Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
{{subst:alert|a-i|2={{paragraph}}In particular, please note that 30 days tenure and 500 edits are required before you can edit article content and formal community processes such as [[RfC]]s and noticeboard discussions related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This does not apply to informal discussion on article talk pages.}}
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. In particular, please note that 30 days tenure and 500 edits are required before you can edit article content and formal community processes such as RfCs and noticeboard discussions related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This does not apply to informal discussion on article talk pages.
That'll do nicely, anything after the 2=, right? Selfstudier (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier:, Shrike. Right. Is the text satisfactory? I can make a template for this, such as {{ARBPIAalert}}. Zerotalk 10:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's handy to be able to insert any text or even leave it blank so it's the same as existing, depending the situation.Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should we ask arbcom aproval? Shrike (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: You have a point. Stuff inside the colored box looks like official rulings and even though we try to make it accurate we can't really speak for Arbcom. Suppose we just emphasise where to look; I don't think that needs permission.
{{subst:alert | a-i | 2={{paragraph}}In particular, please note that the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles|Arab-Israeli conflict rulings]] include restrictions on editors without 30 days tenure and 500 edits.}}
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. In particular, please note that the Arab-Israeli conflict rulings include restrictions on editors without 30 days tenure and 500 edits.
One thing that has come up a few times with newer editors is that they come across some protected pages that they cannot edit and then assume if they can edit, it is allowed. I suppose we can't cover all eventualities but you can sort of see how this one might happen. If going back to Arbcom is a problem, then let's just have a text outside the blue box that makes things clear. I am quite happy to use anything you think works.Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Zero0000, thank you for the note. I will make myself aware if edits deserve to be categorised as minor or trivial, or else. Thanks for sensitising me! Best wishes Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was curious about your comment on the RSN that JStor cites CounterPunch over 1000 times. Do you mind if I ask how you can search citations on JStor, rather than mentions of the word "counterpunch"? Thanks! BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to do that but couldn't see a way to limit the search to citations, which would be an incredibly useful tool, especially for sources such as CounterPunch where the title is also a not uncommonly used ordinary word (e.g. the first hit is a book about boxing). It's possible to search with "counterpunch.com" or "counterpunch.org" but that gives a very small number of hits. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A basic search on "www.counterpunch.org" threw up 504 results. But some might not do the www or just say Counterpunch and so on.Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The search as phrase gave only 13 results[1]Shrike (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many citations of CounterPunch do not give a url. They give a date, or just the month. That is reasonable since urls decay. So restricting searches to www.counterpunch.org is not correct. A search for (("www.counterpunch.org") OR ("counterpunch.org") OR ("CounterPunch")) gives 1,413 hits. Obviously I didn't look at them all, but I looked at a random sample to see how many were using "CounterPunch" for something other than a citation and judged it was less than 1/4 of the total. Apparently I underestimated those, especially references to boxing. Now I did it more systematically. I looked at every 25th hit and counted how many were mentions of CounterPunch. I got 34 out of 55 with 2 uncertain. So that gives the estimate 873 of articles which reference CounterPunch. As well as the statistical error, there are two additional issues: (1) Some mentions of CounterPunch are not really citations, (2) Many of the articles that cite CounterPunch do so multiple times. Clearly these work in opposite directions if one wants to count citations. So I looked at the full text of the first hit on pages 5,10,...,50 which showed a mention of CP and found that 8 of them had actual citations rather than other sorts of mentions, and the total number of citations was 10. In summary, my best estimate is that 700 articles cite CounterPunch a total of 870 times. I'll edit RSN. Zerotalk 01:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zero0000; that's amazingly thorough! (I was hoping to discover a cool shortcut to find citations on JStor :( BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
Hi, Zero0000. I don't want to be caught offending again, nor trespassing my imposed topic ban in the Israel/Palestine area of conflict, otherwise known as the ARPBIA, until such time that I am able to submit an appeal asking to rescind my topic ban, with a reassured commitment to good editing on Wikipedia, and with full compliance to Wikipedia's policies. Meanwhile, my question to you is this: Can I still make edits on pages that do not carry the ARPBIA tag, and am careful not to mention anything politically or ideologically connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? For example, mentioning the names of flora that grow in Palestine? Please advise.Davidbena (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena: David, Shrike's method is the safest approach. In general you should interpret "politically or ideologically connected" very broadly. Writing about flora should be fine, but when you describe the distribution of a species you have to avoid incidental political statements (write "Golan Heights", not "Israeli Golan Heights", etc). I notice that lots of red links can be found by following items in Category:Flora of Palestine (region). Zerotalk 01:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have already asked him and I'll be careful. Thanks.Davidbena (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About the Talmud and Jerusalem Talmud articles, I would like to inform you that the term "palestinian" should not be used there. As you said "..a very common alternative name even in modern scholarship and there is no reason to censor it" it is used for political reasons, and not historic ones. Only recently some researchers started using it. Moreover, the term "Jewish Palestinian Aramaic" is a complete Joke, it was never used and it is still not in use. Someone added it in order to alienate this language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by עצם בלתי מזוהה (talk • contribs) 02:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@עצם בלתי מזוהה: You don't know what you are talking about. Everything you wrote here is false. See the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia regarding Palestinian Talmud and Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. Search for each phrase (also for "Palestinian Jewish Aramaic") at Google Scholar to see recent scholarly sources that use them. Zerotalk 04:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the "Jewish Aramic" is much more common [2]Shrike (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
O for God's sake, Shrike. It is absolutely normal in historical scholarship to refer to a Palestinian Talmud, for the simple reason that the adjective distinguished one from the other (Bavli_Babylonian Talmud) by referring to the respective geographic areas where they were composed. This hang-up about using the word 'Palestine/Palestinian' as if it meant the PLO/PA/or Palestinian people is tiresome, yielding to the politicization of language, to an obsession with establishing a national modern 'politically correct' set of denominators over history, which, even in Jewish traditional scholarship, suffered no such crisis of nerves or sense of illegitimacy. Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never implied anything that you say. We only talking about WP:COMMON in Wikipedia sense. Shrike (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before commenting on a page's thread, you really should read it first, and not react to one word in it without looking at context, as you have here in ignoring that the point and Zero's reply concerned an alternative name, whose relevance is mentioned in the policy you mentioned WP:COMMON. So you are waving a policy flag without reading it, to respond to a thread without reading it. Doubly bad practice.Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike: You are correct that "Jewish Aramaic" is common. However, there were subtle differences between the version spoken in Babylonia and the version spoken in Palestine, and this is reflected in the language of the Talmuds. Experts for whom the difference is significant use designations like "Palestinian Jewish Aramaic" and "Babylonian Jewish Aramaic". Zerotalk 00:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifaction Shrike (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
@Loew Galitz: There are guidelines at WP:OPCOORD. For locations in Israel, 1 second is about 21 meters east-west and 26 meters north-south. A typical small kibbutz is 400-1000 meters in diameter, which is around 20-40 seconds. Giving two digits after the decimal point for seconds suggests that the location is known to within about 20 centimeters, which is meaningless. I'm rounding to the nearest second, which is a movement of 16 meters in the worst case and usually less, at most 1/20 of the size of the location. I hope that makes sense. Zerotalk 22:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understood your purpose, I just wanted the wikipedia rulebook. Thank you for the explanation. Loew Galitz (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where should discussion about Hate site Haaretz go?[edit]
Haaretz incitement against Haredim (who are not serving in the IDF)[edit]
You may note my latest editing of the article. I suppose the colonel’s memoirs might be classed as Original Research, as might my own contributions, as I was actually present that night as a rifleman in ‘A’ Company, though not positioned close enough to hear the pipes. But in the second half of the tour, I was billeted beside the Pipes and Drums, and I never heard any questioning of the story, either then or later, working as a reporter in Edinburgh. Valetude (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Valetude. If the book mentions the story about the surrender, it would be ok to mention it as the opinion of the author or as the belief of the British soldiers. But I don't think that stating it as a plain fact is good unless the rebels themselves confirmed it. Only the rebels really knew why they surrendered. Cheers. Zerotalk 12:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find it odd that we're having to prove that there was no formal surrender. The other side would hardly be wanting to prove there was one. Why is the surrender story being treated as sacred? Where did it come from? Where are the cites?
I can offer you this much:
The Times, January 9, 2010: ‘We regret driving out the British,’ say Aden’s former rebels.
One of them wrote a letter saying “Under the British we had peace. The Yemeni fighters were ignorant. I hope the British come back.” Another said “People didn’t know any better. It was an emotional response born out of Arab nationalism and Nasserite revolutionary feelings.” Valetude (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Valetude You misunderstood, sorry. I'm only referring to the story that they surrendered because of the pipes playing. Zerotalk 13:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't surrender. There were no prisoners. They simply melted away, and restricted their activities to occasional small arms fire, apart from one attempt at another mutiny, which Mitch faced down through sheer force of character. Valetude (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)
Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
Whoops, looks like I accidentally posted the name of my underground downtempo/grindcore band. Thanks for catching that! 😬 Drsmoo (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your edit there -- it was a flag legally decreed FOR USE AT SEA. It had no particular status ON LAND. AnonMoos (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos: I know that; I'm just about to add the actual legislation. It was a maritime ensign with no purpose on land at all (unless government port installations flew it). What does it mean to say that a maritime ensign was "not embraced", except if it was not embraced at sea? And where is the source? At the moment this is a useless sentence and it can't stay. Zerotalk 03:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the article, it was the only Palestine-specific flag not restricted to official government use, so there was nothing preventing its use on land by anyone who wanted to do so (though without official status), if there had been any enthusiasm for it -- but there was no enthusiasm for it. Assertions in the lead section don't require separate sourcing if they follow from what's below. AnonMoos (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos: Where is this claim sourced anywhere in the article? Why is it significant if nobody used a maritime ensign on land? Why should they? Zerotalk 03:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos: Note that authority from the "Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty" was required for the maritime ensign to be used on ships. I can't prove it, but I'll bet that use for any other purpose was illegal. Zerotalk 06:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I bet that's not the case -- For the UK flag itself (the famous Union Jack), there were strict regulations governing its use by ships at sea and flying from government buildings, but there weren't really any laws permitting or forbidding private citizens from displaying it on land until well into the 20th century. If there had been any British mandate patriotism among non-British inhabitants of the Mandate, it could have easily found expression in use of the Palesgtine red ensign (which was comparable to colonial flags of a number of other UK colonies), but there wasn't... AnonMoos (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zero! I think you might mean "DS-aware" instead of "DS-alert" toward the end of your statement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Idk if you saw it already, "The Challenge of Categories: UNRWA and the Definition of a Palestine Refugee" (Ilana Feldman 2012) is of any use? Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Thanks. It is more interesting as a summary of how UNRWA operated in the early days. Quite a lot of mythology is refuted there. Zerotalk 11:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 25[edit]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hamat Gader, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samra.
Afore I go getting myself into trouble, is there a consensus anywhere about the use of the terms "First Temple period" and "Second Temple period". I know what they mean now but I would have thought your average reader wouldn't really understand them. They might not understand "Persian period" or "late Roman" either but still, more chance with those than the other? Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first temple period is actually the iron age and pre-Persian - with the Persians came Cyrus the Great, who returned the exiled Babylonian Judaeans to Jerusalem and rebuilt the temple, the second temple, which overlaps both Persian and Roman (Herodian) periods. Iron age seems the obvious way to go with the former - second depends a little on the framing. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine "First Temple period" and "Second Temple period" might be rather popular terms in biblical archaeology though, and have some source weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To editors Iskandar323 and Selfstudier: I don't know if there is wiki-consensus about this. I don't remember one but my memory for such things is bad. Certainly these phrases are very common in sources. I think that "First Temple period" is sometimes used even by people who are not sure of the reality of the first temple; to them it just means the time period during which the first temple traditionally existed. In Wikipedia, I think that we should specify time periods using explicit numbered centuries, with the possible exception of when we are writing about something to do with the temple. It is more informative to general readers and there is no rule that we have to slavishly follow the wording of sources when the paraphrase doesn't involve OR. Zerotalk 07:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with specific dates in the text where possible, I was thinking more of section heads.
If you were writing an article about some place and its history (assuming it had a long history) how would you divide the time frame? Selfstudier (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are several confusions on that page. Perhaps worst is the over-extension of the classical period, which hands over to the early middle ages/medieval period in the 4th century CE, as noted, in fact, on the History of Jerusalem during the Middle Ages page, not with the Muslim conquests, as the current timeline somewhat implies. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Picking this up on your talk :) Selfstudier (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)
Arbitration
The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Hey, I'm looking for the Wikipedia rule that says we should use West Bank instead of Judea and Samaria, do you have a link to it? Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing the number of intellectual man-hours spent on 4 words…could have been spent finding a cure for cancer…. Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Zero0000. I've begun working on al-Aqsa Mosque again. Pringle's The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom ... Vol 3 presents a pretty comprehensive and detailed history of the building, but there are several pages which I am unable to access by GBooks preview. Do you happen to have full access to this source? The pages I am looking for are 417, 421, 424, 427, 430-431 and 433. @Huldra: Same message. For some reason I remember, or misremember, that Zero or yourself had access to this book. If not, my apologies. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Al Ameer son; I have a physical copy of the book. Unfortunately my scanner doesn't work, so I will have to wait until Monday to go to the library to scan it -and send it to you- (I believe I have your email-address?) -unless Zero beats me to it. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Al Ameer son: I can email you the book but I don't think I have your address. If you send me mail, I'll reply with the book. Huldra, your copy is on its way. Zerotalk 03:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! And glad I do not have to trouble Huldra now ;) Will be emailing you shortly Zero. —Al Ameer (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.
Technical news
The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please emailMadalina Ana.
Arbitration
An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
Arbitration
Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
@Doug Weller: I dissented there. Also, the editor in question has been copying material from thetorah.com together with the citation given there. For example, two things atAvaris: "abandonment during the 19th dynasty", and "Even after the fall of the Hyksos dynasty, Avaris had one of the largest populations of Semitic-Asiatics in Egypt". Both are sourced to this excavation report but I can't find either of them there. Another excavation report also doesn't have them, I think. Zerotalk 12:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've warned him about adding material not in cited sources. I think we need to continue the warnings. Doug Wellertalk 15:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In January this year you uploaded an image of a memorandum published in the August 26 1840 issue of The Times headed RESTORATION OF THE JEWS. The file's title is RestorationJewsTimes1840. Perhaps you or I could change that to Restoration of the Jews Memorandum 1840 (assuming the year is accurate) or RESTORATION OF THE JEWS MEMORANDUM 1840. Mcljlm (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mcljlm: What difference does it make what the file name is? Zerotalk 07:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero: All titles should be accurate especially since they're likely to be used elsewhere. In this case "the" isn't insignificant. There doesn't appear to be any reason for there not to be spaces between the words or before the year. Mcljlm (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
Arbitration
Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
Since you seem to be so proficient at unearthing buried treasures, here's a "Mission Impossible" for you. At Backslash#History, we've been trying to find out when the \ mark first appeared. But more usefully, why did the Teletype Corporation (at the request of the US Armed Forces?) "invent" it? what was its purpose? It must have been significant enough to merit its own key on the keyboard. Intriguing, don't you think?
One to file away to look at on a rainy day sometime maybe. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid BLP violation as you did here. You were previously warned here. Expressing your opinion is OK as long as it does not violate WP:BLP. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Infinity Knight: Your "previous warning" fell flat on its face, as you are perfectly aware. Incidentally, good editors avoid sources that are regularly damned by qualified reviewers and look for sources that command general respect. That leads to articles that meet the requirements of balance. Zerotalk 14:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was triggered by your view There is a difference between article space and talk space...here. Hope you realize the view is baseless. This time please note that BLP applies also to edit comments. That's the takeaway. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge difference between article space and talk space. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. So even "contentious material" has a talk-page exception, but we don't need it here because an editorial opinion on source quality is not "contentious material". We are permitted to state our opinions on the quality of sources and the qualifications of their authors. An opinion that an author is unreliable, excessively biased, whatever, is just an editor's opinion and not a BLP violation unless it claims to expose some protected fact about the author. So kindly pick up your takeaway and take it away; meanwhile I will continue weeding out unreliable sources. Zerotalk 11:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a proper way to discuss content choices, and saying In my opinion the author is so and so... is not appropriate. See WP:BLPTALK. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?. Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Infinity Knight (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it is good to cite additional sources in order to discuss the reliability of a source but it isn't a requirement. "X is an idiot" is not information about X, it is an opinion. These rules derive from US libel laws and were vetted by the WMF lawyers. WP can be sued for publishing "X murdered his mother" but it can't be sued for publishing "Zero thinks X is a fanatic". Zerotalk 12:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about claims by editors "Author X is an islamophobe" or "Author X is an antisemite" to weed out unreliable sources? Infinity Knight (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lawyers make money out of challenging boundaries. I consciously chose to not use the word "islamophobe" because I thought it was too close to the boundary. I would certainly recommend citing a source for that. If it got to ArbCom I wouldn't bet on the result, though. Zerotalk 13:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like an admission of consciously challenging BLP boundaries while carefully choosing you vocabulary. That's the root of the matter. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like somebody pretending that a section at BLPN in which every single user disagreed with their claim constitutes a "warning" to another editor. Reads like somebody asking for a boomerang for tendentious editing. So do the repeated ONUS violations. nableezy - 16:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence suggests that this a sustained issue accross several pages. Guess some group of authors just have to be "weeded out"? Who are those "fanatics"? Badmouthing authors who are not present in the discussion is not a sign of grace anyway and nor permitted by BLP. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, some group of authors have to be weeded out. The technical term is "unreliable sources". Zerotalk 07:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Unreliable sources" like David Patterson (historian) published by Cambridge University Press, who triggered this discussion. Man on a mission, figure it out. Not sure why you had to be dragged to BLPN to provide links to your serious allegations, despite clear rules of BLP. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You tried and you failed. Get over it. And this conversation has run its course. Zerotalk 08:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When reviewers have widely panned a work as unhistorical and hysterical then yes it is an unreliable source. Good luck citing From Time Immemorial too. nableezy - 17:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More details about "fanatics", figure it out ;) The point is when talking about a living author and sharing serious allegations please provide links per WP:BLPTALK, weed out happily otherwise. Merry Christmas! Infinity Knight (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No the point is when an editor says that a source is unreliable, dont just immediately revert it back in because like all content the onus for consensus is on those arguing for inclusion. If you continue to disregard that then well we can see what happens, as no matter how many times you remove warnings about that from your talk page the diffs last forever. Oh, and the person who initially inserted that crap, indef blocked as every single one of their edits had a distinct "the Moslems are evil" bent to it. Merry Christmas. nableezy - 00:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guarantee this is going to be cited as another "warning" one day lol. nableezy - 16:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it, unles the pursuant wants to risk a ban for Truk-Island style feuding. This nonsense about Patterson and BLP was definitively buried 2 and a half years ago after a forensic exposition of why he is legitimately thought non RS. IK looks like he waited all that time in the wings for an opportunity to revive a dead POV.
Time does not heal on Truk . . shortly after the American occupation of the atoll at the end of World War 11 . . A villager arrived out of breath at the military government headquarters. He said that a murder had been committed in the village and that the murderer was running around loose. Quite naturally the military government officer became alarmed. He was about to dispatch M.P.s to arrest the culprit when he remembered that someone had warned him about acting precipitously when dealing with 'natives'. A little inquiry turned up the fact that the victimn had been "fooling around" with the murderer's wife. Still more inquiry of a routine type, designed to establish the date and place of the crime, revealed that the murder had not occurred a few hours or even days ago as one might expect, but seventeen years before.Edward T. Hall, The Silent Language 1959 Premier Books ed.1961 p.26.
One should let sleeping dogs lie-Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the initial comment in this section lol. You were previously warned, citing a thread in which every single person disagreed with IK and declined to warn Zero. nableezy - 17:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going through the {{Jewish villages depopulated during the 1929 Palestine riots}} template and found that a while back you removed the template from Kfar Uria, although you left the page in the template. Your edit comment then was "this box is not justified in the text". I found the text even then to be pretty clear that the village was burnt down in 1929, and only rebuilt in 1945. Perhaps you were confused by the fact that some of the Jewish farmers continued to work the fields there -- the text is not completely clear that they lived elsewhere and would only return to the site to work the fields but not to sleep there. Inasmuch as there were no inhabitable buildings on the site between 1929 and 1945, and no one actually lived there, I find its inclusion as a village that was depopulated in 1929 to be entirely correct and proper.
I was BOLD and reverted your edit, and I am starting this discussion here on your Talk page to see if I/we need to do something else to retain consensus. Respectfully, -- Eliyahu STalk 11:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that there were 2 houses occupied in 1931. So the village was not entirely depopulated. Is that what you were referring to? I find that the first definition of depopulate on Wiktionary says to "reduce" and not to "eliminate" people from a place. Even if two of the houses remained habitable, the two census figures show a 75% loss of population -- from 40 people to 10. I also suspect that in 1929 the population was probably greater than the 40 counted in 1922, but the article currently shows those two numbers. I think that a 75% reduction still qualifies as "depopulation". Respectfully, -- Eliyahu STalk 11:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply on the talk page. Zerotalk 11:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
@Selfstudier: A serious piece of research published in an academic journal. Even if it is attributed, it should be cited as the result of a research project and not just as a claim. Zerotalk 05:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: I'm a bit confused by the timeline because aerial photos show construction starting around 2007. I've got a fiendishly busy week but I'll get to this eventually. Zerotalk 12:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Np, take your time. I'm still researching it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Confusing. It seems that the first alert given to an ARBPIA editor should now be {{subst:alert/first|a-i}} instead of {{subst:alert|a-i}}. It is better I think because it mentions the 30/500 restriction and 1RR instead of expecting the editor to read the ARBPIA page. If I understand footnote "n" at WP:Contentious topics, it is not necessary to give the new alert to people who previously received the old alert. Zerotalk 00:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems clear enough. And {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice|topic=a-i}} for the edit notice? Adding section = yes if it is just partial. I didn't see a new talk page template, just use existing? Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: There is {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i}}. Zerotalk 11:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, missed that. K, got it now :) Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The old templates are autoupdating, looks of it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on the image, but I saw now that the two images below it have the same inaccuracy, could you fix them? Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Black Death theory" belongs to User:Skylax30, it doesn't exist in the referenced text[edit]
@Mercresis: It is in footnote 19 with additional references. Quotation: "Recent studies see a direct connection between the fast Ottoman military advance and the consequences of the Black Death from the mid-fourteenth century onwards. They emphasize that Byzantine territories, where the initial Ottoman conquests were carried out, were exhausted (both demographically and militarily) due to the plague outbreaks, which facilitated the Ottoman expansion." It is almost the same as our article had. Please put it back. Zerotalk 13:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Guideline and policy news 
Arbitration 
Miscellaneous 
lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Technical news 
Administrator changes 
Interface administrator changes 
CheckUser changes 
Oversighter changes 
