason for this that I'm missing? Thanks, Conifer (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. – I believe semi-protection of one's talk page is frowned upon, because then new and unregistered users have no way to contact you. Per WP:UP, "In rare cases, protection may be used but is considered a last resort given the importance of talk page discussions to the project." Conifer (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's been a few days now, and I think policy is very clear on these two matters. Per the blocking policy, you should not disallow talk page access by default: "This option is not checked by default, and typically should not be checked; editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page." Per the user pages guideline, you also should not protect your talk page, especially as an admin, without extreme circumstances: "In rare cases, protection may be used but is considered a last resort given the importance of talk page discussions to the project." Conifer (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yaakov Moshiach

I understand your reaction. But it just so happens that I have reliable inside information about this event. There is nothing slanderous about Yaakov Moshiach being named as the starter of these fires. This is simply a matter of fact. I don't see why you would want to censor this from the public. They have a right to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesread77 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ooops?

Hi Z, feels good to be back here. I've just done a revert (not just, added source + balanced the usual way, fatalities on one side plus, not versus :), fatalities on the other side.) THEN I noticed that our friend, the not-at-all-Monochrome M., has been blocked for smth. related to this bit. I more or less stumbled upon that paragraph, saw that the Israeli 2nd Intifada casualty numbers have been deleted by "emotional" editor, while ISR as well as PAL numbers are indisputably a highly relevant issue, they've changed public opinion and official policies hugely on both sides, so however people will decide to package the facts, they deserve mention. Since the end of the 2Intif. is not clearly datable, you'll never get the same figures even from even-headed people. That leaves you? us? WP? with a nice dilemma. But ignoring essential facts of history because full consensus about the figures cannot be reached, would turn our entire enterprise here into a joke. Looking forward to hear your opinion (see your solution?). Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Censorship

Hi, accusing me of being the arsonist in question was completely unwarranted. If you feel you have a crime to report perhaps the Israeli police would be the place to go and to go throwing unwarranted accusations on an online encyclopedia talk page. Anyway, browsing through your contributions it is plain to see that you have vested interests in matters pertaining to the Middle East. Whatever your motivations for trying to censor information about arson attacks which were clearly in protest to the Pope's visit (hardly a soapbox event, clearly one of international importance) I assure you that one way or another the information will get out there and that your attempts to censor the information only expose your bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesread77 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Children in the I/P conflict

@Zero0000:

Hello,

I am writing in regards to your undoing of my revision to the page 'Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict'. I removed a source from 1999 that 1) made claims that were not supported by the evidence provided and 2) is directly contradicted by recent studies, such as the one that I linked from 2012, which shows that Israeli children are not, in fact, some of the "most violent in the world", and actually display less aggressive behavior than Palestinian children.

In regards to my first point, the claim that Israeli children are among "the most violet in the world" rests on 2 (outdated) statistics provided by the author, which are: 1) 43% of Israeli children have admitted to bullying others (bullying was not defined as physical violence and there were no comparisons made to children of other nationalities) and 2) that 1/4 Israeli boys admitted to carrying a knife to school for protection.

The only way I could see these two claims beginning to help justify the argument that Israeli children are among "the most violent in the world" is if a similar study was conducted on children of other nationalities and, comparatively, Israeli children experienced higher rates of bullying and were more likely to admit to bringing a knife to school for protection. And yet still, I wouldn't find those two statistics alone to be sufficient to argue that Israeli children are abnormally violent- more accurately I would argue that they are more vulnerable to bullying, which is not, as we all know, in any way limited to physical violence.

Regardless of Professor Kaufman's questionable conclusion, the study he cites is over 15 years out of date. His commentary, made in 1999, is inaccurately presented as being applicable to Israeli children in 2015.

Moreover (and this brings me to my second point), the claims are directly contradicted by a 2012 study that I cited, which reveals that of Palestinian, Arab Israeli and Jewish Israeli children, the latter group actually demonstrates the least aggressive behavior. The claim that it is the latter two groups that are conversely among the "most violent in the world" is simply not grounded in evidence.

Sammy1857 (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

@Zero0000:

I am writing in regards to your undoing of my revision to "United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine".

I removed text that was not sourced from the section 'Reactions' subsection 'Arabs'; the text in question is the following: "Zionists attributed Palestinian rejection of the plan to a mere intransigence. However, Palestinians and Arabs as a rule always reiterated that a partition was unfair".

The "Zionists" attitudes are not sourced, neither are those of the "Palestinians and Arabs", which are presented as having a uniform opinion and rejecting partition because it was "unfair".

These are claims that need to be sourced. This is a section dedicated to Arab reactions, and yet not a single citation in that paragraph leads me to any Arab from 1947 making any of the stated arguments. Moreover, there is evidence that directly contradicts them (such as Arab leadership rejecting Peel in 1937, despite it giving them 80% of the land, eroding the argument about rejection stemming from unfair land allocation). Until these claims are sourced, they should not be made.

Sammy1857 (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sammy1857: Please post on the article talk page so that other people can contribute. In fact, someone else already did. Zero^talk 10:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Haifa

Hi & thanks. Buuuut... I did try with just one quote, and saw what happened? Smb. had the chutzpah to say it's unsupported, quoting... Resnick, who gives the very quote I put in additionally, and which only strengthens the case. As I was writing to King Shabazz, the only case of Jewish military valour from 614 until (more jokingly) 1821-22, the Farhi brothers' siege on Acre, that would be at least 1200 uninterrupted years of Jews being content to die with a prayer, if it weren't for Mr. Albert's chronicle. Thank you for adding Prawer, I wasn't aware of his opinion, but he's by now at least as outdated as Albert of Aachen. And even less of an eyewitness to the events. And btw, what's his theory, why would Albericus, a man of the Church, hail the Jews all of a sudden and with no good reason? Whatever, spoiling a good story, shame on him. Good night, Arminden (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden

@Arminden: Nobody knows where Albert got his information from. Presumably from people who went on the Crusade, but he never went to Palestine himself. I can't guess why he would write this story as he did, assuming that it isn't true. The idea of writing history as a factual account of what happened is a modern concept that did not exist in Albert's day anyway, which is why accounts even by eye-witnesses need to be taken with a grain of salt. The comparison with Prawer is not accurate since Prawer was a scientific scholar who clearly tried to be as accurate as possible, and this area was his specialty. He doesn't dismiss Albert's account out of hand, but he does express disquiet over the very limited evidence for it. Others disagree, of course. Zero^talk 03:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zero. C'mon, I didn't slide from listening to good-night fairy tales straight to reading history. That's all very obvious. We both know how "specialised scientific scholars" develop theories and stick to them, come what may. Prawer is old, I just had a relatively well-established younger historian contradicting his theory about the First Crusade going up the Ascent of Beth Horon instead of Wadi Ali, which Prawer described as a fact although there isn't a shred of information about it. It's been written that Prawer and Runciman became THE specialists in their time because of literary talent, as much as for their scientific prowess. So if Prawer comments an event in a certain way, I'm absolutely happy to learn about his point of view and try to remember it along with all other dissenting ones, but nothing more. Usually, once we're in the field of speculation, plausibility is the best argument. That's why I asked the (rhetorical) question, why would a Frankish canon from Aachen/Aix start praising the Haifa Jews for "manliness" on no factual grounds? That's all. It would be interesting to know if there is anything hinting at such chronicles being read by anyone else than the Christian clergy and aristocracy, i.e. if Jewish scholars could or bothered to read them. But that's a very far shot. And even if that did sometimes happen, they certainly weren't Albert's "target reader". The other theoretical option would be that Albert followed some other immediate educational or political purposes, but which could those be? I cannot dismiss anything, but in terms of plausibility, Prawer's take on the episode doesn't go too far. Take care, Arminden (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden

@Arminden: Albert didn't have any "facts"; he had stories conveyed to him by persons unknown. Someone told him a story he liked and he wrote it up, but we have no knowledge of how much he added his own spin to it. I don't find anything strange about a Christian chronicler writing such things. If the story didn't match his stereotypes about Jews, that would have enhanced the entertainment value of the story in his eyes. Zero^talk 10:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Jordan

Would you please explain what is wrong with this edit.I don't think Palestine still exists. Is Dead Sea does not bordered Israel? ---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 21:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Zeeyanketu: You aren't allowed to imply that the West bank is part of Israel. Also see State of Palestine. Zero^talk 00:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Children in the I/P conflict, history

@Zero0000: A history section is meant to provide background on the topic; a single weapons display event in Efrat from 2014 does not provide background on the topic at hand. It is ephemera. Please explain your reversal of my edit. Sammy1857 (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sammy1857: You don't need to ping someone when you write on their talk page, it is automatic. I'm copying your text to the article talk page, which is where discussion of an article should take place. Zero^talk 00:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Changing article names

Hi Zero, and thanks for helping with the picture.
Could you please take a look at the talk pages of Kal'at Al Mina and Ashdod-Sea? The article names were probably Google-translated from Hebrew and don't correspond to the names commonly used in literature. It might be the same with Ashdod Light, even Google suggests Ashdod Lighthouse if you take the words one by one, but that's a modern site, no mention of it in the history books I'm used to :) and my lack of Hebrew stops me from properly checking in the Heb. article. Thank you! Arminden (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden

@Arminden: See Talk:Kal'at Al Mina. Regarding "Ashdod-Sea", I agree it looks like a crude translation only and I don't see it called that in serious books. Actually the few dozen mentions in my files all use "Ashdod-yam" or "Ashdod-Yam" and I think that might have the best case. The Hebrew name of "Ashdod Light" seems to use a word that means "lighthouse" specifically, and not just "light". I don't know this place at all and have no idea if it has an English name. To just make up a name or translate the Hebrew name, "lighthouse" would be more likely. A purist might avoid "lighthouse" since nobody lives there (the "house" part of "lighthouse") but popular usage doesn't respect that. Zero^talk 05:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Offline life has caught up with me. I'll be back and continue.Arminden (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Conifer (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Bayt Nattif". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 June 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Fighters' List ambiguous reference

In your edit of Fighters' List you inserted the reference <ref>Heller, pp. 268–283.</ref>, but unfortunately, there was already one Heller book and in the same edit you introduced a second Heller book, so which one is it? Please fix. —Anomalocaris (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about Christian Persecution Category

Hi! You were recently involved in some disagreement at the article on the Semiramis Hotel bombing over whether [[Category:Persecution of Christians]] should be added to it. This is currently being discussed on the article's talk page. Please head over there to discuss your thoughts about this and reach a consensus. In the meantime, please keep the page as it is and do not edit war. ~ Rob^Talk 11:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Bayt Nattif, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Reference errors on 5 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Haj Amin al-Husseini page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposals for a Palestinian state

Thank you very much for your contributions! --Miraclexix (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverts

I'm somewhat bemused by your reverts of an IP earlier today (e.g. this). The changes made by the IP were actually an improvement, as linking to Palestinian people is clearly more appropriate than linking to Palestinian territories (which the articles have no link with). Adding the word Arab also helps clarify the situation, as pre-1948, all residents were Palestinians. Why did you revert them? Number 57 10:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: If someone wants to make a politically sensitive change to multiple articles they should explain their purpose and get some consensus beforehand. This IP hasn't touched a single talk page or even given a single edit summary. Certain of its edits, like this one don't give me confidence that encyclopedia improvement is its purpose. Zero^talk 13:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how a more appropriate link and disambiguating term is "politically sensitive". The IP may well have made some inappropriate edits elsewhere, but it's hardly an excuse to rollback everything they've done. Number 57 15:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: This IP only improved the link in a tiny handful of cases, which I now fixed. It didn't ever add it when there was no link. And the reason for the addition of "Arab" is obviously denial, not disambiguation. I know a pov-pusher when I see one, and so do you. Is this the work of a good editor? Zero^talk 10:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Denial? Clearly your last diff is not a productive edit, but if unproductive edits were a reason for mass rollbacking edits of editors in this field (even in cases where the edits were positive), I can't think of more than one or two editors in this field who should not receive the same treatment. Number 57 11:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but several different editors (including me) have warned him/her on their user-page, and they do not respond, ever. The IP reminds me of User:Motique, who likewise continued stubbornly, without ever listening or engaging with other editors. Not a good sign, Huldra (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yummy! Zero^talk 10:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the League of Nations page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies

Would you take a short glance at 2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies, if you have the time? Apart from one incident about fake photograph controversy by a Reuters employee, the rest of it is random, unconnected, referencing bloggers, and all sorts of other no-nos. I am unsure of policy and since you're one of the few admins active in I/P area, I would like your opinion. I am not experienced in WP:AfD, but if in your judgment it should be merged/deleted, I would be willing to put the necessary work. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

An unbelievable pile of garbage. I'll get back to this. Zero^talk 00:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestinian Refugees

Without adding that Palestinians called for unification with Jordan, readers will assume that Jordan's annexation of the West Bank was an act of aggression rather than something done with the consent of the Palestinians. Octopus1066 (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC) (UTC)

Octopus1066, I keep fixing your addition because it's incomplete and misrepresents what the source says. Please stop cherry-picking to push your POV. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestinian refugees

How does it misrepresent the source? Octopus1066 (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC) (UTC)

Because the quote is incomplete. The Palestinian delegates didn't "call for the unification of Palestine and Transjordan", as you put it. According to the source, they supported a resolution that called for "the unification of Palestine and Transjordan as a step toward full Arab unity". The second half of the resolution is of vital importance. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Q

Hi dear "Georgia_guy"

Is the sentence below grammatically correct? thank You.Alborzagros (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• Respecting to some idiots will make us feel slighted by them.

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Protection needed

Protection needed on Palestine Liberation Organization. An Argentinian sock deleted 12 edits at once yesterday and earlier more. --Qualitatis (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qualitatis: It looks too much like a content dispute for me to do it, since I'm "involved" in that subject. Ask at WP:RPP. Zero^talk 09:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1952 Beit Jala Raid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestinian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Rafiah

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines: "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted." Rafiah and the whole Gaza Strip were de facto part of Israel between 1967 and 2005; therefore, according to the guidelines, the Hebrew name is permitted -- especially since the transliteration of the Hebrew name is already there. --My another account (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Israel reverts

I misunderstood nothing. Wikimania self-reverted to avoid breaching 1RR, not because there were substantive problems with the edit. As I discussed at AE, the text in question was deleted by an involved non-admin before the governing RFC had been closed. Unless you have a sound policy-based case for acting before the RFC had been validly closed, I ask that you restore the status quo ante bellum. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but the status quo ante bellum was without the text. That was edit-warred in, just in case you hadnt actually looked. nableezy - 04:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Temple Mount

I knew the edit that you reverted had something of editorializing in it, but on the other hand, the fact remains that the four changes to the status quo are all to the detriment of the Jews, and that nevertheless, surprisingly and paradoxically, the Arabs claim that the Jews are those who are trying to change the status quo. Could you agree to keeping the first statement, regarding that the changes were to the detriment of the Jews, which is after all a fact and a summary of the four changes, if I agree that we don't need the word "paradoxically" or something like that. I mean, I could probably easily source that, although I don't want to stress the conflict overly much. Debresser (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: A regulation that prohibits Jews from praying on the Mount is to the detriment of those Jews who want to pray there, but to the advantage of those Jews who believe no Jews should go there at all. By using words that only represent the views of the first group, you are taking sides. You shouldn't do that. In any case it is obviously a opinion, and opinions should be attributed. Zero^talk 00:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of those opinions, and without catching me on the word "detriment", the fact remains, that all four changes were restrictions on Jews only. Debresser (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: It is still commentary, and it doesn't matter whether I agree with it. However, after looking at it more closely I don't agree with it. No non-Muslims are allowed to enter the mosques; that is not a restriction only on Jews. Similarly the visiting hours are for all non-Muslims. Writing the paragraph as if nobody matters except Jews is not reasonable. It is also (though here the source doesn't help) a pity that the paragraph doesn't say who imposes these restrictions. I'm sure the mosque entry is controlled by the waqf. The other restrictions, afaik, are imposed by Israel. Zero^talk 00:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right about that last point, so thanks for your latest edits there.

There is a fine line between writing an article based on information and commenting. I am not sure I crossed that line. In any case that question became redundant now. Debresser (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

rv

Re this, no need for a sorry. Honestly I didnt even look at the edit, just saw the last two edits from a NoCal sock that were the latest in an article and reverted on that basis. Cheers, nableezy - 08:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

1919 map

Hi Zero, hope you're doing well. Quick question - have you ever seen a copy of the original map presented by the WZO to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: No, I don't think I ever saw an original. If you come across a reference (even UK archives) I may be able to help you get it. Zero^talk 00:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: Actually I wonder if there was a map in the original proposal, rather than a verbal description as here. Zero^talk 01:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I had been looking for a reference to underlying source, but I can't find it anywhere. The best i could find was on page 18 of this, but it sounds verbal as well. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about Edit on "Bayt Nattif" Article

My friend, User:Zero0000, I wanted to ask you a question about style and accuracy. Don't you think that it is better to write "During late 1948, because of continued hostilities on both sides, the IDF destroyed housing structures in some villages, causing their inhabitants to flee. Among these destroyed villages was Bayt Nattif," rather than "During late 1948, the IDF continued to destroy conquered Arab villages, in order to block the villagers return. Among these destroyed villages was Bayt Nattif." Our friend, Huldra, is insisting on this one edit, without citing a reference for the statement, and, without citing a reason for the IDF to expel some villagers. She argues that the former edit (my edit) is too general in scope (i.e. relating to the 1948 war), but she doesn't recognize that her own edit is also very general in scope. IMHO. Your advice please.Davidbena (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Tsunami

I probably picked the word Tsunami from a Hebrew article I read. A country with some lakes and a Mediterranean shore doesn't need too many words for shock-waves, and even less from snow :)

Cheers, Settleman (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The Sergeants affair -- advice sought.

Both Brad Dyer/Bad Dryer and No More Mr Nice Guy have made edits removing the second sentence in the following text in The Sergeants affair article, citing WP:SYNTH (see the talkpage):

Menachem Begin claimed in his book The Revolt that the "cruel act" was one of the events which tipped the balance in the British withdrawal from Palestine.^{(cited to a website written by Yehuda Lapidot)} However, well beforehand, in the White Paper of 1939, the British government had stated its intention to terminate the Palestine Mandate, which was supposed to take place within ten years of the publication of the paper.^{(cited to a website displaying a copy of the White Paper)}

WP:SYNTH states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."

The policy gives the following example, which is quoted by Bad Dryer on the article' talkpage: "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world."

In the example, the separately sourced parts of the sentence 'combine' to imply something not sourced. Specifically, the second part of the sentence uses the stated purpose of the UN, given in the first part of the sentence' to imply that the UN has failed.

It does not look to me as though the two sentences at the centre of the dispute in the Sergeants Affair article 'combine'. The second sentence does not use the first sentence to imply anything unsourced. In Wikipedia it is normal, when events have different narratives, to juxtapose or contrast the narratives. That is a method used to achieve neutrality. The first sentence states what Begin had to say about the effect of the hangings on the British, that it was one of the events (likely, the others he had in mind were also Irgun attacks) that made the British decide to get out of Palestine. There is another narrative, though, that since the White Paper of 1939, which was issued in the wake of the 1936-1939 Arab revolt, the official policy of the British had been to try to end the mandate (and therefore British governance), attempting to negotiate independence for Palestine within ten years of the paper's publication. Contrary to Begin, therefore, it could be said that the British had actually decided to 'leave Palestine' long before the hangings. The second sentence is an attempt to describe a possible flaw in Begin's statement.

If the second sentence did in actual fact contravene WP:SYNTH, could you explain to me how?

    ←   ZScarpia   19:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi Zero0000. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Reference errors on 24 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Yibna page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Zionism

It was a good edit, thanks for NPOV-ing it. BTW, "remove analysis not in the source, clarify context, correct quotation, expand citation" - actually my term "rabid antisemite" was taken verbatim from the (biased) newspaper article, if you look closely:

” The English people,” concludes the rabid anti-Semite, ” arousing the unani­mous indignation of the entire civilized world, ...

Zezen (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Zezen: Thanks for your mail. Yes, the source says that and (assuming the factual information in the source is true) most people would agree to the description. However, as a matter of style more than anything, I don't think Wikipedia should use words like "rabid" without stating them as an opinion of some named person. Somehow it would detract from the cool neutral style that is best for an encyclopedia. Personally I think that calling him an author of multiple antisemitic texts is enough to inform readers that he was a rabid antisemite without the need for actually using the word. Zero^talk 08:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. I am happy you work to NPOV principles. I welcome you to professionally fix his WP entry, which I have been heavily updating today. I am astonished he has not gained more prominence in historical or WP research. Zezen (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Leon Uris may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just 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:

• to be a conscious attempt to show that the culture of an entire people is rotten to the core."<ref>{{cite journal | author = Jeremy Salt | title = Fact and Fiction in the Middle Eastern Novels of Leon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Zero0000. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Leon Uris and Exodus. Thank you. --Light show (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tegart fort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bassa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Zero0000. You have new messages at Talk:DAB.
Message added 00:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pls use talk, I'd rather not template an admin. Widefox; talk 00:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)