User talk:Zero0000: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:58, 12 November 2018

Can't 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|Zero0000}}.

Clarification request archived

Your request for clarification has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Meinertzhagen

Hello, Zero0000, about this diff, I added the cite from The Economist to the Richard Meinertzhagen article to try to give a reference within the article for the term "bumf," which is defined in Wiktionary and, of course, the OED. I thought of The Economist, as a publication, to be a reliable source, not original research and that the explanation within the article might be helpful to others. "Bumf" as a definition doesn't deserve its own article, so wikilinking was not an option. Linking to Wiktionary is contra to the Manual of Style and the OED is a paysite. Still and all, is there a better way to include an explanation of the term in the Meinertzhagen article? It could be helpful to those for whom the term is not at the top of their everyday parlance. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Glane23:. Hi, it isn't clear to me why the word "bumf" is in the article at all, since it appears in Wikipedia's voice. Even more so regarding "Australian bumf" (what is that?). If it was a quotation then we could discuss how to deal with the word, but in our text we should just replace it by something readers will understand. Unfortunately that paragraph has very unclear sourcing and I can't tell if the word "bumf" originated in one of the sources given or whether it was introduced there by some Wikipedia editor. The word does not appear in the Official History cited; I don't have "Army Diary" handy to check. Actually I believe it is a paraphrase of the book of Grainger (cited next), which has "This, of course, relied on the enemy’s understanding of the peculiar Australian attitude to discipline and ‘bumf’."(p107). That makes sense, but our phrase "comprehension of Australian bumf" doesn't make sense, which suggests that whoever put it into the article didn't understand it. The following sentence "The main consequence was a swap in the German High Command, and Mustafa Kemal's resignation." is also clearly derived from Grainger, but Grainger does not attribute any of that to the haversack ruse. I'd like to remove the whole paragraph; objections? (Also, this should be on the article talk page.) Zero^talk 00:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I copied the above to the article Talk page and replied there. I've no problem with losing the term and agree the article can use some copyediting. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Yes agreed, that's what it is. I have a preference at this point to try to broaden out the scope, as an overview of the travel books would be good. What we have at the moment is worse than sub-par.

By the way, I would be highly appreciative of your thoughts at the RFC at IPCOLL.

Oncenawhile (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avengers Navigation

Could I add later members and additional enemies.

Iron max 3 (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Iron max 3 Iron max 3 (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WWHF is a reliable source

The WWHF is a reliable source. It's a government agency of Israel. It is not a private agency. It interacts and deals with archaeologists and historians. Why would you claim it is not reliable? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it isn't reliable. The State of Israel's position on history is also not reliable. Neither of them are scholarly sources. Zero^talk 23:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: And note how that source says "Nevertheless, most historians believe that the Western Wall became a popular prayer area only since the Ottoman conquest of Jerusalem in 1517 (5277)." That is indeed the consensus of historians. Zero^talk 00:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is because popular means easier and less restrictive to get to. (due to crusades and war etc.) Not that Jews didn't pray at the wall. So then the WWHF should be a RS anyway?? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: No, unreliable sources often include correct statements. Government departments are only used without attribution for matters clearly within their competence and not subject to dispute. For example, we cite the Israeli Bureau of Statistics all over the place. For matters as sensitive as the history of the WW, there are legions of scholars to rely on instead. Zero^talk 00:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Le Strange

Re: [1], is he not a RS? Chesdovi (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chesdovi: Sorry, I didn't see your question. See my answer in the section below. I'll add: also we have to be careful with sources 126 years old. Zero^talk 14:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Chesdovi (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I noticed this edit. You removed information as OR, although it is sourced. Did I miss anything? Debresser (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: The source does not connect this information to the issue at hand. It is only some editor's opinion that it is related. Lots of gate names have changed or moved around over time; it requires an expert to know what conclusions to draw from a particular example. Zero^talk 23:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Western Wall

Does this page fall under WP:ARBPIA, in your opinion? Since you are an admin and have edited that page, you might have some ideas. The section on Western Wall#Views does raise questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Hi Ed, good question. The only possible yes/no answer is "yes" since that place is a historical flashpoint between Jews and Muslims. But there is a longer answer. Usually topic-bans are enforced with some allowance for the nature of the edits. Two illustrative examples: (1) User Gilabrand has a well-deserved topic ban from the I-P conflict but frequently edits articles which are clearly under ARBPIA. However, I won't report her if her edits remain restricted to matters that do not involve the I-P conflict by a reasonable interpretation. (2) The article List of state leaders in 2016 is clearly as a whole not under ARBPIA, but there is a war going on there over the single line that refers to Palestine. I would say that I-P-banned editors are not allowed to partake in that war even though they are welcome to edit the parts of article about, say, Iceland or Japan. In the matter under discussion, you should also be aware that it largely comes out of an intra-Jewish conflict (Chesdovi belongs to a thread within Judaism that is largely despised by the mainstream). Chesdovi is overall not a worse editor than Debresser and far better than Sir Joseph. Cheers. Zero^talk 22:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the gratuitous attack. What makes him better then me? I'm not an SPA. I don't create obvious POV articles and then when those articles are deleted insert insert the pov pointy into main space. Don't make it seem like you're not uninvolved without a pov. His edits are extremely combative and disruptive to the project.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's my honest opinion of your editing practice. And you are the last person who should complain about attacks. Zero^talk 23:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I stopped dealing with him. I don't know how much you have seen of him dealing with me. As for the issue at hand, I am not in favor, in general, but for him, when he edits he makes it an Israel/Palestinian issue, but in general I don't think the page should be under ds, similar to Jew or other pages.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be allowed to add my opinion here, I would like to do so. Especially since my name has been taken in vain here. Otherwise, I would suggest somebody move it to EdJohnston's talkpage.

First off, I completely fail to understand why an admin would have a more qualified opinion about this question than a non-admin, and in my humble opinion WikiProject pages like WP:JUDAISM, WP:ISRAEL and WP:PALESTINE are the obvious and correct places to inquire regarding this question. That is even disregarding the fact that in the ARBPIA area Zero himself has a clear POV, meaning that I find it strange and worrying that his opinion is the only one EdJohnston asked for.

To answer the question itself. There is no straightforward answer. Part of articles like Western Wall is ARBPIA related, while the majority of the article is not. The degree varies, but in this case it is fairly easy to isolate the problematic sections. In this I completely agree with Zero. I would like to note on this occasion, that despite our different POVs, I much respect Zero, and we have solved many difficult issues together. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do disagree with the statement that "Chesdovi is overall not a worse editor than Debresser". That is in addition to the fact that I fail to understand why the question as it was posed necessitated in Zero's opinion an answer regarding any specific editors. Chesdovi is an extreme POV editor, who cherrypicks his sources and uses them in grossly misleading ways, as I have suspected for many years and has been proven recently with three examples on the talkpage of Western Wall. The same can not be said about me, and has not been said about me. Debresser (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: Both you and Chesdovi have views quite different from mine, but I respect you both and can work with you both as I have demonstrated many times. Often when you claim that Chesdovi is misrepresenting some source it sees to me that he is just reading it with different colored glasses from the color you wear. I suspect that your antipathy towards him is as much to do with the fact that you find his opinions "disgusting" (your word) as with his actual editing behavior. Zero^talk 05:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I know I am not a paragon of virtue, I really feel that I am able to divest my editing from my personal opinions. My attitude is helped by the fact that I was raised in Europe (not in the Middle East), and enjoyed a classical education, including university studies in the exact sciences.

I think the simple fact that Chesdovi and I agree on many of his edits, including as proposed by him on the talkpage of that very same Western Wall article, proves this. Same can be said for editing with User:Hulda, for example, who has a very pro Palestine POV, and even you. That is why I really don't appreciate when editors accuse me of POV editing or, in other contexts, "being too close to Judaism-related articles" etc.

In short, I would like to repeat that I think your comparison between Chesdovi and me is not justified by our respective edits and editing patterns, and can only hope that if you re-read the pertaining section on Western Wall carefully, you will see for yourself that Chesdovi is indeed guilty of misrepresenting sources. Debresser (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seaman

Hello Zero. I really appreciate what you wrote about me (and to the issue) re. the Seaman arbitration issue. Thank you.
For what it's worth, here is, in my opinion, what we are dealing with there. Mr Seaman was until recently one of the policy makers organising the covered payment of government money to sympathetic students in- and outside Israel, who would then support the current government's politics on Facebook, Twitter etc. pretending to act as private, objective contributors. He managed to get fired by his own gov't right before launching the programme on a grand scale, for making quite rude and undiplomatic political comments on his private FB page. His "friends" (or himself?) usually try to whitewash his WP page anonymously, Plot Spoiler is the only exception in a very long time, but the most extreme one of them all. Here he displayed all the hallmarks of Mr. Seaman's own system-savvy and aggressive style, but WP isn't the Gov. Press Office. Thankfully. But I would bet anything I have that this isn't the end of it, perseverance is the other "Seamanship" top characteristic.
I didn't add anything to the article, I only brought back in what Plot Spoiler had blighted. I have rearranged one lead paragraph setting the events in a more logical, chronological sequence and addressed Plot Spoiler's formal complaints re. subchapter headings. The only additional material comes from our dear Dr. Dr. Nishidani, WP's highly regarded Oxbridge luminary.
I am trying to concentrate on real life for a change, stay as civil as possible, and keep my distance from "The Conflict", but Mr. Seaman & Co. will always have my undivided attention; manipulation of public opinion, censorship and aggressive behaviour from people acting as civil servants are to me like the red rag to a bull. Thanks again and all the best, ArmindenArminden (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

mail

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.

. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emmaus-Nicopolis

(Note: I have posted the same message on the Emmaus Talk-Page)

Shalom, User:Zero0000. It's good to communicate with you again. I wanted to ask your opinion about the necessity of mentioning areas now fully under Jewish legal control and jurisdiction as being, formerly, under the control of the Arab Legion during and prior to the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, in other words, what some call the "West Bank." Since the term "West Bank" implies that it was formerly under a different jurisdiction, but is no longer under that jurisdiction today, what good purpose is there in mentioning that a city is "in" (note present-tense) the West Bank? If we take Emmaus Nicopolis, for example, it is fully under Israeli law and jurisdiction, whereas not even the Palestinian Authority controls the region. It seems terribly misleading to write in that article: "The site today is inside Canada Park in the West Bank, and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." It tends to ignore current historical facts about the site's legal jurisdiction. As we know, the Arab village, Imwas, was a border-line village. The Arab legion occupied the nearby Latrun monastery during the war in 1948. The result of the campaign to expand the Jerusalem Corridor as far as the western foothills of the Judean mountains, freeing it from pockets of resistance, helped, in the final analysis, to determine the border of Israel with Jordan during the 1949 Armistice Agreement. See: Har’el: Palmach brigade in Jerusalem, Zvi Dror (ed. Nathan Shoḥam), Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishers: Benei Barak 2005, p. 273 (Hebrew). Remember what Ben-Gurion said during the War in 1948 about a region then occupied by the Egyptian army: "In the Negev we shall not buy the land. We shall conquer it. You forget that we are at war!" (See: Mêrôn Benveniśtî, Sacred landscape: the buried history of the Holy Land since 1948, p. 120). The Arabs, meanwhile, also vied with Israel over the control of territory by means of war, while the Jordanian Arab Legion had decided to concentrate its forces in Bethlehem and in Hebron in order to save that district for its Arab inhabitants, and to prevent territorial gains for Israel. Thus is it stated by Sir John Bagot Glubb, in his book, A Soldier with the Arabs, London 1957, p. 200. You see, the same principle applies today. Now that Israel has taken full-control of these territories after the Six Day War in 1967, there is no reason to insist on its former entities, since it is a way of politicizing what should be our intent as editors to remain neutral. IMHO.

Writing about this place, in particular, that it is located in the "West Bank" is a contentious issue, and I think that we'd do best by avoiding it altogether. For one reason, on the "West Bank map," the village actually sits in a Gray Area, not clearly demarcated. For another reason, it is more of a political statement than a reflection of the reality, where Israelis recognize the area as under Israeli jurisdiction. Thirdly, Israelis themselves do not call this area by the name the West Bank. Davidbena (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: The position of the Green Line was determined in the armistice agreements and Imwas was on the Jordanian side. I really don't see what else there is to say; it is in the West Bank and nobody disputes it. It is definitely not a "contentious issue". So we should say it is in the West Bank. It isn't our job to help Israel annex the West Bank by pretending that facts are not facts. I also don't think you are right that it is "fully under Israeli law and jurisdiction"; actually it is in Area C, which is under Israeli control but not sovereignty per Oslo agreements and the international law of occupation applies according to Israel as well as everyone else. Zero^talk 22:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, User:Zero0000, and let me thank you for your reply. Let's just say it was on the Jordanian side. But today's Israeli border is NOT the 1948 border. Today, the village is in Israel. Can we then compromise on this issue and write instead, "The site today is inside Canada Park in what was formerly Jordan (i.e. West Bank), but now in Israel and maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada."??? Does this sound better? The reason why I'm asking is because the current edit ignores current political facts. It's like saying that "The city, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, is in the Sioux Indian Nation," rather than in the United-States. To this very day, many Lakota native American Indians do not recognize the sovereignty of the United-States over their ancestral homeland, but it does not change the fact, does it? Israel has sovereignty over Emmaus-Nicopolis, and it should be mentioned as in the State of Israel. IMHO. One more thing: The Oslo Accords did not give full sovereignty of lands to the Palestinian Authority, but was only a means to achieve administrative cooperation between the Palestinian Arabs working in conjunction with and under the auspices of the Jewish State. As for its current status, see Oslo Accords#End of the interim period. Davidbena (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emmaus-Nicopolis is, indeed, within the territorial bounds of the State of Israel, just as all of Jerusalem is in the State of Israel, even though it too was divided until 1967. Ask any Israeli citizen, or check maps published by the Government of Israel, the village of Emmaus is NOT listed as being in another State or country, nor in the West Bank (a term rarely used by Israelis). Furthermore, to deny this fact is very strange to me. We're talking here about Israeli sovereignty (military or otherwise) over this territory. The Oslo Accords were meant to settle the final status of the territory, but it did NOT, as yet, settle the final status. Meanwhile, the place (Emmaus) is still in Israel. Article X (IX), Annex II, in the Oslo Accords specifically states:

"It is understood that, subsequent to the Israeli withdrawal, Israel will continue to be responsible for external security, and for internal security and public order of settlements and Israelis. Israeli military forces and civilians may continue to use roads freely within the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area."

Quick clarification

I noted that in your comment at WP:AN/I you happened to assume that I am a female editor. I'm not, and I am a male editor. The "Neve" part is basically just the word even—just happened to be the first word to enter my mind for a username—backwards.--Neve –selbert 08:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Neve-selbert: Ok, thanks for explaining. I'l refer to you as "he" henceforth. Zero^talk 08:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Reverts

Friendly question for you. Also not sure that this is the proper place to ask, but am wondering why you reverted my edit? Hoping that you are friendly to newbies & are willing to reply here as I have not set up my user page (still finding my way). SeaBeeDee 08:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)SeaBeeDeeSeaBeeDee 08:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC) SeaBeeDee 08:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive advice on unnecessary links. I have sent you a Smiley Award. Looking forward to becoming the best Wikipedian that I can be, thanks to friendly advice like yours! SeaBeeDee 00:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeaBeeDee (talk • contribs)

Map mistake

Hi Zero0000,

You or I made in mistake in the localisatio of Imwas. See both these maps: [2]. I think that you put it on the Monastery location. I don't remember which sources I have used at the time (should be Morris - 1948) but I had asked Yoav G. to check my maps... What is your mind ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I lack time and have to go.

But this map is false. The fort was in the Jordanian territory and east of the 1949 line. How else could it be ? Did the Israeli get the evaucation of this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pluto2012: Yes, the latitude and longitude give for Imwas and Emmaus Nicopolis are wrong, and different from each other. I'll try to fix that soon. In this map that I made, I copied the armistice lines from an official Israeli source of the 1950s, which differs a bit from Google's version. Zero^talk 16:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pluto2012: @Huldra: I adjusted the coordinates but the fact that maps don't exactly agree is a problem. I'll try again later. Please be more specific about what problems you see. On this map, Latrun village is shown but not the Police Post (fort); I'll try to add it. Also the location of Emmaus Nicopolis is just to the left of the red blob "Imwas". Zero^talk 00:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zero0000

Between my post and you reading of it somebody changed the article and removed a map...

I wonder if this map of 1948 is right:

[3]

I am not sure but it defers from yours.

I think I based mine on this one and I used the road alongside Ayalon valley as a reference to locate Imwas when it turns. Pluto2012 (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto2012 (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pluto2012:. One thing to realise is that the main NW-SE road through the Latrun Interchange did not exist in 1948, nor I think in 1967. It is newer. My map shows the new road, but your map and this one show the old roads. That's the main reason things seem to have moved in major ways. For the armistice line I used this map. Note how it passes through Latrun village, as it does on this one but not on your map. Cheers. Zero^talk 09:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zero0000,

Thank you for your input.

There is also a mistake for Deir Aiyub on my map.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley Award for you!

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted:
Random Smiley Award
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Thank you for your advice! SeaBeeDee 00:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC) SeaBeeDee 00:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeaBeeDee (talk • contribs)

File permission problem with File:BBCreel116.png

Thanks for uploading File:BBCreel116.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 11:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:BBCreel125.png

Thanks for uploading File:BBCreel125.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 11:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map desperately needed

Ok, I´m working on User:Huldra/Jisr al Majami ...and the related Naharayim (and to some degree: Gesher, Israel and Island of Peace). I have ...sort of.... cleaned up things in the commons categories (at least the worst). The thing is: There are 2 old (Mamluk? Roman?) bridges, each with a parallel modern railway bridge. One pair is now in User:Huldra/Jisr al Majami -category...the other pair is in the Naharayim-commons -category. Oh, and Naharayim was -partly- named Jisr al Majami earlier. It is a mess. We desperately need a proper map over the area.....interested? Huldra (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Yeah, that is quite a puzzle. See the two 20-22 maps at http://rosetta.nli.org.il/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE21693218 . At 2032/2255 you can see the road bridge and railway bridge that I usually see called Jisr al Majami. But where are the other bridges you mention? I see a pair of bridges at 204/228 on a different river, is that it? 11:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

For some reason the http://rosetta.nli.org.il/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE21693218 does not work for me (it goes fuzzy when I try to focus), but yeah, you are right. The one spanning the Jordan river is what Petersen calls Jisr al Majami, this commons-cat (with the adjoining Ottoman rail-bridge here.)

The other bridge, *also* often called Jisr al Majami, is further up, spanning the Yarmuk. While the surrounding around "the lower" Jordan Jisr al Majami have not changed much, the surroundings around Yarmuk Jisr al Majami have changed enormously, due to the electric power station, and dam, which was there until 1948. The railway-bridge at Yarmuk was called "Yarmuk valley glider bridge", its commons-cat is here. As you can see, the writers/uploaders commonly refer to the adjacent old bridge as "Roman". As you can see here, there is basically nothing much left of the rail bridge at Yarmuk (it is the one in the front), while the adjacent Yarmuk Jisr al Majami (at around 3 o´clock) has been repaired in the middle. Huldra (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: The 1:20000 maps only focus for me at full magnification, and sometimes only then with persistence. Today I can't get them to load at all. Incidentally, I don't see where the Yarmuk bridge is called Jisr al Majami. That page of Fischbach doesn't say that. Incidentally, the Jordan bridge is shown and named on the Jacotin map. Zero^talk 06:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, @Huldra: Check your email for a great source. Zero^talk 13:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got the source, and it is great (though they could have used some better ce; they speak of "Peterson" and "Carmon". Hmmmpr.)

From what I understand, from sources such as this [4] [5] [6], the whole area which is called Naharayim on Wikipedia, was called Jisr al Majami during the Mandate era (Naharayim was just the Hebrew name, while Baqoura was the Arab name.) And if you look at the pictures in the commons cat of the Yarmuk bridge: Category:Yarmuk valley glider bridge, many of them are called "Jisr al Majami. Interestingly, while Jacotin clearly mentioned the Jordan Jisr al Majami, there is no indication of a Yarmouk Jisr al Majami; perhaps the Yarmouk -bridge wasn´t "Roman" after all? Huldra (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: It is confusing about where the name "Jisr el Majami" was applied. I strongly suspect Fishbach is wrong, since all of the mandate-era maps I looked at showed it only on the west side of the Jordan and never on the east side. The place called Naharayim is never called Jisr el Majami on any map I looked at (many). In early maps it is called Tel Or, though I have one source which describes Naharayim and Tel Or as adjacent rather than identical. A typical map is here (1930s); note that in addition to the bridge with name Jisr el Majami there is a village called Jisr el Majami and a village called Tel Or, on opposite sides of the river. This later map (1940s) still has the village Jisr el Majami on the west (as well as the new Gesher) and on the east it has "Naharayim (Tel Or)". For sure the "Jisr el Majami" in the censuses and Village Statistics, as well as the Palestine village lists published right up to 1947, was on the west of the river since those documents did not include Transjordan. I have some relevant stuff about land sales in the 1920s that I didn't sort out. About the bridges: there is an article of Albright where he calls the Jordan bridge "Roman", but that idea seems to now be discarded. I don't see sources on the Yarmuk bridge. I'm in a time-panic for about 3 weeks but after that I'll spend more time on this, including a map. Zero^talk 00:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, note that Gesher was initially close to the bridge but after 1948 it moved about 1km west. Zero^talk 00:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This 1954 Hebrew map shows Tel Or and Naharayim separately, and is also a good source for "Peace Island". Zero^talk 00:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hurry, I´m not going to move User:Huldra/Jisr al Majami to mainspace in quite a while!

Also it is not only Fishbach. If you look at the commons-cat for the Yarmouk-bridge, this this and this were all uploaded from the Australian War Memorial, while this was uploaded from the Matson-collection, and all of them call the Yarmouk-bridge for Jisr al Majami.

Also, from what I`ve read: the Gesher kibbutz started inside the old Khan, (on land that baron Rothschild had bought), they moved to the present location after 1948/9. Huldra (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe those images of the Yarmuk bridge are mislabelled. But I can't prove it. Zero^talk 00:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Now I found an 1850 map (Zimmermann) that labels the Yarmuk bridge "Jisr el Ajjeh". Have you seen that name? More recently, l see a 1924 map that calls it "Jisr es Saghar" and I find it elsewhere spelled "Jisr [el] Saghir". For example it is called that in Grootkerk p338 (referring to a name list compiled by the Dept. of Antiquities; I have that list). It is also called that in Schumacher's 1888 book Pella, p8 (try here —do you know where a copy of the whole book can be found)? Also this handbook. And page 730 here. I'm out of time, probably there is a lot more to find. Zero^talk 03:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Zero^talk 03:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that it is unlikely that three different authorities (Fischbach, Australian War Memorial, Matson) all have gotten it wrong; I find it more likely that Naharayim also was named Jisr al Majami, at least for a while.

No, I haven´t found Schumacher's 1888 book Pella anywhere (with full view).

And there is a further mixup at Jisr al-Sidd (further north on the Jordan river). Most seem to agree that there were (at least) two bridges, named Jisr al-Sidd and Umm al-Qanafir. However, Petersen, 2001, thinks they were the same(!). Huldra (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

@Huldra: Before the founding of Tel Or and Naharayim, and sometimes afterwards too, the whole local region was called Jisr al-Majami. For example you can find variations on "Jisr al-Majami Power Station" in heaps of places both before and after it was built. So I agree with you on that point. But that doesn't say anything about the name of the Yarmuk bridge. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see that any of the photographic sources you bring state that the bridge itself (rather than the locality) was called Jisr el-Majami. On the other hand, the sources I brought explicitly give a name to the bridge: Jisr Saghir. One of them is the official Australian war history and another is the mandatory government's Department of Antiquities. When I have more time, I'll write the authors of that paper I sent you. Zero^talk 01:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Jisr" means "Bridge", that the whole area was given the name Jisr al-Majami just points to the importance of the place, IMO. Also, this, from 1944, gives the position of Jisr Saghir at 204/228 (while Jisr al-Majami is given at 203/225). To me, that looks as if Jisr Saghir is north of Tel Or/Naharayim? Huldra (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: 204/228 is exactly the location of the old bridge over the Yarmuk River, within meters. It is north of Naharayim with the artificial reservoir between. I don't know of any old bridges in the neighborhood except this one and Jisr el Majami. That list you found is the "Geographical List" that Grootkerk cites. Zero^talk 10:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought it was south of the reservoir! As I said, we desperately need a better map, which can be incorporated into the articles. Huldra (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi. Nableezy pointed out that you hadn't commented yet on my proposal at Talk:Ancient_synagogues_in_Palestine#Requested_move_4_June_2016. Since you participated in the move discussion above that, and since I much appreciate our previous interactions, you are cordially invited to present your opinion on my move proposal. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist colonisation in Uganda

I hope you agree with the changes which I made in the "Zionism" article based on your hints: pages 55/56! --L.Willms (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is A Conflict. Thank you. Gestrid (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can do me a favour

And not delete this. I want to have a laugh every now and then.--Bolter21 (talk to me)

@Bolter21: Ok, I was thinking about rev-delling it but you are welcome to keep it. Zero^talk 12:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker):@Bolter21: if this happens repeatedly, you could consider setting up something like my "fan mail" archive - see the archive box at the top of my talk page. Just a thought. --NSH001 (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About an edit you made three years ago

Hello Zero0000, somewhere in 2013 you made this edit in which you wrote that "During the 1929 Palestine riots, three residents were killed and the remainder left" in the Kibbutz of Ein Zeitim. Your provided this source: ""Three new villages in N. Palestine". Palestine Post. January 18, 1946. p. 1", what is it exactly? I want to use it for a section I created for 1929 Palestine riots but I am not sure about it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: The full text of the Palestine Post up to the time it became the Jerusalem Post can be found at the Historical Jewish Press site. There have been some arguments around whether it is reliable, but I think it is citable with the possible exception of the 1948 war period when it became very partisan like all newspapers on both sides. Zero^talk 22:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is reliable, just the name of the source seems wierd, what is exactly "three new villages in N. Palestine? is it a news article or a seperate text published by PP? And why it is "page 1"? I usually trust other Wikipedians, when using sourced statements with no links, but this one seemd suspicious..--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: You can see the answers from the citation format: {{cite news|title = Three new villages in N. Palestine | newspaper = Palestine Post | date = January 18, 1946 | page = 1}}. "Three new villages in N. Palestine" is the article title, "Palestine Post" is the newspaper name, "January 18, 1946" is the newspaper issue, and "1" is the page number. There would be a field "author=.." except that this one is just "Palestine Post Reporters". It is possible to also give a direct url to the page, but you need to edit out the Javascript stuff that the website gives you: [7]. Zero^talk 08:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. I am not used to see such sources (physical newspapers) so I wanted to be sure this source is not a reference mistake.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion on Wehrmachtbericht at the NPOV noticeboard. As a follow-up, I posted a link to the Talk pages where it had come up, and it may have helped to sway an editor's opinion, which originally was for inclusion: Wehrmachtbericht transcript. It was great to get input from uninvolved editors, so thanks again. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transjordan

Thank you for providing this link. I wonder if there are any sources discussing Transjordan's relationship with the British Mandate of Palestine? Specifically those about the borders in the link. To be blunt, anything that would destroy the fictional spinoff; that Jordan was carved out of "Palestine" and stolen from the Jews and the Palestinians? And that would destroy this fictional map --Makeandtoss (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss: I uploaded an extract from that image to Commons: File:PalestineandTransjordan1922.jpg. You can add it to articles when it is relevant. The dashed red lines are a bit mysterious. The map doesn't explain them, but they might represent the approximate extent of British influence. It's also interesting that the name "Kerak" is given more prominence than the name "Trans-Jordania". As to your question, which text in which articles are you concerned about? Zero^talk 13:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were some content on sister Wikipedia projects (like Wikiquote and Wikivoyage) that were infuriatingly promoting faaaaar right-wing Zionist idea of Jordan being a Palestinian homeland, I removed the nonsense. It seems to me that they are so convinced of this idea due to this map, which happens to be fictional. I wanted to find a source mentioning the borders seen in the 1920 atlas so that I can add them to Wikipedia. --Makeandtoss (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss: I think you mean "Jewish homeland". One source on this is this article in an academic journal, which also treats the similar myth about the Golan. I was surprised when I read it because the writer is usually considered very right-wing. If you can't obtain access to the article, send me email. Zero^talk 03:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both! Sometimes Jewish homeland and Palestinian homeland! "Jordan was carved out of Mandatory Palestine, it BELONGS to the JEWS" and "Jordan is Palestine, Jordan never existed" (ironically missing out on the fact that Jordan is 27 years older than Israel). I can't view the article but damn why doesn't Commons have a restriction on original research. The map's usage across multiple Wikipedias is horrendous. --Makeandtoss (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Hello. As you probably know, I am making maps every now and then. My question to you is, what program(s) and maybe even methods do you use for mapping? I use (as weird as it might sound) MSpaint for all mappings and very rarely I use photoshop.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: I use Photoshop. I load the source maps into separate layers and align them, then I build the new map in higher layers. Boundaries and road are easiest with the pen tool. Zero^talk 09:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sunday, 1937

I noticed your edit to this page. See this discussion I had with Nishidani: I am trying to get the article speedily deleted and userfied while the AfD for The Bloody Day in Jaffa is going on - this won't happen if other people add content to it. I do not know enough about the topic to judge whether the article is notable or not - if it is I can drop the idea. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you a RS for the complete quote and perhaps also contextual analysis

of the B-G remark Zionism Has Reached the End of the Road here? Plenty of time, no hurry. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: I heard it is in this collection and it seems a bit similar to the extract you can see there. I don't know an English source. Zero^talk 08:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful. Like much else it goes into the files then, with a note that it is curious secondary source literature appears to neglect another key statement.Regards Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Zero0000. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I would like to ask for your opinion on the state of discussion at Talk:History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. The discussion is constantly being discontinued, what are Wiki policies on this issue? Not looking for your support on the discussion, strictly policy advice.. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Zion

Please read my edit comments. I'm happy to discuss if you have any problems to save time on reversion related process. Crock81 (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crock81: If you are considering the "hill" thing, you are confusing me with another user as I did not edit regarding that. Zero^talk 10:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. The revert is in your avatar Crock81 (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you, I didn't spot the other user. Crock81 (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS. You need to find somone with much better knowledge of German orthography than I for a source, but there are no words in German starting with Tz, which I remember from school days. Because political Zionism was created in late 19th century Austria, it was spelled in German, with a Z, though the sound approximates the Hebrew Ts in Tsadi. German-speaking Jews would have been phonetically correct. Crock81 (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crock81: I know how צ is pronounced, and I know how Z is pronounced in German. That's not the point. You introduced a theory that "Zion" got to be spelt that way due to German influence, but for that theory you need to provide a citation. That spelling appeared in English publications long before political Zionism appeared in Germany. For example: 1659 1766. If you can't provide a source for a German origin of the spelling, your addition needs to be removed. Incidentally, your claims about "hill" have problems too. The article hill only gives the 610m definition as the UK standard, but Mt Zion is not in the UK. Zero^talk 11:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I had no way of knowing what you know. There were no formal rules for English spelling until late 19th century, so spelling of Zion in the 17th century is very likely a borrowing from the continent, perhaps the Dutch. I would be surprised if anyone could offer a source you seek.

In Israel it is Har Tzion, not tel Tzion, or any other word for hill. Apparently this logic was inadequate for the previous article editors. Given Wikipedia is in English language, and the subject has modern scientific measurements and cultural values, why not use both? 11:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crock81 (talk • contribs)

@Crock81: If a source cannot be provided, the information cannot be included. That is one of the basic policies of Wikipedia. Also, "tel" means an artificial mound, such as generated by a settlement over a very long period of time. Zero^talk 02:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading this, what are you saying, that early (i.e. 19th century) Jewish Zionists were reading 17th century English literature to get their spelling for Zionism?! It isn't commonsensical to assume this, and is not something that requires validation or sources, because you are asking me to prove Theodor Herzl spoke German! The earliest Zionismus I can Google is 1868. How about you prove to me that Zvi Hirsch Kalischer's name was spelled with a Zayin in Hebrew, despite every article reference showing otherwise. Even the original Jewish Encyclopedia article the Wikiepdia article is based on has an error in the title. Its an emphatic-Z (diacritic) in the title (look closely), but the Polish equivalent is a C for the /ts/ sound. So, if you were a good editor, you would move that article to a correct name, Cvi or Tsvi, right? ;-)

Last offer. We can collaborate and do good, or you can keep being disruptive and antagonistic, in which case all that will happen is that I will make a few dollars in Amazon and Wikipedia will get yet another 'OOPS moment' in cyberspace Crock81 (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is what I'm saying. There are no contemporary, i.e. TaNaKh, sources that use any other words than har, i.e. mountain, so calling it a 'hill is OR. However, I'm going to spend some time on re-editing the article and adding references, both cultural and academic. It will however take time. Would you mind protecting the article while I do so? I'm happy to of course discuss editing on talk and incorporate any data others may suggest, again, given it is rationally referenced. One of the current references uses 'hill' in the text in spite of quoting TaNaKh passages which say mountain. Crock81 (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crock81: If I protect the article it would prevent you from editing it. Calling it a hill is not OR if modern reliable sources call it that. In general, you seem to not understand what OR means and I suggest you read those policy pages again as the one violating the rules here is you. Zero^talk 07:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many 'sources' on many subjects that are, and have been proven to be full of shit. Many academics, for reasons of intellectual dishonesty, bias or some political perspective say absolute nonsense. The greatest problem is with terminology because many people use words like they were sheets of toilet paper. The particular 'source' used in the article now has not (that I can see) defined what a mountain or a hill is, because it isn't relevant to the author.

Very many Wikipedia articles relay on electronic sources because most editors I have med can't be bothered to get books even from a library. No one trusts a reference that isn't accessible online, but few people actually have read the entire work to understand authors perspective. They often do not realise that their 'reference' is in fact used as argument/evidence for exactly the opposite idea the editor is trying to present in the article. This makes Wikipedia worthless because it isn't trusted. I have come up against this time and again, with admins siding with technical upholding of Wikipedia 'policy' that prevents improvement and completion of articles, thought he people doing the criticising would not EVER actually have done anything about the article themselves.

Mount Zion is a classic example. WTF is it with the 'three locations'??! This is as blatant an OR theory as I have ever seen, all based on one misquoted book! No one had considered that the well over 100 original source references in TaNaKh may consider Zion a synonym to Jerusalem? No one considered that a city may simultaneously have two names? No one considered that the loss of the location for Zion the mountain was caused by the Roman policy of depopulation of Jerusalem and later the Byzantine Christian Greek speaking culture which decided to relocate the name to an event more significant to itself? Look at this map I can date it to before 1888 because it doesn't have the New Gate yet, but notice something else? It’s got two cities of David! That beats three Mount Zions!

I’m not going to waste time on this article if I'm going to have to argue every word and edit with people that have too much time on their hands. I don't, so if I do get interference, I will just 'walk' and you or Hetzl1888 can find another editor for this not an insignificant article, in the scheme of things. I'm happy to work with productive people, but if I face disruption, it will not be any problem for me to walk away. I can still do the article, and publish on Amazon for $1 and make Wikipedia a laughing stock. You pick Crock81 (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crock81: So we should just stand back and watch you edit against the well-established policies of Wikipedia? It doesn't work that way. You have to obey the rules or you have to leave. Those are your only options. Personally I have a considerable knowledge of the subject, and I love books on paper (almost 400 of mine, all about Middle East history, sit on the shelves behind me as I type and two very large libraries are nearby). But I don't just insert what I believe into articles without providing the best sources I can find. Unlike you. Regarding that map, you are wrong again: it is dated 1912 and it doesn't show New Gate because it is intended to be a depiction of ancient Jerusalem. It doesn't have two City of Davids either; it shows two locations that were considered possible at that time with a question mark after each. Zero^talk 10:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had watched the article for over two years because I had just been too busy with the real world. If it was up to me, I'd just start from scratch but I know how that would look to admins. You want to do it, by all means...DO IT. See who gets a better result, you in Wikipedia or me in Amazon. It isn't quite the same when there is a competitive option that administrative privilages cannot do anything about, is it? So yes, either leave it to me, or you do it. I find that projects are better accomplished when someone OWNS THE PROJECT. You want ownership, I'll stay out of your way. But if I own the article, you should stay on the talk page, and encourage other distructive-minded to do same.

And, I thought there was a semi-protect that allows editor exclusions. And, if not, why not?!

The PURPOSE of Wikipedia WAS to provide encyclopaedic-standard articles, not to enforce its policies on those that try to do so. According to Denis Diderot in the article "Encyclopédie", the Encyclopédie's aim was "to change the way people think". not to enforce editorial rules.

The poor state of this not unimportant article is due to the people with the fortitude to take it on having all been bullied out of editing by the very tactics you are using on me now, but, I'm not going to stand for it, and I will retaliate.

There isn't a problem with inserting content into article without sources! There are a multitude of articles with tags requesting references going back years! It just tells the reader that this particular statement is not validated, but it is still content because it survives the logic & common sense tests. You think there is something I added that fails these tests, put it in the talk page.

How would the map authors in 1912 know anything about the various walls given the primitive and very short duration archaeological work by amateurs that had been carried out to that date. And the two cities of David, with question marks, prove it. The sources on which the map relied had completely disregarded the sources within the culture that OWNS the property, and had done so for millennia.Crock81 (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your case against me

Zero0000, I'm not going to play your game. I have seen all too many of these 'case files', which just waste time, and which are called Kangaroo court here in Australia. Your mates will show up, and use every WP: tag there is with voluminous links to my edits and reverts to show that I'm not fit to edit and promptly block me so they can go back to their ham&cheese sandwich and coke. No one is going to listen to me or bother to read what I write because most people with admin priv are biased, and I had seen it many times exercised in my own and cases of others. So, you go and file, but I DON'T CARE. I do care to write a good article, but if I don't get the opportunity to do that in Wikipedia, I'll do it somewhere else...it’s a big cyberspace out there mate :-) You should try reading Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Dealing with disputes on your own user page before compiling cases. I have invited you several times to talk, but you refused. You claim I'm not adding sources, but I have done so, and I have a life, have just started, and there isn't anything I added which is 'controversial'. I certainly edited out more OR than is warranted by Wikipedia or anyone's common sense. Go ahead, do the [[8]]. See how far you get, but I'm sure you have done this many times before. If you had something of substance, you would have got another admin to block me by now. Crock81 (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until the next one

done nableezy - 21:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Good work! Zero^talk 23:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN3 complaint about Dinesh D'Souza

Dinesh D'Souza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2016: Obama's America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is a currently open complaint at AN3 about these articles. Each participant has already been notified under WP:ARBAP2. Both sides continue to revert vigorously in the service of what I assume are their personal opinions. One option for the admin who closes the AN3 is No Violation, due to the lack of a 3RR. (though there might be a trivial one at 2016: Obama's America, where one person continued to wikilink the date '2012'. ). Another option is to ban both parties from the topic of Dinesh D'Souza for a period of time on all pages of Wikipedia. Since I notice you have commented in the 3RR I wonder if you think that the dispute is at a stage where topic bans ought to be considered. Thanks for any opinion, EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Hi Ed. I agree and said so at AN/EW. Zero^talk 06:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion needed on a map

Hey. I"ve created a map of the Mandate recently (and kinda negelected it), so now I want to start creating maps from it. Now the first set of maps is to make a map of minorities in Palestine (Jews, Christians and Others, I am not going to make a map for Muslims becuase it is too much work). I had a problem of asthetics with the map of Christians. As you can see, there are many places where there are less than 10% Christians, and most of those places have 1% Christians, so can you think of any solution to this? I thought about replacing the 10% color with a small marker instead, that would be placed only on the location of the village/city.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: Interesting question. One thing that occurs to me is that you don't have a continuous gradient from 0 to 100 because 0 is represented by a dark grey which is closer to 100% than to 10%. I tried experimentally to change the dark grey into white or neutral almost-white, say #f6f6f6, and I think it looks better. Now you can use a very pale green for the small Christian percentages and it still looks fine. It would be ok to ignore the tiniest percentages though; I not sure of the reasonable cutoff. Zero^talk 23:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a thing, when creating demographic maps, I want them to be as accurate as it can get (while not going beyond sourcable content). I tried changing it to almost white and a more pale green (here) but I am not quite satesfied with it. Also, since this is a very large image (4000x8000px) in Raster graphics but there is no Feathering for the borders (like in your maps for example), complete opposite colors of black borders on white background, does not seem to mix that well, and to me at least (and I have a high resolution monitor) it looks rough (though I didn't try uploading to Commons). If you can think of any other solution it"ll be great (sorry for the perfectionism).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: I prefer the light colors, but as you say the fine wriggly lines don't look great. It is one reason I prefer the antialiasing that a raster-based format like photoshop provides, though that has its limitations too. Readers won't look at it in only one magnification either, so you are at the mercy of Wikipedia's rescaling algorithms. What happens if you change the village boundaries into a mid-grey rather than black? The boundaries between two dark greens won't look right, but maybe they can be black still. Zero^talk 00:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re maps

Sorry to bother, Zero, this is just offhand, no urgency nor obligation. Noting the above, I wondered whether there is some Australian wiki editor who knows how to do simple maps for tribal territories, more or less along the lines you get in Sarah Yu's monograph p.2? It's just coloured blocks. Or rather, do you know on what wiki page I could make that enquiry for assistance? Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: If I understand that map, the coloured blocks are not tribal territories but pastoral leases. Only the green writing that names the language group is an aboriginal indication I think. Zero^talk 12:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Reading too many maps. I should have gone for the native title maps, where that has been recognized. In any case, forget about it. That stuff is way down the road. Thanks for the wake up call.Nishidani (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Qad has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Zero0000. Beit Qad, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Beit Qad

On 11 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beit Qad, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the modern Palestinian village of Beit Qad is associated with the biblical locality of Beth Ekad, mentioned in the Book of Kings as the site of a massacre? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beit Qad. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Beit Qad), 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.

— Maile (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

reliable source

I find it annoying that OED isn't considered a reliable source based on its author not having enough initialisms after his name. If that's a precedent many wikipedia pages don't seem to follow it, as in here, here here and here and every page in this category.--Monochrome_Monitor 11:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you aren't going to comment on how you find it convenient to ignore your rule for a specific article.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Zero0000.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP User 110.140.228.5

Hi! You blocked this editor earlier today. Now they are again reinserting the falsified talk page from the "old" user 110.140.189.221, with changes made to other editors postings. Last time the 60 hour block was extended to 1 week for the same thing. At least TP access could be denied? --T*U (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Zero0000. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

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.

The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing for "considered occupied Palestinian territories"

Regarding this edit, the cited source ([9]) does not explicitly say that East Jerusalem is considered by the EU to be part of "occupied Palestinian territories". It refers to "the pre-1967 borders, including with regard to Jerusalem" but it's still left to the reader to infer whether or not the EU considers East Jerusalem to be "Palestinian territory". Also, if we look at the sources provided in the same paragraph regarding the US, both are to the CIA World Factbook and do not describe East Jerusalem as "occupied Palestinian territory". As concerns the US, I cannot find any express statement on state.gov that it considers East Jerusalem to be "Palestinian territory". Since the article is about the Judea and Samaria Area which is specifically defined to exclude East Jerusalem, and the sources do not clearly support the statement with regard to East Jerusalem, would it be better to redraft the sentence removing the mentions of East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip? Mathew5000 (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Mathew5000: Actually it does: "Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory: the EU has repeatedly confirmed its deep concern about accelerated settlement expansion in the West Bank including East Jerusalem." The plain meaning of this sentence is that "occupied Palestinian territory" includes the West Bank which includes EJ. There is no other way to read it. It is easy to find other similar statements on the EU site. You should write these questions on the article talk page since other people might have more time to work on it than I do. Zero^talk 08:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word "considered" should even be removed. Nobody says that the relativity is considered to explain time dilatation by physicists. It is said it explains time dilatation. The idea that East-Jerusalem would not be an occupied Palestinian territory is so fringe that it is limited to a small part of the Israeli community and should not be given any weight in wikipedia's voice. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Alert on anti-Semitic propaganda wasn't an advertisment

The message I posted was an attempt to warn editors about people who claim Israel somehow had sinister motives in their effort to rescue Yemeni Jews from persecution in their homeland. It was not an "advertisement," and was an effort to make editors aware of unreliable sources on the subject. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DanTD: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and talk pages are for discussing article improvement only, not for discussing the subject of the article or for warning people about anything. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for the official guideline. I wasn't attempting to impugn your motives (apologies if it seemed that way) but the fact is that posting about unsavory web sites serves more to publicise them than to refute them. Linking to them even moves them up search engine metrics, so they are more likely to come up in google searches. The only situation in which such a website should be mentioned on Wikipedia at all would be if someone tried to use it as a source in an article. Zero^talk 00:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying, and as long as you know about my motives, we're cool. Also, I did see the Yemenite Children Affair link in the "Critiques" chapter after I posted this. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question – Samaria?

Hello Zero, I wanted to ask a question. My sources for many things are usually Hebrew or Israeli. I am now adding info to articles about the 1948 war and in many cases they mention the Samaria region. Is there a parallel English name to Samaria or that's how you call the region in English?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: Samaria is the name used in English. It isn't used all that often though, except in situations where precision is not important. The traditional boundaries seen on old maps, the district of that name under the British mandate, and the northern part of the West Bank are all called Samaria but all differ quite a lot from each other. Zero^talk 00:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so it meens I can continue to assume that when I read Samaria in Hebrew (in the context of geography) it is means in English, the northern part of the central hill region, from north of Jerusalem to Mt. Gilboa and the Jezreel Valley.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Diff 765225615

> Please don't make changes to policy pages without discussion. Copyright is out of place here. (Zero0000)
Policy rationale needs to be mentioned somewhere. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Erkinalp9035: According to long established practice, non-trivial edits to policy pages should be discussed first. That usually means starting a discussion on the corresponding talk page, or perhaps on WP:VPP. Personally I cannot understand the meaning of what you added, and if someone who has been an administrator for more than 12 years can't understand it what chance does an ordinary editor have? Copyright considerations are not the rationale for the part of the policy that you added a footnote to. Zero^talk 12:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beyt Nattif

1. There are two Netofot (Netofa in the plural) mentioned in the Bible. One indeed is in the Galilee, the other clearly labeled as "near Bethlehem" in the Midrash. Unsourced? I provided the exact Midrashic reference (as well as Biblical and Talmudic references, including chapters and pages). Do you even read Hebrew? If not, I request that you verify this with someone who can.

2. II Chronicles 2:54 states (in the classic English translation): "The sons of Salma: Bethlehem, and the Netophathites, Atroth-beth-joab, and half of the Manahathites, the Zorites." This is the origin of the name places of 1) Bethlehem, 2) Netofa (in Hebrew = נטופתי = Netofati = someone from a place that would be pronounced either as Netofa or Netof), 3) Atarot (exact location unknown, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataroth), and 4) Manahat (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malha) and Zorah (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorah). With the exception of the unclear location of Ataroth, all the others are, as stated in the Midrash, in the Bethlehem area. Not the Galilee.

3. Regarding the Semitic root n-t-f, I would cite as a reference "A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature" by Marcus Jastrow, Ph.D. Litt.D., the classic source on the subject, originally published in Philadelphia in 1903 by the Jewish Publication Society of America, page 898 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Jastrow).

Zozoulia (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zozoulia: I am moving this discussion to the article talk page. Zero^talk 01:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC) @Zero0000: Thanks, but I already did that. Zozoulia (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Police stations

Dear Zero you have helped in the past identifying police stations. I think I may have got in to a mess with photos I have added to the Safed, Biriyya, Biriyya Fort pages. Where was/is Mount Canaan? Were there two police stations? One seen from Mount Canaan and one seen in the common view of Safed. If they are the same building where is Biriyya? What to make of the aerial view of Mount Canaan? Any suggestions gratefully received. Padres Hana (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Padres Hana: Mount Canaan is the large rise to the NE of Safad. See J. KA'NAN (J=Jebel) on this map circa 1940. Also on that map you can see a rectangle labeled "Adm. offices" just to the right of Safed — that was the government and police offices. To get a closer look, go to NLI and select the map "19-26.45-52". (Won't work in Safari, use Firefox.) You can see from there approximately how it should look in photos. I didn't figure out "Birya Fortress" yet. It was supposed to be on Mount Canaan but I don't see it on the map. Maybe it was too recent. The coords at Birya Fortress point to near the spot marked "909" above "Sh. Rabi". I'll check that out more later. Zero^talk 02:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Padres Hana: Yes, Birya Fortress is at the point marked "909". There are a few photos at Google maps. Zero^talk 07:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. None of the Biriyya identifications were right. The aerial of Mount Canaan is still a puzzle. A trip to the Map Library is called for. Padres Hana (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The general 1RR restriction in ARBPIA

User:Zero0000, I wanted to thank-you for explaining to me the new guidelines. Indeed, there is some ambiguity over the new edict, as its wording currently stands. Is this to imply that all new edits made since 26 December 2016 in Palestine-Israel articles can be deleted by editors, and they can challenge the editors who put them there in the first place, without the first editors restoring their edits until a new consensus has been reached? If so, you open the door for "abusive editing," that is to say, the new guidelines allow editors to freely delete areas in articles based on their sole judgment and conviction and which edits had earlier been agreed upon by consensus, and that such changes will remain in force until such a time that a new consensus can be reached. As you noted, this can be problematic. The second ambiguity is whether or not the new guidelines also apply to reverts made in articles where a consensus had already been reached before 26 December 2016, or do they only apply to reverts made after 26 December 2016? To avoid future problems arising from this new edict, can I make this one suggestion, namely, that the new guidelines in Palestine-Israel articles be amended to read with this addition: "Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense, or where abuses arise over reverts made in an article where a consensus had already been reached before or after the edict of 26 December 2016 took effect, such editors make themselves liable to disciplinary actions, including blocking. (This might help solve some of the ambiguity involved in the new edict). Sincerely, Davidbena (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: There is a slow-moving discussion on this at WP:ARCA. As you will see, there are too many opinions and counter-opinions. Zero^talk 15:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

User:Zero0000, since you are an administrator, I wanted to ask you about the propriety of another editor's edit, someone who took an entire Wikipedia article that I created, entitled Roger D. Craig, and made it into a Redirect, which directs one unto the Trial of Clay Shaw, as you can see [here]. Anyone who searches for Roger D. Craig will not normally think to search for him in an article treating on Clay Shaw, but would first search under Roger's own name. I find it very strange that anyone would do this. Was this action actually called-for or warranted, and is there not sufficient notability on this one man to warrant a separate article on himself? No explanation for the Redirect was given in that editor's edit and move. What should I do?Davidbena (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Mangoe: @Davidbena: When changing an article into a redirect in a way that makes a significant amount of content disappear, one has to either move the content to somewhere visible or make a case that the content is not appropriate for Wikipedia at all (for example, that it fails WP:V or WP:DUE). In this case the content seems to be sufficient that removing it from Wikipedia needs an AfD. I'm not passing judgement on the quality of the content, just that it deserves better than silent deletion. Zero^talk 00:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have it your way....

Nomination of Roger D. Craig for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roger D. Craig is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger D. Craig until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mangoe (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mangoe, User:Zero0000, I noticed where an administrator closed the discussion on the article Roger D. Craig, and has decided to merge it with the "Clay Shaw trial." See [10]. My question to you is whether or not the decision to close the discussion may have been a little too premature, seeing that there was no consensus to merge the article? The results of the discussion were these: 3 people wanted to merge it, 3 people wanted to keep it, while only 2 people suggested that it be deleted. How then did the administrator decide to merge it without a clear consensus?Davidbena (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family law in Mandatory Palestine

Hi, sorry if this is the wrong place for contacting you. I'm quite new to editing. I was wondering whether you would support the creation of a separate article for Family law in Mandatory Palestine, which would cover both legislation and practices, seeing as the information is equally relevant to Marriage in Israel and Marriage in the Palestinian territories. Cheers --ארינמל (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ארינמל: Yes, it would be a good topic for an article. But what can be used as sources? It is against policy to base articles primarily on primary sources, though cautious quotation of primary sources is ok. Zero^talk 12:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose any sources after 1948 would qualify as secondary, few as those may be (Law and Identity in Mandate Palestine,Marriage, Divorce, and Succession in the Druze Family,Islamic Law in Palestine and Israel). Would hindsight commentary in primary sources (for instance an official description of the situation prior to a certain ordinance or reprinting of information from previous years) also be considered primary or would it qualify as secondary?--ארינמל (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA

In accordance with your clarification request (archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Clarification request: ARBPIA3 (May 2017)), the PIA 1RR restriction has been amended by motion. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 00:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Lead Codices

That was so blatant and serious a BLP violation I rev/del'd it myself, but as I've been editing the article haven't protected it but requested protection at WP:RPP. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent Intervention

Urgent intervention: On 26 December 2016, Wikipedia's WP:ARCA ratified a new amendment affecting all articles broadly construed with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, making all newly deleted content subject to consensus before it can be restored. But, as you can see by my edit made on 16 June 2017, where the word "illegal" was deleted (see edit), since it did not apply to settlements around Husan, User:Huldra followed in suit by responding in a questionable manner, (see edit), deleting this time valid content, knowing that she can hardly be held accountable in Palestinian-Israeli related articles after the ratification of the new amendment, although, in actuality, what she did is considered WP:Gaming the system. Another edit that can clearly be construed as "Gaming the system" is that of User:nableezy, whose recent edit on the Urif article deliberately caused valid sources to be deleted, those sources which showed that, by one account, no Israeli had set fire to a field, and that it had been set ablaze by somebody else, perhaps even unintentionally. See edit. He deleted what was "balanced" reporting, to make Israelis appear as the sole culprits. What disciplinary measures can be taken against this phenomenon, to assure that we maintain a basis of cordial collaborative editing, and without abusing the system?Davidbena (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just learned that the need to gain consensus before restoring a deleted edit has been removed. So, my concerns were unfounded. See Modification.Davidbena (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ginsburgh

Hi -- you might not have seen this -- the editor didn't succeed in notifying you as intended. I'm getting pretty frustrated: the editor wants to remove academic sources and use crap like this... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

If I wanted to address a question about Wikipedia policy to an administrator and how it might apply to Wikipedia articles, what is the best way (channel) for me to do this?---Davidbena (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: Depending on the nature of the question, there might be an appropriate noticeboard, like WP:RSN for reliability of sources, WP:NPOV/N for neutrality, WP:BLPN for articles on living people, WP:NORN for original research. About particular incidents, WP:ANI. Discussions on policy, WP:VPP. You can also ask a particular administrator on their talk page but they may choose to not be helpful. It is considered bad form to ask in multiple places at once, or at one place after another until you get an answer you like. Zero^talk 20:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that was helpful. Thanks!Davidbena (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aden riots

If I remember correctly, you said you were going to expend and give citations to the 1947 Aden riots article, so it is about time to remove all of these [citation needed].--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You remember correctly, but I'm travelling far from home for a few months. Zero^talk 21:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I opened-up a RfC on the Husan Talk-Page, on 17 June 2017, but one of our fellow co-editors came along and put part of that section into a collapsible window, calling it "Other discussions" (See: [11]). Was he within his bounds for doing so, since the discussions were all relevant to the section? Secondly, who is qualified for closing the discussion?---Davidbena (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Recent Delete on "Hebron" and "Cave of the Patriarchs"

User:Zero0000, If I might cordially ask you, what did you see as a "falsehood" in the category, prompting you to delete it?Davidbena (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: David, Hebron is not in Israel. It is a fact even according to Israel. You are wasting your time trying to convince everyone of your political opinions. Please stop it. Zero^talk 21:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000:, Israel is also a country historically defined as such in the Midrash and Mishnah (compiled in 189 CE). Saying that a place (Hebron) is in the Land of Canaan, Judea, Palestine, the Land of Israel, the Holy Land, or whatever, is NOT necessarily a political statement, as it is a historical statement. It just so happens that the Government of Israel calls the country by its historical name. Had the Wikipedia article been titled "World Heritage Sites in the State of Israel," your argument may have held up, insofar as that is disputed. But, historically, there is no dispute whatsover about this fact. If UNESCO wanted to politicize something, does that mean that we, on Wikipedia, must also politicize the same thing?Davidbena (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: I'm not convinced by that. I interpretted the category name the same way as the great majority of readers would interpret it. We must not use categories which trick lots of readers into believe something different from what is intended. Zero^talk 09:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But even if you should say that "Israel" refers to the modern State of Israel, after all, that is exactly how the Modern State of Israel is portrayed in this country. The entire country, included places captured in 1967, are portrayed as the State of Israel. So, it is disputed between the western media and the government of Israel. In reality, however, it is governed by Israel. Perhaps you can add there an asterisk, showing that the region is disputed. That will solve the problem.Davidbena (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: Nobody will understand the meaning of an asterisk, and I wouldn't agree to that even if they did. Please tell me exactly when Israel annexed the West Bank. It needs a law to be passed by the Knesset, like there was a law for East Jerusalem and a law for the Golan. Which law and when? If you can't do that, you should stop making this claim. Zero^talk 17:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're either playing ignorant, my friend, or being quite disingenuous in your statements. You know, just as well as I know, that a country needs NOT to formally annex a captured territory for it to be annexed. There is a thing called "de facto annexation" (as opposed to "de jure annexation"), and this is well-documented in peer-review journals, some of which I've posted on the Husan Talk-Page. Do you think Israel will invest millions of $US to build cities and to improve the infrastructure in the so-called "West Bank" if it were only to relinquish its hold of this territory at some future date, the historical and ancestral home of Israel? You must be dreaming.Davidbena (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't meet my challenge. Incidentally, there is no such thing as "de facto annexation" in international law, even though some authors use that phrase to describe situations which have some similarities to annexation but aren't actually annexation. There is nobody who believes "de facto annexation" is the opposite of "occupation". Zero^talk 18:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not considered that "international law" objects to even "de jure annexation," as in the case of Israel's hold over Jerusalem!? How much more then will it object to "de facto annexation," which basically means that their objection is based on biased political grounds, not necessarily any juridical legitimacy that is binding upon parties to a suit. However, this does not mean that "de facto" doesn't exist. It does exist! Even the US does not adhere to international law (case in point, Syria) when it serves its better interests; neither does China adhere to international law (which is not binding), per its claim on man-made islands in the South China Sea, nor does Russia accept international law per its claim on Crimea. You see, you have put too much credibility on "international law," and have ignored more common forms of handling disputes and conflicts, id est, expediency. In short, per Meir Shamgar's argument, there is no such thing as "occupation" in terms of Israel's hold of territories captured in 1967. Davidbena (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elpeleg

Hi Zero0000,

Would you be close to your books ?

If so, could you please check if these sentences can be found in Elpeleg p.162 :

For many years, Hajj Amin had been the central figure at extra-governmental Islamic congresses. At the 1974 Lahore gathering, however, Yassir Arafat, a new Palestinian leader took the spotlight.

I have some dbouts and I can't unfortunately check myself. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pluto2012: The first sentence is a quote and the second isn't. Not too bad as a summary though. I'll email you the surrounding paragraphs (prob. too much to post here). Zero^talk 10:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! (I have problems with emails).

Is the meaning that Hajj Amin was a kind of leader at these different congresses and that starting 1974 Arafat in a way took over from him ?

That doesn't seem to comply with the idea that :

Husseini had lost any credit after ~ 1960
Arafat grew independently from Husseini

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the two sentences alone make it sound like 1974 was a sudden turning point. But the book section as a whole describes a decline in Husayni's influence over a much longer period. I have the book on computer, but how can I get it to you? Zero^talk 20:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zero0000,

Thank you for your help.

I will h&ve access to my emails in 48 hours.

So if you sent this to me by emails that's great.

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pluto2012: I don't use the same email address as earlier, and wikipedia mail doesn't allow attachments. Please send me wikipedia mail and I'll reply to it with the book attached. It is 6.5mb. The extract I sent before isn't really enough. Zero^talk 20:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zero0000,

If you remember I had another usnername in the past : C _ _ _ J _ _

You can email mail at ThatUserName@hotmail.com.

Thank you !

Pluto2012 (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pluto2012: Sent! Zero^talk 15:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Recent Edit in Khirbet al-Keifa

Yes, that is what I meant to say. I suppose it's a problem in translating the name "Sha'arayim," which literally means "two gates," or what others might incorrectly call "double gates." Anyway, thanks for the correction.Davidbena (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beth-zur

User:Zero0000, shalom. It's interesting that you noted that there were two separate identifications for Beth-zur, the two places being, as you said, 300 meters apart. I don't know who wrote this article and who supplied its information, but I would think that, in terms of city location, anything within the radius of 300 meters would be in the realm of accuracy, and perhaps could be considered the "same place," technically speaking. Often times, old ruins are found outside a newer town that carries its old namesake.Davidbena (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC) @Davidbena: Yes, they are essentially the same place, but it was necessary to say why the article mentioned both places without explanation. Zero^talk 15:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems relevent for the 1917 Tel Aviv expulsion

The 1917 Expulsion of Tel Aviv’s Jews, Seen Through Turkish Eyes - Nir Hasson - Haaretz. I call it "expulsion" cause that's what I remember from school. By the way the 1947 Aden riots still need some improvment.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: Thanks. Ben-Bassat and Halevy wrote a paper on it: A tale of two cities and one telegram: The Ottoman military regime and the population of Greater Syria during WWI, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2016.1246240 . If you don't have access but would like to read it, send me mail and you'll get it. Zero^talk 02:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lohamei HaGeta'ot

One source say it was founded inside a British army base.Did the British Army confiscated the land from nearby village?--Shrike (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: I wasn't able to confirm that there was a British camp exactly at the kibbutz site, but such things were sometimes omitted from maps. The Sidney Smith Barracks were 2km SW away on the coast and there was an airfield 2km SE. The article should mention that the Shraga Camp (headquarters of the Golani Brigade) is just across the road. Zoom in here and see what is blurred. Zero^talk

Thanks according to this [12] Shraga and Kibutz first buildings is the remnants of the same British military site --Shrike (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

email

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.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my email address. I'll reply soon. Zero^talk 07:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Huldra (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

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.

Huldra (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:ShawMinutes.pdf

A tag has been placed on File:ShawMinutes.pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Zero0000. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AE clarification

Maybe I'm missing something or didn't fill the form out correctly but I'm not understanding your comment that "All I can find here are examples of DHeyward using legitimate processes ...". My point was that they were violating a topic ban. Is that not a valid issue? Please clarify. Andrew D. (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jordanian occupation vs. control

I'm having a difficult time finding the "long discussion" in a Talk page per your revert's summary. Would you mind giving me a link to that discussion? Thank you. The Kingfisher (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Kingfisher, try this: Talk:Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank/Archive_3#Requested_move_23_March_2017 Huldra (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Palestine War

I kindly ask you to revise your vote! following the different sources that I have brought on this naming issue. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation

You made two reverts at Ahed Tamimi.Please self revert.--Shrike (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He actually only reverted Icewhiz. If you consider removing the unsourced "pro-..." bullshit a revert I would just reinsert that and wait for another sensible editor to remove it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some history resurfacing (again)

Zero, in 2004 you pulled together some interesting historical references to the name Palestine - in 2011 I used them as the seed for the article Timeline of the name "Palestine" (per this comment [13] on this talk page).

This appears to have inspired both Zachary Foster's PhD thesis The Invention of Palestine ([14]) but also now Nur Masalha's forthcoming book Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History (click on the table of contents at [15]).

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming mail

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.

Israeli settlements in Gaza strip

Hello Zero0000,

I am currently looking for maps on wikimedia commons or wp:en with the Israeli settlements as they were in the Gaza strip before 2005. Do you have an idea of where they could be ?

Thank you, Pluto2012 (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pluto2012: Here is one, but it is quite hard to read. There are many on the internet, but license is a problem. Zero^talk 00:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

It is quite crazy. It is as if this past had been wiped out from wikipedia.

Even the information about the situation at the time can't be found.

fyi.

Pluto2012 (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain or self-revert

You removed a source with the edit summary "this one is just embarrassing". Please explain why you think so, or self-revert. Debresser (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have enough experience to know that an unsigned webpage that starts "The Jews originate from the region of Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq)", which you know to be biblical mythology without the least shred of historical evidence, sits far below the reliability requirements for Wikipedia sources. I think "embarrassing" is a gentle opinion. Zero^talk 01:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1rr

Heads up you broke 1rr in Jewish Israeli stone throwing.Icewhiz (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn't realised. I undid the first one, as the second one was taken over by someone else. But the unsupported and unsupportable story about the lamed hey and their last stone is quite obviously not appropriate for the page. Zero^talk 05:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries.Icewhiz (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding

I wasn't calling you a troll, I was calling "Alison" a troll—sorry, I thought that was clear in the context of replying to a comment that was engaging with Alison's comments and in a thread where I'd already talked about not feeding her qua troll.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. :)- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution noticeboard

You were involved in a discussion of this issue concerning the article Human Right in Israel. The WP dispute resolution noticeboard thread is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#[Talk:Human_rights_in_Israel#Recent_trend_version_2] --NYCJosh (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

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 Weller talk 07:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's fatal flaw

You can be a propagandist, you just have to be a polite one and follow the arithmetic based rules, not the content ones. I dont think any admin will ban somebody for straight up provable hypocrisy or even outright repeated lying. Thats why NoCal is so easy to spot to be honest, the man doesnt typically have it in him not to be a jerk for an extended period of time. But if he was just on the surface polite and didnt edit war he would have never needed to sock to begin with. But there been some outrageous edits recently that I dont even know how to report. Because nobody will do anything thats based on the content. An admin even said a revert only edit policy isnt a problem. Meaning no talk page discussion, no nothing. It has to be something as blatant as lying about a quote from a source for anybody to even look at it. Beyond that, as long as you are "civil" and stick to less than 1 revert per day you may continue along your merry way. nableezy - 05:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Amud Anan maps

Hi Zero0000,

It looks to me like Amud Anan uses SPNI's maps. I might be able to take a picture of the legend for you, hopefully it's the same. Is there any particular color you are interested in? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jane955 (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Video of Israeli War Veterans (from 1948)

User:Zero0000, I wanted you to see this video here. It recounts individual stories of men who served in both the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and in the Six Day war. Enjoy.Davidbena (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

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 Weller talk 13:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

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 Weller talk 13:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at WP:AE

I'm glad that there's growing recognition that a certain Alpine administrator, who shall remain nameless, is clueless. He doesn't read what people write, except to count their words and delete any in excess of 500. What a joke. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

repop

By all means pick a better title for that, or tell me and Ill change it. nableezy - 17:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting spelling error in article "Israel"

User:Zero0000 I hope you are doing well. Since I have a temporary ban on WP:ARBPIA articles, I was wondering if you could correct the spelling error in the second paragraph of the article Israel. There it is written: "Canaanite tribes are archeologically attested since the Middle Bronze Age." The word "archeologically" should be corrected to read "archaeologically." Be well.Davidbena (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

anything to add

here? Im sure Ive missed some other recent issues. nableezy - 16:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Administrator changes

Sir Sputnik

Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes

Everyking • Jackmcbarn

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni

Oversight changes

Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Keilana

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take part in a survey

Hi Zero0000

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: http://ucla.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bI9nxWdVDoNZZKR

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback welcome on Palestine Pound article changes

We can try to reach consensus in Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palestine_pound#Re-insert_Diaries_of_Wasif_Jawhariyyeh_quote

@@ Line 1,488: / Line 1,488: @@
 </small>
 --[[User:Avi gan|Avi gan]] ([[User talk:Avi gan|talk]]) 22:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
+== Feedback welcome on Palestine Pound article changes ==
+We can try to reach consensus in Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palestine_pound#Re-insert_Diaries_of_Wasif_Jawhariyyeh_quote

Revision as of 16:58, 12 November 2018

Archives

Clarification request archived

Richard Meinertzhagen

Hi

Avengers Navigation

WWHF is a reliable source

Guy Le Strange

Question

Western Wall

Seaman

mail

Emmaus-Nicopolis

Quick clarification

Edit Reverts

Map mistake

Smiley Award for you!

File permission problem with File:BBCreel116.png

File permission problem with File:BBCreel125.png

Map desperately needed

FYI

Zionist colonisation in Uganda

ANI Notification

If you can do me a favour

About an edit you made three years ago

Thank you

Transjordan

Maps

Black Sunday, 1937

Have you a RS for the complete quote and perhaps also contextual analysis

Extended confirmed protection

Request

Mount Zion

Your case against me

Until the next one

AN3 complaint about Dinesh D'Souza

Opinion needed on a map

Re maps

Beit Qad has been nominated for Did You Know

DYK for Beit Qad

reliable source

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

IP User 110.140.228.5

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Mail

sourcing for "considered occupied Palestinian territories"

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

Alert on anti-Semitic propaganda wasn't an advertisment

Question – Samaria?

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

Diff 765225615

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

Beyt Nattif

Police stations

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

The general 1RR restriction in ARBPIA

Question

Nomination of Roger D. Craig for deletion

Family law in Mandatory Palestine

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

ARCA

Jordan Lead Codices

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

Urgent Intervention

Ginsburgh

Question

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

Aden riots

Question

Your Recent Delete on "Hebron" and "Cave of the Patriarchs"

Elpeleg

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

Your Recent Edit in Khirbet al-Keifa

Beth-zur

Seems relevent for the 1917 Tel Aviv expulsion

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

Lohamei HaGeta'ot