User talk:Huldra: Difference between revisions

New editors and unregistered ("IPs") cannot edit this page.
It is semi-protected due to frequent abuse. You can get my attention by writing a note on your own talk page and flagging it with {{ping|Huldra}}.

• To the rest: Please leave any new messages on the bottom of this page. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
• If you start a new section here, I will reply here.

see: User:Huldra/Sandbox

Also:

• User:Huldra/Sources

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Jisr Jindas
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Mamluk Bridge, Yibna
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Mausoleum of Abu Huraira

I have blocked the offensive IP address! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 13:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected your user talk page for another week to stop these mindless attacks - if you want this to be for longer - let me know! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 13:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have sorted it - had hit the wrong protection button - should be ok now! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 13:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot; may I ask you ( or any watching admin) to please "wash" (rev-del) my talk-page? Thanks, Huldra (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by rev-del? Will help if I can ! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 13:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I go into the history go my user-page, say here (look towards the bottom of the page), quite a lot of edits are visible which hopefully could go down a memory-hole? I´m not sure how it is done, but it has been done quite a few times before on this user-page, (yeah; J. and I are old "friends"), Huldra (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed the offensive edit summaries on your talk page! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 14:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleared all the above to a new archive page User talk:Huldra/Archive 2 - hope this helps! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 14:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but is it not possible to remove this from the history? Huldra (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, that is exactly what I mean...Huldra (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am not used to doing this but it seems to have worked! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 14:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're at about 76 sections here right now. You might think about archiving again. John Carter (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Carter; nah, I´ll wait a bit longer; I try to have as few archives as possible.....look at Zero0000...he has 206 sections...... ;P Huldra (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps use the auto-archive bot? Code text and instructions are found on the previous archive bot's how to page. If you would like me to put it up for you I am happy to help, if the "how to" page seems confusing. If you choose the auto-archive, you would also need to add the auto-archive index but that can be copied from almost any page that uses auto-archiving. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drcrazy102 Thank you for your kind offer, but editing in the area I do, I get a lot of stuff here that I´m simply not interested in archiving.....typically edits from editors who have been blocked as socks, or topic-banned, and I´m not too quick with removing them. One prerequisite to editing in this topic-area is to be able to forget stuff, quickly! Perhaps if I was quicker removing those non-archivable edits....I´ll think about it..Thanks again, Huldra (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As in Farradiyya — I think you have it but if not I can send it. Lots of stuff in there. Zero^talk 05:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don´t have it, but I would very much appreciate it, Huldra (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have an issue with every single one of my edits, please discuss on talk page of relevant article. I'm tired of you threatening and harassing me. Thank you.Asilah1981 (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any recent 1RR violations at

• Yoninah, thanks for taking care of the matter. Huldra, thank you for your many contributions to DYK and the rest of the project. Happy holidays everyone--my mother in law went home and there's a few beers left, so this turn out nicely after all. But first it's nap time! Drmies (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot to both of you! I hadn´t really though of making Hadatha a DYK, I was just trying to clean up the various Haditha (disambiguation)s. As you can see on Talk:Hadatha: there have been some mix-ups. Very typical: on almost all of these places with rather similar names: there have been mix-ups. (See Talk:Tira, Israel, or Talk:Tayibe). Now: back to my (short?) break; I´ll be back in a few days, hopefully. In the meantime: Enjoy your beer! And thanks for your good work! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huldra! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hadatha, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Palestinian Arab village of Hadatha, where late Roman and Byzantine ceramics were found, was depopulated during the 1948 Palestine war? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hadatha. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Harrias ^talk 12:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, that's efficient service for you ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Huldra,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

I've used ethnic cleansed where it was actually ethnic cleansed (i.e: in Ramle when the Jewish fighters were instructed to kill everyone regardless of age, stormed into a mosque and massacred everyone). How is this depopulated?

Furthermore, how is Zochrot not used as a source? It is a reliable primary source. In fact, it is more reliable than most historians reporting on something they have no witnessed. Where is Zochrot opposed as a reliable source? I've seen other pro-Zionist and clearly biased sources being used, yet Zochrot has been tagged as unreliable I can see some instances where Palestine Remembered is inaccurate, although in most instances it is.

Nayefc (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a lot of clearly biased sources are used on Wikipedia, in that case you are allowed to write that "According to"...etc. Palestine Remembered is a private web-site, a blog if you like, and that is not

WP:EL, I most of all appreciate their pictures: very valuable. Everything else from Pal.Rem which you could put into Wikipedia can much better be sourced to the original source. So, you use Barron, 1923, for the 1922 data, and Mills, 1932, for the 1931 data, and Hütteroth and Abdulfattah for the 1596 data. Yes: it is more work, but it is more reliable in the end. If you want to totally waste your time on edit-warring putting "ethnically cleansed" into leads; that is you choice (& then you will be blocked: I have seen it happen countless times.), cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Suppose the grid reference for villages was added to the info box. It would make questions of identification cleaner. What do you think? Zero^talk 03:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, it would be good if the grid reference were added to all the info-boxes, especially on smaller places. All the scholars in the area seems to have some mix-ups. I have no idea as to how we change the info-boxes, though, do you? Huldra (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can add the fields, but which info boxes are we talking about? Certainly {{Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine}} but maybe some others should have the option too? Incidentally there is a cheap Mac application that can convert lat+long into Pal grid; I'll check it out then send you email about it. Zero^talk 00:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I may have correctly added a parameter "palgrid" to go after the lat-long coordinates in {{Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine}}. Please see Bayt Dajan for an example. I think we can usually use 6 digits like that, but we can also use 8 digits if more accuracy is needed. Does it look ok? Zero^talk 10:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, but we really need to have something to divide the two numbers, it could be 134.156 or 134/156. And we need something which indicate which number is first; E-W, or N-S: I always mix them up, so I expect other people do, as well! Perhaps: 134.156 (E-W.N-S). or: Palestine grid (E-W, N-S) 134.156.

(Presently it is like a lot of the science-articles on Wikipedia: completely understandable if, and only if, you know all the stuff beforehand....)

About which places should have it: lets start with the info boxes on places which we (and lots of scholars) have mixed up; places in Haditha (disambiguation), Taybeh (disambiguation), Rumman, Tira? I see {{Infobox Palestinian Authority muni}} {{Infobox settlement}} {{Infobox Israel municipality}} {{Infobox Israel village}}, for a start? Huldra (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a general text field so you can write anything there. I rather like "134/156". I already put in the template instructions that EW goes before NS, but I don't like writing that in the infobox itself. It suggests there is more than one possibility, which there isn't. The field will never mean anything except to those few who understand maps and how map coordinates are formed, so there is no point in trying to explain it to other people. If we had somewhere to wikilink the heading "Palestine grid" to, that would be good. Zero^talk 01:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see Khalidi use exactly the same, he has written 134156 for Bayt Dajan. A space, like 134 156 is also a possibility. I agree that it will not mean anything to most people reading it, but we should not make it difficult for people to understand. Btw, I knew nothing about grid-numbers when I started at Wikipedia....now I find they are extremely useful, if not a complete necessity to understand, say the articles of Barag and Frankel. Ok, I´ll start adding the grid-numbers for the 48-places (easy to do, as Khalidi gives them) Huldra (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made Palestine grid, please suggest improvements. When it is ok, we can link "Palestine grid" in the infobox to it. Zero^talk 13:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Actually, I think it looks pretty good now. Huldra (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WB and Israeli location infoboxes use Infobox Settlement, so I can't add the PalGrid to there easily. But I put in a request for new fields in Infobox Settlement — hopefully it will be done soon. Zero^talk 07:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so, it seems as if most of the "serious" info about these places is given with grid-numbers. Say, Hütteroth &Abdulfattah, Pringle, Finkelstein. Btw this. (Oh, and this.) Huldra (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also asked here: Template talk:Infobox settlement, but no reply so far. Huldra (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Alas, so they have agreed, and added it to Infobox settlement.....it is just that this does not affect the villages and towns on the West Bank, as they use the "Infobox Palestinian Authority muni" and "Infobox Palestinian Authority municipality"...and I have no idea as to where to ask to have it added there? Huldra (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably I can do that. Zero^talk 23:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Please do! Huldra (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see Frietjes did it, already :), Huldra (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some articles which I would like to insert grid-no (or have inserted grid-no., and they do not show): Atlit, Ein Hod, Caesarea, Abu Kabir, Ramla, Taybeh, Ilut. Huldra (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Frietjes to help. For locations using Infobox Israel village and similar, it will be necessary to write "grid_name=Palestine grid" and "grid_position=aaa/bbb" since it is reasonable to allow newer locations to have the Israel grid instead of the Palestine grid. Incidentally, some places like Atlit are not where they used to be. Perhaps just put it in like "grid_position=formerly 144/234, now 144/232"? Zero^talk 01:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst Your improvements to articles on Arab villages are welcomed, you must know that changing the description of villages in Israel from "Arab" to Palestinian Arab is controversial at best. I appreciate you feel strongly about the matter, but we all have to maintain NPOV when editing. Thanks, Number 57 11:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

African Americans wants to be known as. Why should it be different for Israel? Most Arab citizens of Israel want to be known as "Palestinian", why should we deny them their right to do that? (Read the Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Terminology) It is simply disrespectful to not use the word "Palestinian" on Palestinian Arab places in Israel, Or should the opinion of Arab citizens of Israel count for nothing? Huldra (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

In a neutral encyclopedia, personal opinions count for nothing – what matters is neutrality and common usage in reliable sources specific to the language the encyclopedia is written in. This is nothing to do with being disrespectful (the "disrespect" argument is commonly used by editors seeking to introduce their non-neutral POV, so I'd avoid using it if I were you). As an aside, for some reason your pings do not work (I only checked back here out of interest to see if you had replied) – try using {{

ping}}. Cheers, Number 57 22:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:RS say, and that´s why I thought linking to Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Terminology could be illuminating. I know that in my own country (in Scandinavia) the term "Israeli Palestinians" are now used by mainstream media. And when even The New York Times (which can hardly be accused of anti-Israeli bias) use both 'Palestinian Israelis' and 'Israeli Arabs' ....then I do not think it is fair to use the term POV for wanting to use the word "Palestinian Arab". I wonder if we should take this to mediation; to get some new, "fresh" eyes to look at it? (Not that I have had any experience with the process). But frankly, I suspect neither you nor me will change position on this issue, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the question is, if you are aware that both Israeli Arab and Palestinian Arab are in use, why you would choose to change "Arab" to one of the two which potentially cause issues. Using the neutral "Arab" avoids this problem. Why is this not good enough? Number 57 22:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Hmm, for me the question is, Why are people allergic to the word "Palestinian"? If someone wants to be called/identifies with "Palestinian", why not call them that? I have a friend who wants to be addressed as "they", well, I did struggle with that (all my English-teachers who over the years had tried to teach me one person is either "he" or "she". But now I call "them" "they". (If you see what I mean: earlier "they" would have been a "she" to me!) We respect a Chelsey Manning when she wants to be known as "she", but not Palestinian in Israel who wants to be know as a Palestinian. I think the question is, why is "Arab" "good enough" for them? Huldra (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments - firstly, if someone wants to identify as a Palestinian, they can and it should be noted in their individual article (but it doesn't take away from the fact that they are also still Israeli by virtue of their citizenship). However, Wikipedia is not the place to put labels on a whole group of people who we have no idea whether they accept that label or not. Do you know if every single person in those towns and villages self-identifies as Palestinian? If not, then you cannot label whole towns or villages. Secondly, and more importantly, an encylopedia is meant to be clear and neutral. Labelling a place in Israel as being Palestinian does not offer that clarity or neutrality. The appropriate place to discuss the issue of identification is Arab citizens of Israel or individual people's articles. Number 57 23:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

Black Americans? We don´t. But we know that if the majority of African American wants to be identified as that (and not as "Black American") then we respect that, and name the places as populate by African American. Why should we treat the Palestinian places in Israel any different? Your second point is interesting. You say that "an encylopedia is meant to be clear and neutral"; I agree, but the situation on the ground is anything but clear; what you are trying to do, IMHO, is to impose a "clarity" on Wikipedia where there is none in the real world. Should not an encyclopaedia reflect the reality? Again, I suggest mediation; to get some new, "fresh" eyes to look at it? Huldra (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

If you want mediation, I suggest we detail our prospective cases at Talk:Uzeir and request a WP:Third opinion. Number 57 15:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57:, ok I have summed up my view on Talk:Uzeir, I´ll wait until you have done the same, and then ask for WP:Third opinion. -Huldra (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you explain me how "The term occupied is challenged by some pro-Israeli official bodies and organizations, including the Israeli government" is better than "The Israeli government maintains the territories were captured in a defensive war thus according to international law their status is"
• Since Israeli claims are mentioned in regards to Gaza after 2005, doesn't it make sense to put first Israel claim after 1967. It either both (in that order) or neither. And why it is alone two paragraphs later?

Neither of these change I have made are about my opinion, it is simple logic. If you can't answer, please revert and save me the fire from up above :) Ashtul (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a page for

I have moved it to Umm al-Khair, Hebron: the template name. Huldra (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of my edits rubbed you the wrong way? None of them touched on Israel-Palestine issues. They were geographical or about towns inside pre-1967 Israel? Ashtul (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them. Say,

List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus also lies within pre-1967 Israel, still every one of the articles on that list are forbidden to edit by anyone with a topic ban. Huldra (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It is at Gallica: [1]. Note there are two parts even though the first part doesn't seem to identify itself as such. If you have trouble downloading, I can send it to you but it's a bit big (100M each volume). Zero^talk 22:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Found it, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a type of town/village in Israel. If you don't like it, change the article name. It is more relevant information than neigbouring communities etc.

As for picture from Carmel, your request for RfD is hypocritical as it was added with no discussion. Ashtul (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An Israeli West Bank settlement is an Israeli West Bank settlement: illegal in the eyes of the international community. That you are trying to "normalise" them, by getting them to appear as settlements in Israel pre-1967 (i.e. legal, in the eyes of the international community) is A: highly contentious, B: will not hold. Huldra (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DISCLAIMER Please note: the text contained in "Arabs and Jews in exemplary coexistence at Barkan – Samaria" has not been corrected, edited or verified by Dem) What does that even mean? I added a new source from Haaretz as well. Ashtul (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I copied & pasted from the "Disclaimer" at the bottom of the page you linked to, unfortunately I could not link the whole text, which is as follows: "DISCLAIMER Please note: the text contained in "Arabs and Jews in exemplary coexistence at Barkan – Samaria" has not been corrected, edited or verified by Demotix and is the raw text submitted by the photojournalist. All views and opinions expressed are that of the independent photojournalist and do not represent the views of Demotix Ltd. These details have been included in order to provide as much information as possible to the Media buyer." Huldra (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I haven't seen it. But it does say it on the Haaretz article so please, self revert. Ashtul (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it is a "premium" article from Haaretz: unless you subscribe (which I don´t) you cannot see the whole article. What I can see is this: "EU settlement ban casts shadow over Palestinian industry in the West Bank. Israeli business owners wonder how many Palestinians will lose their jobs if companies are forced to move over the Green Line into Israel proper. It’s early morning in the middle of the week and the Barkan Industrial Park in the West Bank opens the day as always. The thousands of workers in dozens of factories - half Israelis and half Palestinians - arrive for work. Some come from the other side of the Green Line or nearby settlements, some from nearby villages and towns such as Nablus or Salfit."

And you want me to re-add "At Barkan Industrial Park, thousands of Israelis and

Palestinians coexist and work side by side in many of the factories. Palestinian workers can earn as much as 4 times the monthly average salary in the Palestinian Authority.".....sourced to what I can see of the above Haaretz-article? Sorry, no way. Huldra (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

And please explain me, a smart person to another smart person, how that image with 'Carmel in background' isn't POVPUSH. Ashtul (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should I copy paste you the article? Can I read every book you quote? Seriously!!!

And while at it, putting a gazillion books in Bibliography in Afula article is clear POVPUSH again. The Palestinian connection is mentioned and there is no need for 20 books. I couldn't believe it when I saw it. Ashtul (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I don´t understand what you mean, here. As for the

WP:POVPUSHers , Huldra (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You might be right about Afula. What about reverting Barkan b/c you can't access an article on Haaretz or the image with Carmel 'at the background'?

Also, please let me know how you want to proceed about

Community settlement (Israel). I have no problem with droping the (Israel) from that page if that what bothers you. Ashtul (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, you see, that is the problem: you totally misread my edits on

WP:POVPUSH

against me......and *then* you ask me to trust your reading of the Haaretz article I cannot see. Seriously, do you think that is a reasonable request? (Thank you for admitting your mistake on Afula, at least).

As for the

Community settlement (Israel)-article: frankly, the article is horrible; it looks as if 90% is completely unsourced. If you want to improve the situation, then I suggest that you start by adding sources, in English, preferably. Huldra (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

A good thing is that articles behind paywall at Haaretz and many other websites can still be read if you look at the cached version. If you search on the article or the link on Google, you can find an arrow that is like an upside down triangle when you get a result and you can press it and pick "Cached". --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

..ok, thanks for the tip! Huldra (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Rawabi. Can we link that to a Palestinian site? Fanks. Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Sure, it is Umm Suffah on SWP map 14, just West of 'Atara. It is one of the few red-linked villages in the Ramallah and al-Bireh Governorate. SWP: "apparently connected with an ancient Maspha or Mizpeh, II, 291, 378. It is also in Guerin. Do you want to start it? Huldra (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fanks indeedly chieftainess. Cripes, I'm already full up to pussy's bow with woik, and though I'd like to, I'm flat out like an effing starving lizard. 'Nother day, praps.

Was also called Kafr Ishwa'. Samaria survey 1 p. 401. Zero^talk 20:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Which Samaria survey 1?? Surely not Guerin, he is up at Nablus around Samaria 1, p. 401? Huldra (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Finkelstein one, Highlands Of Many Cultures, Vol 1. Zero^talk 20:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right, thanks, He also gives Guerin, 1875: 109, Huldra (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For localities with infobox "Israel municipality", "Israel village" or equivalent (includes "Kibbutz") I removed the "palgrid" field to allow more general possibilities. The fields to use now are "grid_name" and "grid_position".

For locations in Israel it is reasonable to use the present Israeli grid (ITM), and for places with a history it is reasonable to use the Palestine grid to match the large number of historical and archaeological sources that use it. I'm suggesting syntax like at Amka, which I input like

 | grid_name=Grid position
 | grid_position=166/265 [[Palestine grid|PAL]]<br>215400/764900 [[Israel Transverse Mercator|ITC]]

but of course the grid could be named like before if only one is used. For places like Caesarea which moved from their original locations, we could use PAL for the original position and ITM for the current position. Amudanan has ITC.

I'd edit the documentation next.

But this may change, see Frejtjes' talk page. I'm struggling to find time to engage with this today.. Zero^talk 00:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Frejtjes has applied a bit of template magic. For localities with infobox "Israel municipality", "Israel village" or equivalent (includes "Kibbutz"), you can use any or all of these fields:

| palgrid=XXX/YYY                 (Palestine grid)
| ITMgrid=XXXXXX/YYYYYY      (Current Israel grid)
| ICSgrid=XXXXXX/YYYYYY      (Obsolete Israel grid; hard to see any reason to ever use this)
| grid_position=ANYTHING       Free text

Don't use "grid_name" at all. Whichever fields are used will appear with the heading "Grid position". I'm thinking of changing the Palestine infoboxes too, as no edit would be needed to those articles. The difference will be that instead of "Palestine grid   XXX/YYY" it will show "Grid position   XXX/YYY (PAL)". Zero^talk 08:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes:, @Zero0000:: I have added palgrid-numbers to places like Taybeh and Abwein, but they are not visible. Any reason? Huldra (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that article using the world-wide {{

Infobox Kibbutz

}}. hence, you will need to use different syntax, like

| grid_position = ... [[Palestine grid|PAL]]

or

| grid_name = [[Palestine grid]]
| grid_position = ...

Frietjes (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: ok, I see; thanks again! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes:Is it possible to get it on infobox building? There are articles which only identify Khan al-Tujjar (Mount Tabor) by its grid-number, but I cannot get it into the info box. Huldra (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

added. Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Huldra (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

Arsuf, but they don´t show up. Huldra (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

should work now. Frietjes (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! that was super-quick! Huldra (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brookie popping by here, to check you're trouble free after last Xmas's problems - if not - shout! --Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 17:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brookie: Thanks, yes, it has been wonderfully quiet and trouble-free here, thanks again! I know people are in two minds about this; some like to keep their talk-pages unprotected, arguing that time used to vandalise it, is time *not* used to vandalise anything important. However, I´m not really her to fight vandals (thought I´m very, very grateful for those who do!), I´m here to write /build articles, and having to spend a lot of time "cleaning up" my talk-page keeps me away from that main goal. So thanks again! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any reason to believe this guy is more likely to be posting to my talk page than this guy? Thank for any info. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Hi Gouncbeatduke. Runtshit's edits are motivated by an intense hatred of a British socialist and anti-Zionist. I have no reason to believe he has targeted you.

Please read WP:Revert, block, ignore. These vandals thrive on attention, so let's not give them what they want. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gouncbeatduke: It is exactly like @Malik Shabazz: say; this guy target everyone in the Israel/Palestine area who he consider not "pro-Israeli" enough. While Runtshit is obsessed with one person only, and follows him around. Since that person is interested in the Israel/Palestine area, most editors in the area will sooner or later encounter one of Runtshit´s many, many socks. It is highly unlikely that Runtshit has targeted you: Runtshit has an allergy against a person who is Jewish, and at the same time declares himself as anti-Zionist.

WP:DENY are vital here. Don´t make a fuzz; after a while you you will get used to them both, just like you get used to mosquitos in the summer..... Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey there Huldra, Are you in touch with User:Tiamut at all? She kind of disappeared from the face of the planet after she had been so active and meticulous in her Wikipedia editing! --Fjmustak (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fjmustak: Yes, I´m in contact with her. She is fine, just very, very occupied in RL. She just uploaded a couple of pictures to commons, after a recent picnic to Ma'alul. Don´t worry; she will be back...eventually, (And yeah; I miss her terribly, too!) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Could you please relay the message that a group of us is creating a Wikipedia user group in Palestine. There are very few Wikipedians I know in Palestine, and she would be great asset to the group. She can email me if she wishes. Same goes for any others you know in Palestine. Regards --Fjmustak (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fjmustak: Ok, I will, Huldra (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you know very well (

It is not either mentioned there that several towns were overwhelmingly emptied of their Palestinian residents. No matter if they are listed are not (Benny Morris list them but not, according to that section, Walid Khalidi), it is worth mentioning. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the Bedouin tribes are a bit of my guilty conscience; I know far too little about them. Yes, that template should probably be expanded, but it is not my top priority; there are simply too many articles on that list which are sub-standard already; I prioritise to bring the existing articles there up to a certain standard.

Note also the User:Huldra/Morris2-list: there should not be any red-listed names on that list, but there is.....lots of these new Israeli settlements changed names; and I have not figured out all, yet. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great list too. I think Arab al-Subeih should be treated as the rest of the tribes so I will take a look on the lists more.

Regarding another village, I saw recently on al-Jammama that Ruhama was established on the village's land. However, I saw that Beit Kama had some info that also relates to al-Jammama. This was added by a user three years ago but then vastly reduced by other users. I only have the book by Benny Morris and not the one by Walid Khalidi and the other one sourced. Can you take a look and see what Khalidi says? Thanks. I see that Morris writes "Beit Kama - southeast of Jammama - 1949" under number 167 at xx - MAPS.

There is some who remove sourced info about Palestinian villages. I saw this yesterday and just saw this. You, who know the villages very well, had added info about the history in both but as I said, some remove such mentions. --IRISZOOM (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you find the Morris-lists useful; Zero and I spend quite some time trying to sort them out. Note that Morris obviously made some mistakes, e.g. on User:Huldra/Morris-list villages #268 and #274 are probably the same village.....

Khalidi does not mention Beit Kama at all, only Ruhama is on al-Jammama -land according to him. Morris mentions that it is near al-Jammama (very important to note that you cannot compare directly Khalidi and Morris; as Morris gave the geographic locality, while Khalidi went into *who* the land actually belonged to.)

And "certain" editors are removing which village the kibbutzes or settlement were built on *all* the time, that is why I normally keep them "watched", but I missed the Kfar Kisch-one; thanks for spotting it! (I have 3,800 articles on my watch-list now, so yeah, I miss some!)

If you need some more info from Khalidi: don´t hesitate to ask.Huldra (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On another note; Jacob Berggren was one of the early travellers in Palestine (1820-22), and he is the earliest modern source for several places, such as Al-Shaykh Muwannis and Tubas. I am therefor very interested in having an article about him here, on en.wp. Some sources:

• http://runeberg.org/sbh/berggrja.html
• http://archive.org/search.php?query=jakob%20Berggren

Interested in helping out? Huldra (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen you point out some errors.

Thanks for looking at it in the book. Can you clarify if only the Jewish localities that was formed on the site of depopulated Palestinian villages should mentioned in the infobox etc. and not those on village land? As far I have seen, both are mentioned.

I don't have the third source, which is called "Ancient Christian Villages of Judaea and the Negev" and written by Bellarmino Bagatti, and no one of those who removed the text made any mention if they have the sources either, but just that it is "POV" etc. The text added was "The kibbutz was founded on 18 April 1949 on the lands of the Christian Palestinian village of al-Jammama, whose inhabitants were forcibly displaced on 22 May 1948 after a Jewish military assault on their village, and were never allowed to return" and this edition with the refs can be seen here. It is clear that it was attacked then and depopulated but not if it is related to Beit Kama. So what I want to do is work on that. If no reliable source reports about a connection to the Palestinian village, then that part should be removed. If they do, that should be reinserted. Now what we have is some part that was greatly changed without any of those removing and changing parts telling if they had even looked at the sources, only that they found it "POV", "charged" etc.

I also have many articles in my watchlist (though I need a much bigger one) and I would hope I would have to spend less time on reverting people (mainly IPs) who fail to edit according to the policies of Wikipedia. Just look at this I found one month ago, which was removed 2.5 years ago (it is still not clear if one other edit in that section should be reverted and I will look more at it soon). I have thought to bring it up on a board to follow up on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 8#IP area still being swamped by socks. It is very boring to see several edits every day who remove facts, whitewash history etc. and many others are not discovered until a very long time (for example, I found about this torture article after I had read about a new Haaretz investigation and then saw the removals after looking at the Revision history) and this is seen as insignificant in comparision to for example a 1RR violation. It can't be that one 1RR violation is treated as much worse than violations of NPOV, for example. One action could be to semi-protect the area. But this is another topic and I will soon discuss it on a board.

If you create such an article, I will take a look at it and I have already found for example this by the National Archives of Sweden. By the way, I saw that there are articles about Jacob Berggren in the Swedish Wikipedia and Arabic one. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the info-box for the 48-villages: we should definitely put *all* the Israeli settlements on Palestinian village land, not only those exactly on the village site. (Very few new Israeli settlements were *exactly* on the old Palestinian site.) I don´t have the Bagatti-book either, but from what I can see it is about ancient Christian settlements. And undoubtedly the area was Christian...back in Byzantine times. But is is completely wrong to write "The kibbutz was founded on 18 April 1949 on the lands of the Christian Palestinian village of al-Jammama"..firstly, al-Jammama had probably not been Christian for a 1000-1500 years, and Morris only say that Beit Kama was *near* (south-east) of al-Jammama. I have changed it, and removed the Khalidi-ref in the Beit Kama -article. (Khalidi never mentions Beit Kama)

I would love to see the whole ARBIA area semi-protected, I´ve had my talk-page semied since December, and it has been wonderfully quiet here. At least now I can concentrate more on writing articles, and not with death/rape-threaths on my user-page.

I´ll look around a bit more for Berggren, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Good that you worked on Beit Kama. I added that it was Palestinian and was depopulated as it was changed to only "Arab" and "conquered" while the fact that they were depopulated is the reason for the Palestinian refugee crisis, no matter what anyone thinks was the reason it started and if it was right to destroy nearly all of them and stop the refugees from coming back. So it is undisputed that they were depopulated, though both sides may prefer another term as you know. I also removed the older ref now as the only thing that what was left was from Benny Morris.

So should it be on al-Jammama's infobox that Morris writes Beit Kama was established southeast to it? Because I saw you edited it but did not add it to either it there or in a section.

It is horrible some write such things on people's talk page.

I will look forward to see the article about Jacob Berggren being created. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that Beit Kama should be in the info-box of Al-Jammama; we normally only have the places Khalidi mentions there. We can of course have it in the article -text, as we have RS (=Morris) that Beit Kama was founded S-E of it. (It could now, of course, have spread onto Al-Jammama land; (see the Kiryat Gat -Al-Faluja example); but we simply do not know that.) However, you should perhaps have let the Bagatti-ref stand, as none of us have checked it?

When I edit these articles, I feel sometimes I´m at a factory assembly-line; Guerin; check, SWP, check, 1922, check...etc. Often I take one or two of the same "operations" over a lot of articles; that is more effective. Which means that normally there is still a lot to do after I have finished editing an article for the day! It is virtually only when I go for a DYK that I try to do it all.

I see our "mutual friend" has visited you, too? If it gets too bad: just get it semied, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. If that is how it is, we stick with what Khalidi says. Yes, it should be in the body and it makes no sense have it in Beit Kama but not in al-Jammama, which is the article about that Palestinian village. Okay, then I know why you did that as I was unsure if it should be added.

If nothing from Bagatti's book is left in the article, I don't see why we shoud keep the ref. The only thing there is from Morris. However, perhaps I should ask at

WP:Palestine

or some other venue if someone can check that source?

There was some person who wrote such things after I reverted some bad words inserted at Rula Jebreal. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As it is *only* Khalidi who gives "current localities on the land", we follow him. Morris is simply is not specific enough to use on this. As for Bagatti, when I used preview: I did not find Beit Kama, but I *did* find Jammama. The Bagatti-ref. should probably go into the Biblio in the Jammama-article. Huldra (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good, now I know exactly how it works.

I will bring it up in some venue. I can't preview the book, though search results show some small parts of it. One of the hits are from the same page that was referenced to by the editor (page 149). --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should hasten to say that this is the ideal...in reality, lots and lots of the |curlocl= is not sourced at all. ...or sourced to Morris (I just ce´ed one such at Al-Sarafand.) IMO: those "curlocl" which is only sourced to Morris, should -eventually- go into the article text, and not be in the info-box. The unsourced ones have mostly been taken from the Pal.rem. site: no specific source given. That is not good enough. Huldra (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Another thing I think is missing is translations of the names on many articles, which I for some time have thought to add. There are some sources on the names in Arabic and also in Hebrew. The easiet one to get them from is Palestine Remembered.

I think Zochrot could be a good

WP:EL

. They got statistics, images, videos stories, descriptions from Khalidi etc. The part about the built-up area and land is split there, by the way.

Furthermore, most of the external links that are on articles here are now dead links. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please, please do. I do not speak/read/write either Arabic or Hebrew ..(I´m definitely no linguist). Having especially the Arabic names of places is vital. E.g., Guerin, in his later books, always gives the Arabic names (and spelling). Though I know absolutely no Arabic, I have identified many of the places in User:Huldra/Guerin after comparing the spelling of villages he visited, with the names given in Arabic on their Wikipedia article.

As for Zochrot being

WP:ELs, it is normally to Pal.rem (which have never changed its URLs in the 10+ years I have looked at it) or IAA, or commons; in short: the "steady ones". Huldra (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

PS: probably all the

WP:EL links to Khalil Sakakini Cultural Center should go; they are presently dead, and were not very great to begin with. In a year...or three; I will start to remove them, Huldra (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, link rot can be a big problem. That is why it is best to add the title but also the author in the these links. I agree with you about removing them. Same with those to http://www.jalili48.com/ that are not working (by Dr. Moslih Kanaaneh), which seems to be nearly all. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the http://www.jalili48.com -links are mostly (all?) still there, that is a case of link rot again. I have found them quite informative (and great pictures!) ...so make sure that the links are actually gone (as opposed to moved url) before you remove the links. Look here: http://www.jalili48.com/pub/xENPhotogallery.aspx?ID=What_Remained_of_the_destroyed

All the early POICA-links are dead, but you can easily find the new address by googeling the title of the article, Huldra (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the problems on that site while we were talking about the other site. I did a search for the description of the villages (that I found on Wayback Machine) on http://www.jalili48.com and did not find anything on Google. If they were informative, the archived version can be added instead. However, there are images left I see on your link, which is good. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have also used archive.org for that place for a while, but presently they seem to be working again. Link-rot, and all that. If there is a specific site -link you are thinking of, then please tell me, and I´ll try to locate its new url, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was confusing them. I meant http://www.alnakba.org, which as you say is run by Khalil Sakakini Cultural Center, so we are now speaking about the same. Those can't be found via Google, though can be found on Webarchive. See for example http://web.archive.org/web/20100819192917/http://www.alnakba.org/villages/haifa/sarafand.htm. Are the descriptions from Walid Khalidi? --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that wording is exactly the same as in Khalidi. Actually, that is more than is at the Pal.rem-site....perhaps it would be useful to keep the link (to archive.org) after all? Huldra (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think we can keep it too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Wikipedia have now been granted general right to use all the Pal.rem-sites pictures over at commons; which is absolutely great news! Huldra (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear.

By the way, I will borrow All That Remains very soon.--IRISZOOM (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now asked at

WT:PALESTINE if anyone got acces to the book by Bagatti and can look in it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Al-Majdal, Askalan

, too.

Oh, btw, could you please keep Ein Ayala and HaHotrim "watched"? Some joker removes info from them, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Include where? I added them to my watchlist now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@IRISZOOM: Thanks, and I was thinking on the template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Palestinian_Arab_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus

Huldra (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not consistent at all. Perhaps the template could be separated to add that several cities were also depopulated of Palestinians, as for example Benny Morris and Rochelle A. Davis mentions.

I will remove al-Subeih now as it was only one of many tribes depopulated. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

Lydda. Khalidi specifically mentions 4 places: Ramla, Lydda, Haifa and Majdal. Of course there were others, like Safad and Tiberias. Huldra (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It needs to be consistent so either all cities/towns (or those four) or none should be listed. It is the same when it comes to the tribes. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus...but they are not linked. Perhas they should be. For me it was just ironic that it was easier to find info about the depopulation of villages with a few hundred, or even a few dozen inhabitants, than it was to find information about large towns. This, btw, is interesting, as it contradicts say, the Golda Meir-story about Haifa. Huldra (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

That part in the lead was added by me less than two months ago. I didn't list them as it is unclear if they should be, as this discussion shows, but they are clearly relevant to mention, not least for the reason you mention. Yes, an in interesting story but I will read the whole article later. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@IRISZOOM: Yes, we should list them separately somewhere...now they "drown" in the list of village article. Another group of villages which should be listed is the depopulated so called "Templer settlements". Again, Khalidi specifically writes that he does not include them, as "despite the presence of Arab workers and residents, they were not Palestinian villages but colonies set up by the German Templars at the end of the nineteenth century." However, that is a truth with modifications; eg., Bethlehem of Galilee had existed as an Arab village for centuries before the Germans arrived, and in both the 1922 & 1931 census there was a majority of Muslim residents. I haven´t expanded the other German Templar articles yet (I´m getting there!)..but it would not surprise me if several showed similar development. Huldra (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where can they be listed? I do think they can be mentioned in any relevant article but if it is only listing towns and villages, the cities (though some call them towns) don't belong there. However, then it should be consistent as some cities/towns are listed while others are not. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus? One for the towns/cities (everything which is not covered by Khalidi), and one for the Templar places? Huldra (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes. However, there should be some consistency on that template and the listing in that article. As you said, two to three cities are mentioned on those pages. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. What if we, in the article, had a paragraph first, named, say, "Cities and towns depopulated of its Arab population", then start that paragraph with *how* we define "depopulated"; (losing more than 50% of its Arab population? Any other percentage?) Then a wikilinked list of towns and cities fulfilling these criteria. Then change each of the titles in the Subdistricts, so that "Acre Subdistrict" becomes "Villages in the Acre Subdistrict" etc. And remove any town presently included there (Lydda, Ramle). Then remove all towns from the template, too...or put the same town/cities at the top? Huldra (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a section in the article for cities/towns?

The article and template should resemble each other so if they are listed in the first one, they should be in the template too and if they are not, remove them.

It is up to the reliable sources to classify them as depopulated or not. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@IRISZOOM: yes, that is exactly what I meant. Get the towns/cities in a separate section up at the start of the article, and rename the headers to reflect that it is only the villages that is included. And then: similar in the template. Huldra (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a good solution. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Correct, I just used a random name. In fact, I have never even had issues with the person in question. I just thought of an American schoolkid's name. Thanks for making the appeal! Peter Damian (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Damian: yes it was, not that it helped a lot. Do you want me to make another try? It has been over 6 months. (Link to the whole discussion here) (Btw, I hope to take over the "Huldra" name at commons too, soon, as part of the SUL-effort); Huldra (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it for now. I did want to load some of incunabula collection there, but it's not urgent (give or take a few hundred years). Peter Damian (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Damian: Ok, as you wish. You could off course also upload it here (...just to show them what they are missing ;P) Huldra (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can upload it here?

Thanks for the link to the discussion (which I hadn't seen before). I left a message on Fae's page, in case it makes any difference, hopefully not for the worse. Peter Damian (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Damian: Sure, you can upload pictures (such as this one) to en.wp, actually, I think the the copy-right requirements are less strict on en.wp than on commons. (Though I am not an expert on that!) From my understanding: everything you can upload to commons, you can also upload to en.wp; but *not* the other way around. (Btw, I love old prints/manuscripts, and I was absolutely delighted to find one for the Beit Hanoun-page).

The discussion on commons about your ban back then was....well, like talking to a stone. Or several stones. A waste of time. People had their mind made up in advance, and nothing I would say would make a difference. I would suggest that you upload a bit to en.wp instead: see the "upload file"-button on the left. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday on the wiki looks better with your contribution - Thanks Victuallers (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply