User talk:Pluto2012/archive1

Hi,

I hope you are well and enjoying your wiki-break. I have a question ...which is not anything to hurry about: The 1975 book by Joseph Ringel, called Césarée de Palestine: étude historique et archéologique has a reference on p. 174, to a 1664 source, named "Roger", who found a settlement consisting of 100 Moroccan families, and 7–8 Jewish ones at Caesarea. Now, the Ringel-book is not in any library in my country, I´m considering buying it (even if I don´t speak French!)....just to find out *which* 1664 source he is talking about. (The book is not expensive; several copies available on Abebooks.com.) However, might you have a copy handy in your country? Also, I am not at all sure Andrew Petersen has translated Ringel correctly, he talks about "Mores" which I though were "Muslims", but Petersen translates as "Moroccan"? (Discussion is at Talk:Caesarea#Stalking) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pluto2012. 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))[reply]

If whether or not these killings and massacres were carried out with the intent of hastening the exodus, is part of the effects caused by these massacres (it is already mentioned in the previous phrase)[1]. This sentence is repetitive and reduce the historical dispute to this particular controversy. This issue should be discuss further in the article, along with disputed issues and theories concerning the causes and the existence of theses massacres. The matter is, if you repeat it twice, it exclude all the other possibilities. I am concerned by the fact that there is only one sentence about other than the conventional "new historian POV": According to Avi Shlaim, "purity of arms" is one of the key features of 'the conventional Zionist account or old history' whose 'popular-heroic-moralistic version of the 1948 war' is 'taught in Israeli schools and used extensively in the quest for legitimacy abroad'. --... Point by point ... (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Israel archives do not confirm any massacre' especially not according to the source. It is only according to some historians, whose have based their works on thoses archives. Better sources are needed. "Israeli archives do not confirm massacres and the relevant IDF and haganah archives were completely closed due to the Israelis Archives Law (1955). We need more material to alleged this controversial claim".

--... Point by point ... (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@... Point by point ...

I introduced these sentences in the article. And I read the book from which they come. Per WP:AGF, until you have read several books on the topic, stay away from these articles.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at that article? Is that a term which is used much in French political discourse? Kingsindian ♝♚ 03:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kingsindian,

I answer on the talk page.

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you previously mentioned about the Battles of Latrun being promoted to good article in 2010, would you know if it was nominated for a DYK at that time ? Makeandtoss (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I dont remember... Pluto2012 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to help build an encyclopedia. I have nothing against @VQuakr:, nor any hard feelings, and this is one of the main reasons I wish you could send PM's on wikipedia. If you have a legitimate issue with an editor - you should take it to the appropriate forum. See WP:DR. SQL^{Query me!} 02:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: thank you for your feed-back. WP:DR will never manage bad faith and lazyness. I don't really know VQuakr but I doubt he is here to build an encyclopaedia. I pinged you because it seemed you had problems with him in the past. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		I have literally never seen such a polite response to a contested edit. Many of the other editors I've interacted with prefer to revert (even if they keep certain aspects of the contested edit), with some kind of insult thrown into the edit summary. For your willingness to assume good faith and improve the article while doing so, I award you the civility barnstar. Banedon (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pluto2012, can you please give your opinion on the censorship issue on Talk:Yisrael Katz (politician born 1955)? 2A02:C7D:3FDE:D400:34AC:583A:B24A:5AF3 (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Victor Guérin commons cat., there are several pictures taken from his "Livre La Terre Sainte. Son histoire, ses souvenirs, ses sites, etc." The problem is that I don´t think Guérin is the artist;.....but I cannot figure out who the artist is.....can you? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Huldra

I am not sure to understand your question... It is writen here that the "artist" is Harry Fenn. Do you ask me to check in the book that this information is correct ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is exactly what I ask, I´m not sure that the info on commens is correct, cheers, Huldra (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information that Harry Fenn drew this is confirmed:

• here
• here on tGallica.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I´ve changed a lot of the artist=Victor Guérin, to artist=Harry Fenn; but I don´t think Harry Fenn drew them all? This one for example? Huldra (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Huldra

Sorry for the late answer.

You are right! In the introduction of the book it is written that "Des artistes furent envoyés (...)" = "Several artists were sent" but their name is not given. That means that we cannot attribute pictures when the name is not clearly specify. I would conclude that Harry Fenn is just one of them.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concernant User talk:Pluto2012/archive1#2014-12 traduction, voir aussi "le Fonds national juif a planté des centaines de milliers de pins sur les collines, pour cacher les ruines des villages palestiniens détruits. Fierté de l’agriculture sioniste qui faisait «fleurir le désert», ces arbres causent d’importants dégâts écologiques: inadaptés à l’écosystème local, ils doivent être replantés fréquemment et leurs aiguilles, en tombant au sol, détruisent la flore autochtone.". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Visite fortuitement prolongée

Merci pour le lien. J'espère que tout va bien pour toi :-).

A+ Pluto2012 (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Un ex-ambassadeur témoigne Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pluto, Just a technical point re Morris. You will see at Black Sunday, 1937 a citation from Morris's Righteous Victims, in which he says Arabs soon picked up the innovation of planting bombs in crowded places, that this became a tradition in the area. I've cast about but cannot yet find a source that tells me exactly when the Palestinian Arabs began to plant bombs in crowded places (as opposed to killings of substantial numbers of Jews in incidents like the 1938 Tiberias massacre). It is obvious that it became commonplace among their militants and terrorists in the 1990s, esp. the Al Aqsa Intifada, but through the 40s down to the establishment of Israel I can't recall an episode like this at that period nor see it at the poorly developed Timeline of intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine. No need to hurry, if you are interested. It's just a matter of personal curiosity (my impression is that Morris spun the November 1937 turn with that language to cancel out the fact that the Irgun and Lehi cedrtainly used that method for a decade, without finding Arab imitators until much later, but I may well be wrong.) Cheers Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me help you out, since it seems reading is not your forte, either - in that same article you claim to have read and not found anything (Timeline of intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine.) - "February 2 - car bombs in Ben Yehuda Street, Jerusalem. 58 Jewish civilians were killed and 140 injured.[47]' Epson Salts (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Pluto because, like myself, he gets his knowledge from actually researching each topic in serious scholarship, and not by skimming through wiki articles which, like the one I mentioned are farces full of error-thickened bullshit or replete with glaring lacunae. For your information, no such attack took place on February 2. The distracted editor dropped a '2': the incident took place on the 22 February, and, not knowing the facts or period, you didn't notice the egregious error. There is, I see, an article on it, that too defective. Look, you are trailing me around and making inane comments with an attempt at wielding a snarky whiplash. I am asking a highly intelligent and neutral scholar of this period if he can enlighten me on Benny Morris's use of 'soon'. In English 'soon' does not mean 'a decade later'. Pluto may not care or have the time to enlighten me, but I don't want the query contaminated by editors barging in who accuse me of illiteracy while having problems both with elementary numeracy (2 for 22) and historical details. Don't disturb the request. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am amused by the fact that you think of yourself as a scholar, yet can't read a simple wiki text. I've seen enough of your edits to get your MO: People whose POV you like are invariably "highly intelligent", "serious scholars" and those with opposite POVs are "ignorant", "inane" people whose every typo becomes an " egregious error". Do you want me to start describing you as a "distracted editor who , because he is simply unaware of the historical record make egregious errors" when you carelessly call Binyamin Eliav "Ya'acov"? You messed up , carelessly skimmed through an article and missed what you were looking for - man up and own your mistakes. Epson Salts (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. I have 8 diffs of you, without provocation, trying to insult me rather than discuss the merits of edits calmly. It0's not that I'm offended. It's a tactical gambit to try to fish out some exasperation in other editors rather than to improve articles. Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite ridiculous: You ask for help and information, ostensibly in order to improve articles, I give you that info , which you weren't able to find yourself, despite looking in the same source I provided you with) - and you consider this as "insulting you"? Epson Salts (talk)

In Dec 1932, two Jews in Nahalal were killed by a bomb. Two Arabs were sentenced to death over it. I don't offhand know the answer if you refer to mass public bombings. Zero^talk 13:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just provided some evidence at Ben Yehuda Street bombings that Ben-Gurion went on record after viewing the mass Arab bombing there on 22 February 1948, that he blamed the Irgun and Lehi ('Jewish thugs' for setting a precedent ('opened the way') which the Arabs, by adopting that mode of assault, had imitated. I expect something like this statement lies behind Morris's remark re Black Sunday.Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before editing all of this stuff, while rereading Morris on it, I was struck by his phrasing of this sentence, which is a wonderful example (of many) of his ability to face the awkward facts for the standard narrative (unlike Karsh) and yet weave his way round them to endorse the basic drift of the Zionist narrative.

This “innovation” soon found Arab imitators and became something of a “tradition”; during the coming decades Palestine’s (and, later, Israel’s) marketplaces, bus stations, movie theaters, and other public buildings became routine targets lending a particularly brutal flavour to the conflict.’

In other words, the November 14 soon found Arab imitators, establishing a tradition, the last words intimating that it was an Arab tradition in the Mandatory period, and then afterwards in Israel (meaning again only Arabs). As far as I could remember, Arab mass bombings along the Irgun/Lehi model started in early 1948, not soon but 11 years later, and were not a tradition among Arabs at that time - I can think of 3 examples, though I may err -. A more scrupulously neutral historian would have phrased it otherwise. Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you introduced this query, you were thinking such bombings by Arabs were a 90s phenomenon, and went on record saying ' through the 40s down to the establishment of Israel I can't recall an episode like this", I'm glad your memory has improved so drastically that you can now recall at least 3 such incidents. Epson Salts (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

9th personal attack.Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Alain Menargues article, there is a statement: In 2009, a Court of Appeals in Paris determined that his dismissal was unsound and ordered RFI to pay compensation for his 32 years service in public broadcasting. This was upheld by the Court of Cassation in 2011. The reference is unfortunately a dead link. IIRC I based the statement on the French Wikipedia article. Searching on Google, several links come up but since I can't read French, I am unable to determine the reliability of the sources. If you have the time, could you confirm/disconfirm the accuracy of the statement? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I confirm the information. Strangely I had difficulty to find a reliable source for these events but that's done and I have added this in the article. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to revert your changes to my editing, but before I do so, I'd like you to explain to me the logic behind your edit summary - "600 m of *difference*of altitude* between the top and the foot... Not the absolute altitude".

Topographic elevations are always defined by hight benchmarked to Metres above sea level, not difference between topographic features, e.g. Mount Zion and Central Valley which is 38m. The reason for this is fairly obvious, though perhaps not to everyone. The logistics of trade around the World very often required/s thransporting cargo from coastal facilities to inland destinations via distribution networks. This must include considerations of terrain's impact on the means of transport. In the ancient times this was invariably via pack or cart animals, or manhandling. This would make the 770m+ climb to the top of Mt.Zion over 53km quite a substantial climb in terms of endurance and time. By the way, this has become even more important due to use of GPS which is always callibrated to sea level though the use of Altimeter is still preferred Crock81 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from projecting your personal bias into article editing with statements like this "I am not on wp to stand that somebody source an article with extract of the bible or the tanakh of any religeous book." The artilce, Mount Zion, is derived froma cultural context, and is therefore inseprable from the Documentary evidence. Moreover, I do not use references from a 'bible' or any 'religious' book. Neither the TaNaKh nor the Talmud are 'bibles' or 'religious' books, though perhaps in your bias and lacking insight you are unaware of this. I'll be happy to explain the difference if you so wish. Crock81 (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

here is an example of a translated passage from the Torah being cited in a scientific paper. @Zero0000: Crock81 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pluto2012

Below is an excerpt from a Wikipedia publication on the subject of the West Bank that also clears up the naming of the East Bank. Countries and Territories of the World Volume II - Middle East & The Caucasus Editor: By Wikipedians p.525 Prior to the First World War, the area now known as the West Bank was under Ottoman rule as part of the province of Syria. At the 1920 San Remo conference, the victorious Allied powers allocated the area to the British Mandate of Palestine which included modern day Jordan and Israel. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War saw the establishment of Israel in parts of the former Mandate, while the territory known as the "West Bank" area was captured by Transjordan. Since it then controlled the territory on both sides of the Jordan river, Trans-Jordan renamed itself Jordan in 1949. The 1949 Armistice Agreements defined its interim boundary. From 1948 until 1967, the area was under Jordanian rule, and Jordan did not officially relinquish its claim to the area until 1988. Jordan’s claim was never formally recognized by the international community, with the exception of the United Kingdom.2304 The West Bank was taken control of by Israel, during the Six-Day War in June. 1967. With the exception of East Jerusalem, the West Bank was not annexed by Israel. Most of the residents are Arabs, although a large number of Israeli settlements have been built in the region since 1967. Close to 500.000 Israelis live in the West Bank settlements. Although international law (Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention) prohibits transfers of the population of an “occupying power" to occupied territories, media outlets often interpret the law to incur a responsibility on the part of Israel's government to prevent Jews or non-Arab Israeli citizens from voluntarily residing in the West Bank, including cases where Israelis seek to restore Jewish communities destroyed by Arabs prior to Israel's statehood, such as in Hebron and Gush Etzion.2305,2306,2307 The West Bank has a land area of 5,640 square kilometers (including East Jerusalem).2308 Origin of the name West Bank The region did not have a separate existence until 1948-1949, when it was defined by the Armistice Agreement of April 1949 between Israel and Jordan (until then known as Transjordan). The name "West Bank” was apparently first used by Jordanians, and has become the most common name used in English and some of the other Germanic languages. The term was used in order to differentiate *the West bank of the River Jordan, namely the newly annexed territory; from the ”East Bank” of this river (Transjordan), which today constitutes the present territory of the Kingdom of Jordan.

However, neither Trans-Jordan, nor Jordan had ever included a territorial division, either Geographic, adinistrative or political, known as "East Bank". Crock81 (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the relevance of the above quote is, but keep in mind that the book in question is not a WP:RS; it is simply a book version of Wikipedia at some point in time. See WP:WINARS. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pluto2012. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JSSnews est une source non fiable, non pas parce qu'il n'y a pas d'article consacré dans Wikipédia (après tout il y a un article pour fr:Égalité et Réconciliation), mais parce que c'est un média d’extrême-droite (comme l'OJIM). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@user:Visite fortuitement prolongée

Salut, j'espère que tu vas bien :-)

Oui, je suis d'accord. JSSNews n'est pas une source fiable car c'est une source orientée et avec un agenda (anecdotiquement d'extrême-droite) et surtout sans notoriété. L'absence de notoriété s'illustre par la suppression de l'article. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salut et bonne année. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Vfp,

Une Bonne et Heureuse Année 2017 à toi également.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 List of genocides by death toll 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) 00:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pour information, dans la partie de fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur d'adresses IP/Requêtes/août 2017#Demande concernant Visite fortuitement prolongée et 185.45.231.237 - 16 août concernant l'adresse IP, le résultat est faux. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pluto2012. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonne année et cadeau. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there's a technical issue with proving you're aware of the discretionary sanctions. So here's the alert.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In all articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the seemingly more neutral article Palestine (region), Wikipedia policies are clear that if an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert.Davidbena (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: Thank you for the reminder. I am aware of this even if I don't have this in mind when I edit. It doesn't matter at all (and I don't want to discuss this) but I think that you infrenge this in Palestine (region)... Pluto2012 (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From now on, there will be no more infringements.Davidbena (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you broke 1RR [2] and [3].--Shrike (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are right.

The topic was different 'but' indeed I reverted. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you were willing to help by lending a source you found on the British Embassy bombing. Thankfully, Nishidani came in and expanded the article with Italian sources but I appreciate the gesture. How do you find non-English sources like that? Is it possible for you to locate foreign sources on another attack: a bombing by the Irgun on the British Officers' Club in Jerusalem on 1 March 1947? Any help is appreciated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am a French speaker and there are numerous French scholars who worked on this period.

I have several books on the topic. I check for the Jerusalem club and come back to you.

Pluto2012 (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The event seems to be part of a wider action. I think an article should focus on all the events. Some sources:

• Motti Golani, Palestine Between Politics and Terror, 1945-1947, Brandeis University Press, 2013, p.192 from : "Sarturday March 1, 1947 was a particularly violent day." (...) "Club was destroyed. Twenty British personnal was killed in eighteen terrorist attacks during the day" (...) "On March 2, the government in London authorized the High Commissioner to impose martial law."
• Haim Levenberg, Military Preparations of the Arab Community in Palestine, 1945-1948, Psychology Press, 1993, pp.83-84. In particular, the casualities of the blowing of the hotel was 4 British officers, 1 Polish and 8 Arab civilians.
• FYI Strange it was not mentioned

• Yes, my apologies, French; I was discussing Italian sources with Nishidani and confused his with the one you offered. I actually was unaware of the scale of violence on the day and have widened the scope of my draft accordingly. Would "1 March 1947 attacks" be a good article title, you think?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not March 1947 martial law in Mandatory Palestine ?

Google

Document from the time

Another book

That way the complete 2 weeks could be covered and the topic widened...

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pluto2012. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, due to your interest in Middle Eastern history, you are welcome to contribute to the newly created 1979–80 Shia uprising in Iraq article.GreyShark (dibra) 12:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 20:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]