Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
{{subst:alert|a-i|2={{paragraph}}In particular, please note that 30 days tenure and 500 edits are required before you can edit article content and formal community processes such as [[RfC]]s and noticeboard discussions related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This does not apply to informal discussion on article talk pages.}}
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. In particular, please note that 30 days tenure and 500 edits are required before you can edit article content and formal community processes such as RfCs and noticeboard discussions related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This does not apply to informal discussion on article talk pages.
That'll do nicely, anything after the 2=, right? Selfstudier (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier:, Shrike. Right. Is the text satisfactory? I can make a template for this, such as {{ARBPIAalert}}. Zerotalk 10:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's handy to be able to insert any text or even leave it blank so it's the same as existing, depending the situation.Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should we ask arbcom aproval? Shrike (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: You have a point. Stuff inside the colored box looks like official rulings and even though we try to make it accurate we can't really speak for Arbcom. Suppose we just emphasise where to look; I don't think that needs permission.
{{subst:alert | a-i | 2={{paragraph}}In particular, please note that the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles|Arab-Israeli conflict rulings]] include restrictions on editors without 30 days tenure and 500 edits.}}
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. In particular, please note that the Arab-Israeli conflict rulings include restrictions on editors without 30 days tenure and 500 edits.
One thing that has come up a few times with newer editors is that they come across some protected pages that they cannot edit and then assume if they can edit, it is allowed. I suppose we can't cover all eventualities but you can sort of see how this one might happen. If going back to Arbcom is a problem, then let's just have a text outside the blue box that makes things clear. I am quite happy to use anything you think works.Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Zero0000, thank you for the note. I will make myself aware if edits deserve to be categorised as minor or trivial, or else. Thanks for sensitising me! Best wishes Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was curious about your comment on the RSN that JStor cites CounterPunch over 1000 times. Do you mind if I ask how you can search citations on JStor, rather than mentions of the word "counterpunch"? Thanks! BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to do that but couldn't see a way to limit the search to citations, which would be an incredibly useful tool, especially for sources such as CounterPunch where the title is also a not uncommonly used ordinary word (e.g. the first hit is a book about boxing). It's possible to search with "counterpunch.com" or "counterpunch.org" but that gives a very small number of hits. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A basic search on "www.counterpunch.org" threw up 504 results. But some might not do the www or just say Counterpunch and so on.Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The search as phrase gave only 13 results[1]Shrike (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many citations of CounterPunch do not give a url. They give a date, or just the month. That is reasonable since urls decay. So restricting searches to www.counterpunch.org is not correct. A search for (("www.counterpunch.org") OR ("counterpunch.org") OR ("CounterPunch")) gives 1,413 hits. Obviously I didn't look at them all, but I looked at a random sample to see how many were using "CounterPunch" for something other than a citation and judged it was less than 1/4 of the total. Apparently I underestimated those, especially references to boxing. Now I did it more systematically. I looked at every 25th hit and counted how many were mentions of CounterPunch. I got 34 out of 55 with 2 uncertain. So that gives the estimate 873 of articles which reference CounterPunch. As well as the statistical error, there are two additional issues: (1) Some mentions of CounterPunch are not really citations, (2) Many of the articles that cite CounterPunch do so multiple times. Clearly these work in opposite directions if one wants to count citations. So I looked at the full text of the first hit on pages 5,10,...,50 which showed a mention of CP and found that 8 of them had actual citations rather than other sorts of mentions, and the total number of citations was 10. In summary, my best estimate is that 700 articles cite CounterPunch a total of 870 times. I'll edit RSN. Zerotalk 01:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zero0000; that's amazingly thorough! (I was hoping to discover a cool shortcut to find citations on JStor :( BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
Hi, Zero0000. I don't want to be caught offending again, nor trespassing my imposed topic ban in the Israel/Palestine area of conflict, otherwise known as the ARPBIA, until such time that I am able to submit an appeal asking to rescind my topic ban, with a reassured commitment to good editing on Wikipedia, and with full compliance to Wikipedia's policies. Meanwhile, my question to you is this: Can I still make edits on pages that do not carry the ARPBIA tag, and am careful not to mention anything politically or ideologically connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? For example, mentioning the names of flora that grow in Palestine? Please advise.Davidbena (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena: David, Shrike's method is the safest approach. In general you should interpret "politically or ideologically connected" very broadly. Writing about flora should be fine, but when you describe the distribution of a species you have to avoid incidental political statements (write "Golan Heights", not "Israeli Golan Heights", etc). I notice that lots of red links can be found by following items in Category:Flora of Palestine (region). Zerotalk 01:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have already asked him and I'll be careful. Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About the Talmud and Jerusalem Talmud articles, I would like to inform you that the term "palestinian" should not be used there. As you said "..a very common alternative name even in modern scholarship and there is no reason to censor it" it is used for political reasons, and not historic ones. Only recently some researchers started using it. Moreover, the term "Jewish Palestinian Aramaic" is a complete Joke, it was never used and it is still not in use. Someone added it in order to alienate this language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by עצם בלתי מזוהה (talk • contribs) 02:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@עצם בלתי מזוהה: You don't know what you are talking about. Everything you wrote here is false. See the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia regarding Palestinian Talmud and Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. Search for each phrase (also for "Palestinian Jewish Aramaic") at Google Scholar to see recent scholarly sources that use them. Zerotalk 04:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the "Jewish Aramic" is much more common [2]Shrike (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
O for God's sake, Shrike. It is absolutely normal in historical scholarship to refer to a Palestinian Talmud, for the simple reason that the adjective distinguished one from the other (Bavli_Babylonian Talmud) by referring to the respective geographic areas where they were composed. This hang-up about using the word 'Palestine/Palestinian' as if it meant the PLO/PA/or Palestinian people is tiresome, yielding to the politicization of language, to an obsession with establishing a national modern 'politically correct' set of denominators over history, which, even in Jewish traditional scholarship, suffered no such crisis of nerves or sense of illegitimacy. Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never implied anything that you say. We only talking about WP:COMMON in Wikipedia sense. Shrike (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before commenting on a page's thread, you really should read it first, and not react to one word in it without looking at context, as you have here in ignoring that the point and Zero's reply concerned an alternative name, whose relevance is mentioned in the policy you mentioned WP:COMMON. So you are waving a policy flag without reading it, to respond to a thread without reading it. Doubly bad practice.Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: You are correct that "Jewish Aramaic" is common. However, there were subtle differences between the version spoken in Babylonia and the version spoken in Palestine, and this is reflected in the language of the Talmuds. Experts for whom the difference is significant use designations like "Palestinian Jewish Aramaic" and "Babylonian Jewish Aramaic". Zerotalk 00:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifaction Shrike (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
@Loew Galitz: There are guidelines at WP:OPCOORD. For locations in Israel, 1 second is about 21 meters east-west and 26 meters north-south. A typical small kibbutz is 400-1000 meters in diameter, which is around 20-40 seconds. Giving two digits after the decimal point for seconds suggests that the location is known to within about 20 centimeters, which is meaningless. I'm rounding to the nearest second, which is a movement of 16 meters in the worst case and usually less, at most 1/20 of the size of the location. I hope that makes sense. Zerotalk 22:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understood your purpose, I just wanted the wikipedia rulebook. Thank you for the explanation. Loew Galitz (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where should discussion about Hate site Haaretz go?[edit]
Haaretz incitement against Haredim (who are not serving in the IDF)[edit]
You may note my latest editing of the article. I suppose the colonel’s memoirs might be classed as Original Research, as might my own contributions, as I was actually present that night as a rifleman in ‘A’ Company, though not positioned close enough to hear the pipes. But in the second half of the tour, I was billeted beside the Pipes and Drums, and I never heard any questioning of the story, either then or later, working as a reporter in Edinburgh. Valetude (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Valetude. If the book mentions the story about the surrender, it would be ok to mention it as the opinion of the author or as the belief of the British soldiers. But I don't think that stating it as a plain fact is good unless the rebels themselves confirmed it. Only the rebels really knew why they surrendered. Cheers. Zerotalk 12:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find it odd that we're having to prove that there was no formal surrender. The other side would hardly be wanting to prove there was one. Why is the surrender story being treated as sacred? Where did it come from? Where are the cites?
I can offer you this much:
The Times, January 9, 2010: ‘We regret driving out the British,’ say Aden’s former rebels.
One of them wrote a letter saying “Under the British we had peace. The Yemeni fighters were ignorant. I hope the British come back.” Another said “People didn’t know any better. It was an emotional response born out of Arab nationalism and Nasserite revolutionary feelings.” Valetude (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Valetude You misunderstood, sorry. I'm only referring to the story that they surrendered because of the pipes playing. Zerotalk 13:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't surrender. There were no prisoners. They simply melted away, and restricted their activities to occasional small arms fire, apart from one attempt at another mutiny, which Mitch faced down through sheer force of character. Valetude (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)
Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
Whoops, looks like I accidentally posted the name of my underground downtempo/grindcore band. Thanks for catching that! 😬 Drsmoo (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your edit there -- it was a flag legally decreed FOR USE AT SEA. It had no particular status ON LAND. AnonMoos (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos: I know that; I'm just about to add the actual legislation. It was a maritime ensign with no purpose on land at all (unless government port installations flew it). What does it mean to say that a maritime ensign was "not embraced", except if it was not embraced at sea? And where is the source? At the moment this is a useless sentence and it can't stay. Zerotalk 03:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the article, it was the only Palestine-specific flag not restricted to official government use, so there was nothing preventing its use on land by anyone who wanted to do so (though without official status), if there had been any enthusiasm for it -- but there was no enthusiasm for it. Assertions in the lead section don't require separate sourcing if they follow from what's below. AnonMoos (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos: Where is this claim sourced anywhere in the article? Why is it significant if nobody used a maritime ensign on land? Why should they? Zerotalk 03:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos: Note that authority from the "Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty" was required for the maritime ensign to be used on ships. I can't prove it, but I'll bet that use for any other purpose was illegal. Zerotalk 06:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zero! I think you might mean "DS-aware" instead of "DS-alert" toward the end of your statement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Idk if you saw it already, "The Challenge of Categories: UNRWA and the Definition of a Palestine Refugee" (Ilana Feldman 2012) is of any use? Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Thanks. It is more interesting as a summary of how UNRWA operated in the early days. Quite a lot of mythology is refuted there. Zerotalk 11:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 25[edit]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hamat Gader, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samra.
Afore I go getting myself into trouble, is there a consensus anywhere about the use of the terms "First Temple period" and "Second Temple period". I know what they mean now but I would have thought your average reader wouldn't really understand them. They might not understand "Persian period" or "late Roman"
either but still, more chance with those than the other? Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first temple period is actually the iron age and pre-Persian - with the Persians came Cyrus the Great, who returned the exiled Babylonian Judaeans to Jerusalem and rebuilt the temple, the second temple, which overlaps both Persian and Roman (Herodian) periods. Iron age seems the obvious way to go with the former - second depends a little on the framing. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine "First Temple period" and "Second Temple period" might be rather popular terms in biblical archaeology though, and have some source weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To editors Iskandar323 and Selfstudier: I don't know if there is wiki-consensus about this. I don't remember one but my memory for such things is bad. Certainly these phrases are very common in sources. I think that "First Temple period" is sometimes used even by people who are not sure of the reality of the first temple; to them it just means the time period during which the first temple traditionally existed. In Wikipedia, I think that we should specify time periods using explicit numbered centuries, with the possible exception of when we are writing about something to do with the temple. It is more informative to general readers and there is no rule that we have to slavishly follow the wording of sources when the paraphrase doesn't involve OR. Zerotalk 07:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with specific dates in the text where possible, I was thinking more of section heads.
If you were writing an article about some place and its history (assuming it had a long history) how would you divide the time frame? Selfstudier (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are several confusions on that page. Perhaps worst is the over-extension of the classical period, which hands over to the early middle ages/medieval period in the 4th century CE, as noted, in fact, on the History of Jerusalem during the Middle Ages page, not with the Muslim conquests, as the current timeline somewhat implies. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Picking this up on your talk :) Selfstudier (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)
Arbitration
The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Hey, I'm looking for the Wikipedia rule that says we should use West Bank instead of Judea and Samaria, do you have a link to it? Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing the number of intellectual man-hours spent on 4 words…could have been spent finding a cure for cancer…. Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Zero0000. I've begun working on al-Aqsa Mosque again. Pringle's The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom ... Vol 3 presents a pretty comprehensive and detailed history of the building, but there are several pages which I am unable to access by GBooks preview. Do you happen to have full access to this source? The pages I am looking for are 417, 421, 424, 427, 430-431 and 433. @Huldra: Same message. For some reason I remember, or misremember, that Zero or yourself had access to this book. If not, my apologies. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Al Ameer son; I have a physical copy of the book. Unfortunately my scanner doesn't work, so I will have to wait until Monday to go to the library to scan it -and send it to you- (I believe I have your email-address?) -unless Zero beats me to it. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Al Ameer son: I can email you the book but I don't think I have your address. If you send me mail, I'll reply with the book. Huldra, your copy is on its way. Zerotalk 03:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! And glad I do not have to trouble Huldra now ;) Will be emailing you shortly Zero. —Al Ameer (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.
Technical news
The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please emailMadalina Ana.
Arbitration
An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
Arbitration
Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
@Doug Weller: I dissented there. Also, the editor in question has been copying material from thetorah.com together with the citation given there. For example, two things atAvaris: "abandonment during the 19th dynasty", and "Even after the fall of the Hyksos dynasty, Avaris had one of the largest populations of Semitic-Asiatics in Egypt". Both are sourced to this excavation report but I can't find either of them there. Another excavation report also doesn't have them, I think. Zerotalk 12:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've warned him about adding material not in cited sources. I think we need to continue the warnings. Doug Wellertalk 15:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In January this year you uploaded an image of a memorandum published in the August 26 1840 issue of The Times headed RESTORATION OF THE JEWS. The file's title is RestorationJewsTimes1840. Perhaps you or I could change that to Restoration of the Jews Memorandum 1840 (assuming the year is accurate) or RESTORATION OF THE JEWS MEMORANDUM 1840. Mcljlm (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mcljlm: What difference does it make what the file name is? Zerotalk 07:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero: All titles should be accurate especially since they're likely to be used elsewhere. In this case "the" isn't insignificant. There doesn't appear to be any reason for there not to be spaces between the words or before the year. Mcljlm (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
Arbitration
Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
Since you seem to be so proficient at unearthing buried treasures, here's a "Mission Impossible" for you. At Backslash#History, we've been trying to find out when the \ mark first appeared. But more usefully, why did the Teletype Corporation (at the request of the US Armed Forces?) "invent" it? what was its purpose? It must have been significant enough to merit its own key on the keyboard. Intriguing, don't you think?
One to file away to look at on a rainy day sometime maybe. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid BLP violation as you did here. You were previously warned here. Expressing your opinion is OK as long as it does not violate WP:BLP. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Infinity Knight: Your "previous warning" fell flat on its face, as you are perfectly aware. Incidentally, good editors avoid sources that are regularly damned by qualified reviewers and look for sources that command general respect. That leads to articles that meet the requirements of balance. Zerotalk 14:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was triggered by your view There is a difference between article space and talk space...here. Hope you realize the view is baseless. This time please note that BLP applies also to edit comments. That's the takeaway. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge difference between article space and talk space. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. So even "contentious material" has a talk-page exception, but we don't need it here because an editorial opinion on source quality is not "contentious material". We are permitted to state our opinions on the quality of sources and the qualifications of their authors. An opinion that an author is unreliable, excessively biased, whatever, is just an editor's opinion and not a BLP violation unless it claims to expose some protected fact about the author. So kindly pick up your takeaway and take it away; meanwhile I will continue weeding out unreliable sources. Zerotalk 11:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a proper way to discuss content choices, and saying In my opinion the author is so and so... is not appropriate. See WP:BLPTALK. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?. Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Infinity Knight (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it is good to cite additional sources in order to discuss the reliability of a source but it isn't a requirement. "X is an idiot" is not information about X, it is an opinion. These rules derive from US libel laws and were vetted by the WMF lawyers. WP can be sued for publishing "X murdered his mother" but it can't be sued for publishing "Zero thinks X is a fanatic". Zerotalk 12:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about claims by editors "Author X is an islamophobe" or "Author X is an antisemite" to weed out unreliable sources? Infinity Knight (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lawyers make money out of challenging boundaries. I consciously chose to not use the word "islamophobe" because I thought it was too close to the boundary. I would certainly recommend citing a source for that. If it got to ArbCom I wouldn't bet on the result, though. Zerotalk 13:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like an admission of consciously challenging BLP boundaries while carefully choosing you vocabulary. That's the root of the matter. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like somebody pretending that a section at BLPN in which every single user disagreed with their claim constitutes a "warning" to another editor. Reads like somebody asking for a boomerang for tendentious editing. So do the repeated ONUS violations. nableezy - 16:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence suggests that this a sustained issue accross several pages. Guess some group of authors just have to be "weeded out"? Who are those "fanatics"? Badmouthing authors who are not present in the discussion is not a sign of grace anyway and nor permitted by BLP. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, some group of authors have to be weeded out. The technical term is "unreliable sources". Zerotalk 07:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Unreliable sources" like David Patterson (historian) published by Cambridge University Press, who triggered this discussion. Man on a mission, figure it out. Not sure why you had to be dragged to BLPN to provide links to your serious allegations, despite clear rules of BLP. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You tried and you failed. Get over it. And this conversation has run its course. Zerotalk 08:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When reviewers have widely panned a work as unhistorical and hysterical then yes it is an unreliable source. Good luck citing From Time Immemorial too. nableezy - 17:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More details about "fanatics", figure it out ;) The point is when talking about a living author and sharing serious allegations please provide links per WP:BLPTALK, weed out happily otherwise. Merry Christmas! Infinity Knight (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No the point is when an editor says that a source is unreliable, dont just immediately revert it back in because like all content the onus for consensus is on those arguing for inclusion. If you continue to disregard that then well we can see what happens, as no matter how many times you remove warnings about that from your talk page the diffs last forever. Oh, and the person who initially inserted that crap, indef blocked as every single one of their edits had a distinct "the Moslems are evil" bent to it. Merry Christmas. nableezy - 00:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guarantee this is going to be cited as another "warning" one day lol. nableezy - 16:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it, unles the pursuant wants to risk a ban for Truk-Island style feuding. This nonsense about Patterson and BLP was definitively buried 2 and a half years ago after a forensic exposition of why he is legitimately thought non RS. IK looks like he waited all that time in the wings for an opportunity to revive a dead POV.
Time does not heal on Truk . . shortly after the American occupation of the atoll at the end of World War 11 . . A villager arrived out of breath at the military government headquarters. He said that a murder had been committed in the village and that the murderer was running around loose. Quite naturally the military government officer became alarmed. He was about to dispatch M.P.s to arrest the culprit when he remembered that someone had warned him about acting precipitously when dealing with 'natives'. A little inquiry turned up the fact that the victimn had been "fooling around" with the murderer's wife. Still more inquiry of a routine type, designed to establish the date and place of the crime, revealed that the murder had not occurred a few hours or even days ago as one might expect, but seventeen years before.Edward T. Hall, The Silent Language 1959 Premier Books ed.1961 p.26.
One should let sleeping dogs lie-Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the initial comment in this section lol. You were previously warned, citing a thread in which every single person disagreed with IK and declined to warn Zero. nableezy - 17:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going through the {{Jewish villages depopulated during the 1929 Palestine riots}} template and found that a while back you removed the template from Kfar Uria, although you left the page in the template. Your edit comment then was "this box is not justified in the text". I found the text even then to be pretty clear that the village was burnt down in 1929, and only rebuilt in 1945. Perhaps you were confused by the fact that some of the Jewish farmers continued to work the fields there -- the text is not completely clear that they lived elsewhere and would only return to the site to work the fields but not to sleep there. Inasmuch as there were no inhabitable buildings on the site between 1929 and 1945, and no one actually lived there, I find its inclusion as a village that was depopulated in 1929 to be entirely correct and proper.
I was BOLD and reverted your edit, and I am starting this discussion here on your Talk page to see if I/we need to do something else to retain consensus. Respectfully, -- Eliyahu STalk 11:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that there were 2 houses occupied in 1931. So the village was not entirely depopulated. Is that what you were referring to? I find that the first definition of depopulate on Wiktionary says to "reduce" and not to "eliminate" people from a place. Even if two of the houses remained habitable, the two census figures show a 75% loss of population -- from 40 people to 10. I also suspect that in 1929 the population was probably greater than the 40 counted in 1922, but the article currently shows those two numbers. I think that a 75% reduction still qualifies as "depopulation". Respectfully, -- Eliyahu STalk 11:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply on the talk page. Zerotalk 11:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
@Selfstudier: A serious piece of research published in an academic journal. Even if it is attributed, it should be cited as the result of a research project and not just as a claim. Zerotalk 05:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: I'm a bit confused by the timeline because aerial photos show construction starting around 2007. I've got a fiendishly busy week but I'll get to this eventually. Zerotalk 12:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Np, take your time. I'm still researching it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Confusing. It seems that the first alert given to an ARBPIA editor should now be {{subst:alert/first|a-i}} instead of {{subst:alert|a-i}}. It is better I think because it mentions the 30/500 restriction and 1RR instead of expecting the editor to read the ARBPIA page. If I understand footnote "n" at WP:Contentious topics, it is not necessary to give the new alert to people who previously received the old alert. Zerotalk 00:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems clear enough. And {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice|topic=a-i}} for the edit notice? Adding section = yes if it is just partial. I didn't see a new talk page template, just use existing? Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: There is {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i}}. Zerotalk 11:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, missed that. K, got it now :) Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The old templates are autoupdating, looks of it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on the image, but I saw now that the two images below it have the same inaccuracy, could you fix them? Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Black Death theory" belongs to User:Skylax30, it doesn't exist in the referenced text[edit]
@Mercresis: It is in footnote 19 with additional references. Quotation: "Recent studies see a direct connection between the fast Ottoman military advance and the consequences of the Black Death from the mid-fourteenth century onwards. They emphasize that Byzantine territories, where the initial Ottoman conquests were carried out, were exhausted (both demographically and militarily) due to the plague outbreaks, which facilitated the Ottoman expansion." It is almost the same as our article had. Please put it back. Zerotalk 13:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
@Riskit 4 a biskit: This talmud is frequently called the Palestinian Talmud in scholarly writing. (Search for "Palestinian Talmud" with quotes at scholar.google.com .) So it is reasonable for the article to say why it is called that. Zerotalk 23:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to copy Lebanon, South Africa and Brittany off to the talk page. Probably the Channel Islands too. All of them have the problem you mentioned about Palestine, ie possibly some wannabes, but I don't really see sourced *collaboration* yet, although I think it is there to be found . But it will be petty, so whereas when I first came to the article the weight seemed undue towards eastern Europe, very light on North Africa, it now seems to have gone somewhat too far in the other direction. And Japan, I am not even sure what to say. Too steep a learning curve, which is what I thought of Irgun.
I am going to do one more pass to try to reference what is there in Europe -- I have already done several passes on all three continents -- then start from the other end, looking for highly-cited work that may not be included. Does that sound like a good plan? It's impolite of course to ask people what exactly their level of expertise and areas of knowledge are, but in this very fraught instance I'm just going to say that you seem to have some topic knowledge, probably broader and deeper than mine, and definitely much much more so in the middle east. So I humbly ask that to the extent you can, please do continue to review what we're doing and let us know if we're citing discredited authors or anything else that would be embarrassing. I have no particular agenda to prove anything in the area, except that I know more about Vichy France than the rest of it due to my educational history. But I am not a historian.
I feel like I am treading on dangerous ground, but the article does desperately need improvement, and I have done big messy cleanups before. So...I will not ping you more than I have to, but I'm about to write some more questions on the talk page and should you feel so moved, your attention there would be welcome. Oh, and if you are interested, there is a question at RSN about the Blue Police, but it's had a couple of answers, so as I sometimes say, don't spend more time on this than you want to. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Wellertalk 08:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your statement on ArbCom. Also it's worth noting what USHMM is actually saying former Soviet prisoners of war (POWs) of various nationalities or Ukrainian and Polish civilians, it doesn't determine their ethnicity, only the fact that before 1939 they were citizens of Poland, so most likely west Ukrainians. Ukrainian civilians refer probably to the Ukrainian SSR citizens in its pre-1939 borders Marcelus (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another thank you: This time massacre at Kolo[edit]
Thank you for your ArbCom explanation about my edit (a very long time ago). It felt odd to be named in the first place, and it's very pleasant that you straightened things out. To the point, I'd like to draw your attention to my comment on the same page:
@Horse Eye's Back: Thanks for the mention of my counter-disruptive efforts three years ago. Such work is rarely acknowledged and so I appreciate it. For the same reason that you swam away from that one issue then, I am almost totally retired from Wikipedia now. But let me be clear, this is definitely not simply a case of zealous 'nationalists' versus the noble souls who crusade against them. The zealous 'crusaders' are sometimes so convinced of their own virtue that they assume bad faith in content when there is no such thing, and go ahead and disrupt the topic area based on their own projections of malice. A notorious case was Icewhiz, another case was Varsovian, both AFAIR indefinitely blocked or permanently banned from the topic area. At times, IMHO SlimVirgin was one of those problematic crusaders too. Wikipedia policy and guidelines already got it right long ago, that it takes two to tango. Many trolls have their opposite number, with which they exchange bait. Personal psychology becomes relevant because that dynamic becomes an addiction to conflict, with the impossible objective of winning. Btw I entirely concur with you about Piotrus and hereby vouch for him too. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Please keep up the good work. Many thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading quite a bit lately about the police system in occupied Poland, so I have some knowledge on the subject. There were two formations in the German formations called the Gendarmerie: Gendarmerie des Reiches (essentially uniformed police serving in villages and small towns, part of the Orpo) and the Feldgendarmerie, which was essentially Military Police within the Wehrmacht. So the gendarmes may have been part of the Wehrmacht.
The second issue is the participation of Poles. Poles were generally not allowed to serve in the German police or the Wehrmacht. Volksdeutsche could not do so either. Volksdeutsche could serve in the Sonderdienst (created, however, only in May 1940) or in the Hilfspolizei; only after good service did they receive Reichsdeutsche status and the right to serve in the regular police force. Ethnic Poles had this path closed. The conscription of Volksdeutsche to the Wehrmacht began on a massive scale only in 1942, before that it was sporadic.
It is very possible that those in reference ("were all born in Poland") were Polish Germans who left Poland for Germany before 1939 and returned with the army (this was quite common) or members of the Volksdeutscher Selbstschutz, an organization composed of Germans living in Poland responsible for horrific crimes. It is also possible that by "gendarme" this witness meant any uniformed German who was not a Wehrmacht soldier (and the Gendarmerie des Reiches was the formation that Poles encountered most often). (pinging @Ealdgyth, because I comment on it on her talk page before making more reading) Marcelus (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus and Chumchum7: Thanks. I'm having trouble confirming the information at Yahadmap from any other source. The best I have found from that early period is mention of murder but not mention of a large scale massacre. Can either of you read Yiddish? There's a memorial volume called Sefer Kolo that might have something but the only version I can find online is the original Yiddish version or here. There is also a Hebrew edition I can't find and a very partial English edition that doesn't include the Holocaust years. I think that the text should be retired from the article if no confirmation can be found. Zerotalk 13:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Do końca 1939 r. Niemcy rozstrzelali ok. 300 Żydów." -> "By the end of 1939 the Germans executed about 300 Jews." (RS: [9]) Marcelus (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: Good find! That page looks more reliable than the Yahadmap one, so maybe it should be used instead? Incidentally, though I have done bulk reading on Holocaust history I have no intention of editing there; my main interest Israel-Palestine gives me more than enough trouble. Zerotalk 13:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And a speedy find. Which begs an important question: what does it say about perception and attitude that an editor took a single uncontroversial edit from years ago and dragged it into ArbCom, instead of (1) fixing it, (2) reverting with explanation or (3) taking it to the talk page? For me, it illustrates our common problem of presumptuous crusading as over-reaction to falsely-perceived trolling. The nationalists and crusaders take each others' bait. Hence my near-retirement. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, most of the evidences pointed out by @Ealdgyth are of this type, as I already wrote her about in a discussion a few days ago (link); unfortunately, it seems to me this is partly due to ignorance of the subject. That is, I had not heard of the massacre in Koło before, but knowing where this city lies and what happened in the region in 1939, it immediately seemed to me that it is as plausible that such an event took place. Marcelus (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for saying that, because that is what I was trying for. However, the link did not go where I expected. This is likely my fault, as I recognize the link as something I had in my sandbox. Let me get you the correct link. Assuming I understand your point. [here].Elinruby (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: That doesn't work for me, maybe because it's a mobile link and I'm on desktop. How about this link? I'm finding the process confusing, and for some comments I can't tell if they are intended as criticism or praise. Zerotalk 08:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
maybe. We're talking about the RSN thread on the Blue Police and the question of whether the source supported the "death" statement, right? it's in archive 398 and the title of the thread is "The Blue Police in Poland" Elinruby (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: Right, that's exactly where I go when I click on the wikilink I just gave. Zerotalk 08:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok, well at least we're talking about the same thing.
For now, I guess disregard my comment about the link, and I'll come back and tell you where I go if it's still doing it after I reboot. Or open an OTRS or something.
So back to the main point: thank you for saying that, because that was my point. The main one, anyway. This is what I was trying to send when I had an edit conflict: I for one am pretty traumatized by the war in Ukraine articles. Do not want to go through a 17th or 18th iteration of that, especially if I can't talk about it and have to AGF all over again. If you're asking about *my* last post, the answer is both. I am trying to be fair while retaining all the shades of grey.
(The next day) the link you give above with the displaytext "this link" is correct, and goes to the correct section of archive 398.
The one in your question to me at ArbCom goes to the top of archive 375, as verified by the url. I don't mean to bludgeon you about this, but if you think that the RSN thread about the Blue Police is a model discussion of content, then I am very gratified as its author and would like to see this (IMHO) very important point given the proper weight by arbitrators, which is more likely if the link goes to the discussion you are describing. Thanks for your attention to this Elinruby (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: Thanks, now I get it. I don't know how that happened. I fixed it now, do you agree? Zerotalk 05:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You fixed it now.
As for the buffer error, presumably at some point you looked at that archive, shrug, and were thinking of saying something to somebody about something in it. Common issue based on call center experience. Real answer depends on whether you were using a mouse, but I don't think you are asking for that much detail, are you? Elinruby (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently blanked the portion of your evidence submission that was not moved to analysis. Having read it a couple of times it seems far more like analysis than evidence, including the fact that it was directed towards other editors rather than arbitrators. You would be welcome to post any/all of the content that was there at an existing analysis section (or if no section has been created, new). Please let me know if you have any questions about this or what we're looking for in evidence/analysis. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<page stalker>, yeah, and given that you have 260k+ edits on en.wp, they would have least had to have gone through 200000 of your edits in order to find that -one- edit. My oh my, I must confess I'm in absolute awe over their industriousness! Huldra (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is missing 2 pages after p. 127, that is pp 128-129.
Those two pages are about Deir Qal’a and Rafat, Salfit; you wouldn't happen to have access to them? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Huldra: Download different copy from Google [10]. Zerotalk 08:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that is great; thanks!
Also, I see a lot was uploaded to commons, not that particular version, though, Thanks again, Huldra (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You protected this page, and the article, in June 2014 following oversight actions on both. Do you believe continued protection of the talk page is warranted? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the protection from the talk page. The article remains semiprotected, but according to the ARBPIA rules autoconfirmed status is not enough to edit there anyway. Zerotalk 01:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you also protected Talk:Gilo in December 2019 after an oversight action. Can that be lifted? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
Hello Zero0000. I am the declared COI editor for Nefesh B'Nefesh. I've seen your editing on Israel and Jewish-related content on Wikipedia, and would appreciate your help with the publication of this article for Rabbi Yehoshua Fass, the founder of Nefesh B'Nefesh. In 2021, a discussion about a previous draft resulted in a redirect. This new draft is significantly expanded and reflects the extensive coverage Rabbi Fass has garnered over the years. I'd be grateful for your assistance and input in creating an independent article for Rabbi Fass. Thank you LA for NBN (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.
The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.
Miscellaneous
The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
Regarding my inappropriate reply to you on Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians[edit]
Hello,
I'm contacting you here for two reasons:
1. I want to directly and unreservedly apologise for for my inappropriate criticism of your motivations. You are completely right, and I'm grateful for your clear explanation of why that is the case.
2. As a non-extended-confirmed editor, I have just realised that I have violated policy by involving myself in discussion in the first place.
As far as I can tell, I have therefore violated two policies. As a relatively inexperienced editor, I'm not sure what to do next. Is there a formal procedure via which I can effectively report myself for policy violations? Foxmilder (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Foxmilder: Don't worry about the comments made in haste and thanks for the apology. Non-extended-confirmed editors were permitted to take part in talk page discussions until 9 days ago; now only edit requests are permitted. Cheers. Zerotalk 03:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that, so thanks — again — for explaining.
Your patience and tolerance set a good example. Next time I'm tempted to say something stupid on a talk page, I will endeavour to keep these virtues in mind.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Zero0000
It seems you reverted my revision claiming that since Paul=small and Saul=asked for, that Paul did change his name
This is somewhat irrelevant. It was common practice in that era for people to have two names, one which was their Hebrew given name and then another name that sounded more "greek". These were frequently very similar in phonetics, but not in meaning.
Saul never claimed to change his name, in fact he frequently used both names interchangeably. When the bible does reference the two names, they never claim a change of names. They claim that he uses both names.
This is a fairly common bit of biblical mythology. I'll add a similar line to the talk page of Persecution of Christians
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/no-saul-the-persecutor-did-not-become-paul-the-apostle/PuckSR (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PuckSR: I don't have an opinion on the facts, but only noticed that your edit summary "Paul is just the Latinized version of Saul" is incorrect. The religious site you name doesn't come close to satisfying Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source. However, the issue is peripheral to that particular article, so there is no need to resolve it there. Zerotalk 22:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you were saying.
I meant "latinized" in the sense of an Anglicized name. As someone named Johoviak might anglicize their name to "John". I didnt mean to convey that it was a latin translation of the name. As for the source, I didn't think it needed to be a reliable source, as I wasn't making a positive assertions. Even the wikipedia entry to Paul https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Paul_the_Apostle#Names clarifies that this is a common misunderstanding that seems to have slipped into the Christian persecution text. PuckSR (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
My comments on the talk page related to the article, not to the topic itself in general.
Furthermore, they cited key legal documents and provisions. Consideration of such documents and analysis were constructive criticism of the subject area I identified in the article, which were offered to improve the article.
Ultimately, we must be mindful that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that must tell the truth and be as factual as possible, even when, (and especially when) the truth and facts may not be popular.
You and other editors should not revert unless the edits are disruptive. Disruptive comments should not include those that are well supported by relevant legal documentation and analysis.
Actions to revert a page should require a strong showing and effectuated only with due consideration and restraint.
The talk page drives and shapes discourse relating to the article, which may lead to edits to improve the article. These improvements redound to the benefit of the public and of democracy itself.
Where as here, reverting talk on the page I made in good faith and which pertained to key issues relating to the article, stultifies discourse. Such actions lead to legitimate claims of censorship, which violates Wikipedia's policy.
You also failed to notify me that you reverted the page. The best policy is, if you have a concern, to discuss it with me first before taking action. If we have a disagreement, we can mutually agree to seek the opinion of a neutral third party.
I think such an approach respects both the process and the persons involved. Biolitblue (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Biolitblue: I don't make the rules. WP:ARBECR is very clear on what non-ec editors like yourself are allowed to do, and your edit did not conform to those rules. If you want another opinion, ask a different administrator. There is a list here. Zerotalk 04:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only requirement I can discern is that the editor's content on the Talk page must not be "disruptive."
I interpret disruptive as gas lighting, pushing an agenda, offering evidence which is irrelevant or off-topic, or arguments that are logically spurious or unsourced.
You are only allowed to make edit requests. Article critique is not an edit request. Zerotalk 10:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stated that "[t]he legality section needs development and a higher location in the article." The only reasonable inference is that the documents and analysis furnished in the body of the talk was a proposed edit to further develop the legality section.
The legality section is paramount because it determines the respective rights and obligations of the respective parties not just in the Mandate, but over time. Where as here, summarily claiming that the legal aspects have been debated by scholars and then listing in footnotes sections of books where scholarly debate is purportedly found is insufficient. In fact, it comes across as subterfuge and a way to obviate the need for proper discussion.
As a policy of Wikipedia, Wikipedia has to be accessible to the average reader. A great majority of readers will not pick up these books at the library or purchase them, and the "scholarly" analysis might be too abstruse.
Without the editing requested, it is NOT Neutral: because it omits key aspects and documents pertaining to the legality of the Mandate. Along these same lines, it is not broad in its coverage and does not discuss all relevant aspects.
As it stands, with no disrespect intended to the author and other contributors, I disagree with this article's rating as a "good article." It is possible that if the legality section were more developed, the article could not only fulfill the requirements of a good article but could even become a feature article.
My proposed edits might be WP:NOR until others have had the opportunity to examine the documents, analysis, and conclusions. If the conclusions are rejected as WP:NOR upon review, then the sections and discrepancies in the documents could still be highlighted without violating the rule. Some other content dealing with the McMahon-Hussein correspondence does not violate the rule if I remove the conclusion and let the sources quotes speak for themselves. I have more quotes on the matter. Biolitblue (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Not sure I was very helpful there. I wish I can be of some help. On a different level: what would really constitute friendly help here? Anyone who is so personally involved in this huge tragedy should be helped to take a break from it - in real life. Wiki comes next. Apparently being glued to the screens can produce more PTSD and depression than facing some of the horrible things happening there in person. If we don't manage to help him out of the ban, it might turn out to be a blessing in disguise. But then again, a) he must know it, and b) his editing, the stress involved, and the additional time it keeps him stuck in this unending hell is probably the least of his stress factors right now. Try to help him on a different level if you can, maybe ask Nishidani to write to him as well. It's far too much for me too. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Arminden: It's not proper for me to advise you on how to handle this. Zerotalk 06:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking for that. My focus was on Nableezy as a person rather than an editor. That is, if you have closer contact to him than I do. If not, I'm sorry I brought it up. Arminden (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, the best thing that we can do for ourselves is to step-away from the issues that put us at variance with our fellow editors (even if it is only for a short period). Personally speaking, for me, it was good to step-away from the Arab-Israeli conflict - because of its inherent contentious nature. Nableezy has shown understanding to my own shortcomings in the ARBPIA area, and he has volunteered to act as a mentor for me, even though we share different political views. There is something to be admired about his ability to give to his disputant the benefit of the doubt.Davidbena (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
Western Wall has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
Do you think a 1986 article in Shomron Studies is reliable for claiming the ethnic history of people across Palestine? nableezy - 17:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: It's a hard question because I don't have the article in question. The author Grossman was a well-known demographer. What concerns me is the precision of the reports; the fact that a family or two has a tradition of coming from another place does not mean that the tradition is true, and it doesn't entitle us to write that the village population came from that other place. But it is hard to argue this without the source. Zerotalk 00:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can find the source cited elsewhere but have had no luck in finding the actual source. nableezy - 05:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grossman (2011), Rural Arab Demography and Early Jewish Settlement in Palestine: Distribution and Population Density During the Late Ottoman and Early Mandate Periods has stuff from the journal, idk if that could be used instead. Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have that book and it could be useful for generalities, but it has little in the way of village by village details. I understand that the Hebrew edition was more expansive. Zerotalk 12:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked at WP:RX#A_Hebrew_article. The chances are small. I'm willing to pay for this article but the only way I can find to get it is to start a subscription. Zerotalk 02:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
I'm writing on behalf of the IP Server who started to edit at "British currency in the Middle East" on 29th March this year. The editor suddenly found the IP server range blocked, while being accused of being a blocked editor called TheCurrencyGuy. The editor at the IP server categorically denies being TheCurrencyGuy, doesn't know TheCurrencyGuy, and has never interacted with him. Meanwhile, a editor called JMF has been on the talk page at "British currency in the Middle East" stating that at least some of the recent edits were definitely done by TheCurrencyGuy. Well, so he says, but not one of the edits carried out by the blocked IP server since 29th March was done by TheCurrencyGuy, and it doesn't appear that anybody else edited during that period. It would be interesting to see what JMF's evidence is, but meanwhile he has reverted all the hard work and careful research that was carried out since 29th March. The article is now in an inferior state with many factual inaccuracies that had been corrected by the blocked IP server. 77.99.242.50 (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JMF's advice to get an account is what I would advise too. And the best way to avoid text being removed for being unsourced is to add sources at the same time as the text. Zerotalk 03:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An account cannot be created until it is acknowledged that the blocked IP server is not a sockpuppet of TheCurrencyGuy. Meanwhile, the editor using the blocked IP server categorically denies the accusation, and says that this is the only important issue at the moment. Can you please help to have the investigation re-visited. The blocked IP editor has checked the editing history of TheCurrencyGuy to see what the alleged similarities are, and has noted that TheCurrencyGuy began his editing days by correcting the format of a foreign currency on some article, and then over time did likewise with many other currency units, and his focus seemed to be on spelling and formatting. The blocked IP server would like to point out that this style has got nothing in common with matters relating to the history of currency in the Middle East. If you can get the IP server unblocked, then the editor will be able to discuss the matter with you directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.242.50 (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP server that was blocked at the same time as https://www.qudswiki.org/?query=User:Jahor12345 is not connected. Both were editing simultaneously on different articles during the morning of 3rd April 2024. That was the session when you became involved on the talk page about the meaning of the word miri. The IP server began with detailed edits about the Egyptian pound, and then around noon, switched over to British currency in the Middle East. Meanwhile, editor Jahor12345 was editing across a wide range of currency topics, mainly reformatting. The editing styles are completely different. The IP server carried out edits at 1204hrs and 1206hrs, while Jahor12345 carried out an edit in the middle of that two minute period at 1205hrs. They couldn't possibly be the same person.81.134.217.27 (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not convincing me, and anyway I do not have the authority to overrule the results of WP:SPI. I don't see the slightest reason why someone can't make an account if they want to edit. Zerotalk 03:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline and policy news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Technical news
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Bureaucrat changes
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Greater Palestine, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sakiv (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sakiv (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)