Jump to content

User talk:Zero0000

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archives

[edit]
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008–9
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023


Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes

added Clovermoss
readded Dennis Brown
removed

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Western Wall

[edit]

Western Wall has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Greater Palestine, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sakiv (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakiv: That's funny. Zerotalk 12:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sakiv (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shomron studies

[edit]

Do you think a 1986 article in Shomron Studies is reliable for claiming the ethnic history of people across Palestine? nableezy - 17:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: It's a hard question because I don't have the article in question. The author Grossman was a well-known demographer. What concerns me is the precision of the reports; the fact that a family or two has a tradition of coming from another place does not mean that the tradition is true, and it doesn't entitle us to write that the village population came from that other place. But it is hard to argue this without the source. Zerotalk 00:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can find the source cited elsewhere but have had no luck in finding the actual source. nableezy - 05:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grossman (2011), Rural Arab Demography and Early Jewish Settlement in Palestine: Distribution and Population Density During the Late Ottoman and Early Mandate Periods has stuff from the journal, idk if that could be used instead. Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have that book and it could be useful for generalities, but it has little in the way of village by village details. I understand that the Hebrew edition was more expansive. Zerotalk 12:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked at WP:RX#A_Hebrew_article. The chances are small. I'm willing to pay for this article but the only way I can find to get it is to start a subscription. Zerotalk 02:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafida

[edit]

Thank you very much :) Albertatiran (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subject on recent edit of yours

[edit]

On Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world I created a talk page topic about a edit you reverted related to Kurds and Nuremberg laws Bobisland (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False Accusation of Sockuppetry

[edit]

I'm writing on behalf of the IP Server who started to edit at "British currency in the Middle East" on 29th March this year. The editor suddenly found the IP server range blocked, while being accused of being a blocked editor called TheCurrencyGuy. The editor at the IP server categorically denies being TheCurrencyGuy, doesn't know TheCurrencyGuy, and has never interacted with him. Meanwhile, a editor called JMF has been on the talk page at "British currency in the Middle East" stating that at least some of the recent edits were definitely done by TheCurrencyGuy. Well, so he says, but not one of the edits carried out by the blocked IP server since 29th March was done by TheCurrencyGuy, and it doesn't appear that anybody else edited during that period. It would be interesting to see what JMF's evidence is, but meanwhile he has reverted all the hard work and careful research that was carried out since 29th March. The article is now in an inferior state with many factual inaccuracies that had been corrected by the blocked IP server. 77.99.242.50 (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JMF's advice to get an account is what I would advise too. And the best way to avoid text being removed for being unsourced is to add sources at the same time as the text. Zerotalk 03:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An account cannot be created until it is acknowledged that the blocked IP server is not a sockpuppet of TheCurrencyGuy. Meanwhile, the editor using the blocked IP server categorically denies the accusation, and says that this is the only important issue at the moment. Can you please help to have the investigation re-visited. The blocked IP editor has checked the editing history of TheCurrencyGuy to see what the alleged similarities are, and has noted that TheCurrencyGuy began his editing days by correcting the format of a foreign currency on some article, and then over time did likewise with many other currency units, and his focus seemed to be on spelling and formatting. The blocked IP server would like to point out that this style has got nothing in common with matters relating to the history of currency in the Middle East. If you can get the IP server unblocked, then the editor will be able to discuss the matter with you directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.242.50 (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP server that was blocked at the same time as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jahor12345 is not connected. Both were editing simultaneously on different articles during the morning of 3rd April 2024. That was the session when you became involved on the talk page about the meaning of the word miri. The IP server began with detailed edits about the Egyptian pound, and then around noon, switched over to British currency in the Middle East. Meanwhile, editor Jahor12345 was editing across a wide range of currency topics, mainly reformatting. The editing styles are completely different. The IP server carried out edits at 1204hrs and 1206hrs, while Jahor12345 carried out an edit in the middle of that two minute period at 1205hrs. They couldn't possibly be the same person.81.134.217.27 (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not convincing me, and anyway I do not have the authority to overrule the results of WP:SPI. I don't see the slightest reason why someone can't make an account if they want to edit. Zerotalk 03:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

[edit]

Please read WP:RSP on MondoWeiss: Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. It should either not be used at all — or used with great caution — for biographies of living people. We need to attribute in text when we use it. Removing attribution, as you've done in a number of articles, goes against the community consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobfrombrockley: It means that the authors of articles in MW should be attributed for their claims. It doesn't say "stuff in MW should be attributed to MW", it says that statements in MW "should be attributed", which always means that opinions or claims should be attributed to whoever is giving the opinion or making the claim (note the meaning of "attributed" in the link). The only time it implies that MW as a magazine should be attributed for something is when the article at hand is when MW itself is the author (e.g. an editorial). Also, if MW was to be attributed it would have to be like "according to MW", which is not what you have been writing — what you have been writing is not an attribution at all per WP jargon but rather a part of the citation placed in the text against usual practice. Zerotalk 13:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. I might take this to another forum as I had never understood it in this way so would welcome clarification. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ami Dror

[edit]

Hi @Zero0000: Why did you put your comment half way up the discussion? scope_creepTalk 14:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature is very annoying. Zerotalk 15:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even listen to what you're saying?

[edit]

To someone who was killed in a "brief massacre", its "briefness" would not be the slightest mitigating factor. My recommendation would be to avoid incongruous dimunitizing expressions such as "brief massacre", "slight temporary genocide", or "gentle rape" as arguments for your edits, whether to the Kfar Etzion massacre article or elsewhere on Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: Wow, my very own stupid personal attack. It's my lucky day. Zerotalk 23:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on searching the thesaurus for oxymoronic adjective-noun combinations like "non-violent murder" and "tiny little extermination campaign" all you want, but you won't be improving Wikipedia by doing so. AnonMoos (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two kisses on the same day are enough. Now kindly improve my user page by pissing off. Go on, shoo. Zerotalk 01:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on the Mandatory flag thread above (I also quickly got tired of that discussion in 2022, though there was more to say). AnonMoos (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

[edit]
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Post

[edit]

Hi. I see that you reverted my contribution to the page about antisemitism on Harvard’s campus after 2020. I'm aware of the extended confirmed restriction and contentious topics procedure regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. My intention was not to post on that conflict but to report on important antisemitic incidents happening on college campuses, which I understood was the point of this page. I get that these protests are influenced, in part, by the Arab-Israeli conflict, but is there a way to acknowledge the catalyst while avoiding violating the extended confirmed restriction and contentious topics procedure relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Do you have any recommendations on how I can reword some of my content to un-revert it and restore it to the page? Thank you very much. HistoryBook123 (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryBook123: They aren't just "influenced" by the A-I conflict, they are part of it. Anyway the ARBPIA topic designation says "broadly interpreted" so there is really no doubt that the material is included. Your only option is to put an edit proposal on the talk page. I didn't make the rules and if I don't enforce them for sure someone else will. Your edit also contained opinion written in wikivoice so it wouldn't have lasted long even if you had the required credentials. Zerotalk 04:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False Accusation of Sockpuppetry

[edit]

Regarding the blocked IP server that I used in April to make edits at British currency in the Middle East, I've opened up this special account in order to help resolve the situation. I can't edit again util the administrator who blocked my address revisits the original investigation. But even with this special account, I still can't seem to be able to edit on their talk page. I appreciate that you yourself don't have the authority to over rule that result, but I'd be grateful if you could contact Bbb23 on my behalf and ask them if they could take a look at the evidence again. I can assure you that I am definitely not TheCurrencyGuy. I've looked at his edits. His style and purpose was quite different from mine, and besides I did show you evidence last month that we were both editing at the exact same time on different articles. I'd be most grateful if you could help. Specialrequestaccount (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the message like this, but I seem to have formatted it wrongly. Can you please help me to format it and I'll post it again,

{{To|Bbb23}}I'd be grateful if you could contact me here regarding a block on my IP server which you did on 12th April. Somebody alleged that I am a sockpuppet of an editor called TheCurrencyGuy. I am assuredly not however. The accusation involved another editor with a name something like Jahor12345 who was also blocked for being a sockpuppet of TheCurencyGuy. I have no idea whether they were or not, but I did find evidence that Jahor12345 was editing at exactly the same time as me on different articles. The only thing we seem to have in common is the fact that we were editing on currency related articles, but not with the same style or purpose. I look forward to hearing from you.~~~~

Specialrequestaccount (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that the blocking administrator is going to reply. Is there some kind of notice board that I can go to in order to highlight this issue? I think it's quite important. I was editing in good faith and suddenly blocked, just because I happened to be editing on currency related articles and because there is a blocked editor called TheCurrencyGuy. But there is something very seriously wrong when those involved aren't open to discussing the evidence. The blocking administrator must know fine well that the IP servers don't match. Specialrequestaccount (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can write at WP:AN/I but it's possible nobody will be interested, as are there are currently no sanctions against your account. You'll need to explain everything with diffs and not assume that anyone is aware of it. Zerotalk 14:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I'll maybe do that. Although there are no sanctions against this account, it's still impossible for me to edit on the Middle East currency articles that I had been editing on with the IP server, because I would be immediately blocked again, based on the belief of Bbb23 that I am a sockpuppet of TheCurrencyGuy. Until that belief has been officially debunked by, either Bbb23, or by some other administrator, I will have no future in the project. This began in March when I was studying the schism between the Egyptian piastre and the Turkish piastre in 1844. I had obtained books on the topic and I also referred to the relevant Wikipedia articles. These articles were quite useful, but it was clear that they contained many inaccuracies. I set about correcting the information in these articles and I thought I had got them into a much more accurate state. I was nearly finished, and about to make an edit relating to the Saudi Riyal when suddenly I found myself blocked, having been accused of abusively indulging in sockpuppetry. And soon after that, another editor wiped out every single bit of work that I had done, expressly stating that the reason wasn't based on the content on the edits, but on the grounds that he believed me to be a sockpuppet of TheCurrencyGuy. It's turned me pretty sour about the project, but I'm still holding out hope that there must surely be some administrator who can check out that my IP server was different from TheCurrencyGuy's, and that likely we are in totally different geographical locations, and that the entire focus of our edits is quite different, and that at one point we were editing on different articles at exactly the same time. There is something seriously wrong with the system if this cannot be ascertained, and that people simply get blocked because they edit on an article that is of interest to another editor who has been blocked.Specialrequestaccount (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misandry noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Hey Zero, please give me your input on the Misandry discussion. I just can't keep arguing with these people anymore. It feels like we need a way bigger team of admins involved. Someone just told me "admins don't have any special authority in content disputes." ImmersiveOne (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

request to Strike your Comment in the infada talk page.

[edit]

can you please strike booth the non ECR comment as well as your response in the Talk page? when you leave it this way it seams like you care more about "winning" wikipedia and getting your pov heard then to actually Resolve the content dispute

thank in advance. 79.180.47.77 (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. First, it is only permitted to remove edit summaries under very limited circumstances and this is not one of them. Second, as you well know, you are limited to edit requests and your other comments are not permitted. I didn't make the rules, but I am allowed to enforce them. So, whatever "dispute" is happening there, you are not a party to it. You can always make yourself an account and work up to EC if you want to participate. Zerotalk 22:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for your help with navigating the stages to appeal the block. I think the matter has now been resolved. It seems that TheCurrencyGuy is geographically close to me and that contributed towards the suspicion. I may or may not return to editing, but if I do, I will either use the IP server again or create another account with a more suitable username. Specialrequestaccount (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a prior RfC on a similar issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what it was all about

[edit]

Since you helped me to get the project back on track again, see my user page to understand what it was all about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Specialrequestaccount Specialrequestaccount (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peel secret testimony

[edit]

There are some transcripts in Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict The Trials of Palestine Steven E. von Zipperstein if you haven't seen those. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just got that book yesterday but hadn't looked at it yet. Zerotalk 03:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

  • Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
  • Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shebaa

[edit]

Is https://unifil.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/unifilpresskit.pdf (the section Shab'a Farms on p.6) in accord with your understanding of the current position? Anyway it does say "With the UN having placed the Shebaa Farms area south of the Blue Line at the time the line was established, Israel considers them part of the Golan, rather than Lebanon. Hence, it would only negotiate with Syria, and address the issue in Syrian-Israeli peace talks on the Golan." Salud. Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: Yes, that's my understanding. Is it contrary to what I wrote in the article? Zerotalk 11:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all, was just checking that it was still current, apart from that, I saw you said you wanted a later source for the Israeli position, will it do? Selfstudier (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Right, good point. I'll add it. Zerotalk 12:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Loftus Page

[edit]

Hi Zero, just wanted to chat about this page. By way of intro, I'm a clinical psychologist with 30 years experience. I would respectfully suggest that to not include this account, reported in great detail by The New Yorker from interviewing Loftus, would leave this page incomplete and lacking encyclopaedic credibility. For those of us in the profession this revelation changed everything about Loftus's position. It was quite incredible that she herself gave one of the best examples of not remembering and then recalling a traumatic memory.

Her word for word quote “the memory flew out at me, out of the blackness of the past, hitting me full force” is a clear and classic account of recovering a repressed memory - you don't get better . All a repressed traumatic memory is is a memory that was not remembered for a period of time and then it is when it is triggered - it's not a complex psychological concept. I'm happy to work with you on wording you're comfortable with as a full account is more important than the wording. I did try to rely on attributed quotes rather than use my own words. You might like to discuss with a friendly psychologist. Cheers Penny Pennylewis (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pennylewis: You need to read the whole source. "But Loftus never forgot what happened. She had shared the memory with Geoff shortly after they married. “It wasn’t ‘Oh, my God, I was abused,’” he said. “It was more like ‘What’s more, I myself was abused.’" It is not for us to interpret the source according to what we would like it to mean. The source does not say that she had repressed the incident from her childhood until it suddenly came out in a courtroom, so we aren't allowed to say that either per WP:NOR. Nobody except Loftus herself can say that, and per WP:NOR it doesn't make a difference what your expertise is, sorry. Yes, I know that people who dispute Loftus' views would just love it if she proved herself wrong, but that's something to argue in professional venues, not here. Zerotalk 01:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, with some chagrin, that I did not see that para of her not forgetting it. A colleague sent me the part that I shared and I guess I assumed that there was little point to highlighting it if she had remembered it all along! Sucked in by the journalistic sensationalism. Should have read the entire article in detail. I am embarrassed and am grateful that you very graciously dealt with my error here. With due respect to you. Pennylewis (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Harvnb refs

[edit]

Hey, do you know how to fix this problem?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Help_with_Harvnb_refs Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Supreme Deliciousness: I have just now fixed it for you.Davidbena (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration notice

[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Referral from the Artibration Enforcement noticeboard regarding behavior in Palestine-Israel articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert at A land without a people for a people without a land

[edit]

Source

[edit]

Hey, do you have access to this source? https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/yearbook-of-international-humanitarian-law/article/abs/changing-the-landscape-israels-gross-violations-of-international-law-in-the-occupied-syrian-golan/149F5F3EBF6612F469AFB4ABBF2C2820#access-block Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Supreme Deliciousness: Yes. I can give it to you if you send me mail. Zerotalk 01:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have mail. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more? https://www.jstor.org/stable/2537689 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you have access to these two?

https://brill.com/display/title/172

https://www.academia.edu/89471324/Herods_Judaea

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Supreme Deliciousness: You can read the first one in the Wikipedia library. Most Brill works are there. See email in 5 mins about the second one. Zerotalk 06:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

removed Pppery

Interface administrator changes

removed Pppery

Oversighter changes

removed Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian

[edit]

Think you meant Palestinian here? Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, thinks, thanks. Zerotalk 11:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JVL is not a reliable source?

[edit]

Could you clarify why you consider the Jewish Virtual Library an unreliable source? I used it to provide context to Rabbi Shlomo Goren’s military service, and the information I referenced is sourced from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Please explain your reasoning for labeling it as unreliable. Best regards. MeirKovner (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See their entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, the community has designated it as generally unreliable. Selfstudier (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MeirKovner: As Selfstudier wrote, JVL has been judged unreliable by consensus. However, if JVL cites information to some reliable source you can cite that source. But you have to examine the reliable source yourself; you can't just take JVL's word that the information is there. I have seen JVL cite some source but when I went to that source I found that the information wasn't there at all. It's things like this that make JVL unreliable. Zerotalk 22:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You reverted my edit on Protocols of the Elders of Zion

[edit]

You said it doesn't mention communist monarchy. I read the text. I know it's likely a forgery and even if it wasn't, I support some of the things in the text. I woudn't mind a communist monarchy. But the text clearly supports it. It mentions a Jewish king and the support for communism. I personally support a world government for world peace. Do you care to explain how my edits were incorrect? Nashhinton (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nashhinton: I have also read it, along with many commentaries. Most translations don't mention communism by name. But our opinions are irrelevant because in Wikipedia we report what reliable sources say about the topic and nothing else. The sourcing standard in this article is intentionally very strict because of the huge amount of crap written on the subject. Also, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body of an article, so it is not the place to put new material. Zerotalk 15:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there different versions of protocols of elders of zion? Like, do some versions add and make up stuff that wasn't in the original text? Nashhinton (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nashhinton: There are multiple early Russian versions with large and small differences between them, and multiple translations (and translations of translations) with different degrees of fidelity. Some "translations" are not really translations at all but more like running commentaries. Zerotalk 23:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Return Lebanese Military Map

[edit]

One reason why the Shebaa Farms entry is such a mess is that the Lebanese military map from 1966, which was uploaded to wikipedia more than five years ago, was deleted entirely.

As you know, I put that map on the Golan Heights page. In return, not only was the map was deleted from the Golan entry, it was deleted from the Shebaa Farms entry and from Wikipedia itself.

It was quickly deleted on the grounds that it was "redundant", after you argued to keep it.

I have instituted a deletion review. But clearly I'm at a disadvantage here by not knowing all the ins and outs of complex wikipedia protocols.

You seem to want to tell the documented truth, rather than allow hand-waving falsehoods such as that "Syria accepts that the territory is Lebanese" when you know the history is far more complex than that. (Both Lebanon and Syria said the territory was Syria for decades and even today, Assad will not say it is Lebanese territory. That map is critical to showing that the entry on Shebaa Farms implying Syria always accepted it as Lebanese territory is simply not accurate)

Could you please find the deletion review -- which I have not yet found even though I instituted it -- or begin one of your own to get that map back?

Otherwise all I know how to do is send this entire thing to arbitration, because people are using wikiprocedures to bury me.GreekParadise (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreekParadise: I see that you rediscovered the deletion review at WP:Deletion_review#File:1966_Official_Lebanese_Map_of_Shebaa_Farms_and_Syrian_border.png. A quick way would have been to check your own contribs. I'll look at it. Zerotalk 03:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did rediscover it. Thank you.GreekParadise (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for your contribution on the map deletion review page. I really do appreciate it. I do recognize you are acting in good faith, even if we disagree on the proper use of some of the sources. I just want to accurately reflect them.
The UN found the territory to be Lebanese for a good reason, and both Lebanon and Syria have had conflicting positions over the years. I want those positions to be reflected in the article in all their confusing complexity rather than a blanket statement one way or the other which would be simple but inaccurate. And if you can ever find a clear single public statement by the Syrian government actually saying it's Lebanese territory, I would readjust my view on this. Have you ever found one?
To me, the lack of a Syrian public statement is telling, as is the Syrian refusal of the repeated UN requests to demarcate the boundaries. A Syrian official privately told the UN one thing in 2000 while Assad privately said the opposite in 2011. To me, the implication is that Syrian doesn't want to have a public position (that they want to keep the land as Syrian but while Israel occupies it, they can suggest in private but not say in public it's Lebanese territory). Obviously we can't say that. We can only state their position before 2000 that it was Syrian and then state the private indicators and private counter-indicators of their contradictory positions thereafter. It's fine to state the UN said a Syrian official said this and a diplomat said Assad said that while we should also note there does not appear to be a clear Syrian position publicly stated by the Syrian government.~~~ GreekParadise (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a recent discussion and subsequent editing about this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hezbollah_conflict_(2023%E2%80%93present)/Archive_1#Israel's_alleged_occupation_of_Lebanon Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Re: this comment, I'm working on the page killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war, and I would like to ask if you have any reccommendations of WP:BESTSOURCES for this history? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

[edit]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Administrator Noticeboard Notice (October 2024)

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

[edit]

An uninvolved administrator has suggested possible sanctions for your participation on the 1948 Arab–Israeli War article at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. The thread is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nableezy. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Committee clarification or amendment

[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Flamewar at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions over BilledMammal. Thank you. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

[edit]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom

When imposing a contentious topic restriction under the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic, an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the community review standard. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction.

Motion 2b: Word limits

Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the standard set of restrictions within the Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.

Motion 2c: Word limits

All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage.

Motion 5: PIA5 Case

Following a request at WP:ARCA, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the WP:PIA topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:

  • The case title will be Palestine-Israel articles 5.
  • The initial parties will be:
  • Aoidh will be the initial drafter
  • The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added or the complexity of the case warrants additional time for drafting a proposed decision, in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline.
  • All case pages are to be semi-protected.
  • Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to Arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Any links to the English Wikipedia submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.
Addendum

In passing motion #5 to open a Palestine-Israel articles 5 case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: Aoidh, HJ Mitchell, and CaptainEek. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:

The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase.

The related Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy et al request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case opened

[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine-Israel articles 5 updates

[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Palestine-Israel articles 5. The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not sending this yesterday

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Selfstudier. Thank you. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of my Talk comment on “Jewish Voices for Peace”

[edit]

Hello. You removed my comment in the talk section of “Jewish Voices for Peace” stating the criticism that the group has is not actually being Jewish (they non-Jewish members) but use their name to shield themselves from accusations of antisemitism be included in the article’s criticism section. This is a common criticism of the group (see the source I listed) and I don’t see why my comment was removed. Whether you believe this to be true should not be a factor in its inclusion. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@71.179.129.209: You wrote "non-Jews can be members and make up the majority" but the source only says "some of the members of JVP are not Jews at all". Nothing about a majority. The first rule about choosing a source is that it supports the text you want to cite to it. Zerotalk 06:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, remove “majority”. They have been criticized for using “Jewish” in their name to shield themselves from accusations of antisemitism (whether that is a valid criticism is another matter). Seems like something you should reply to my comment instead of deleting. 71.179.129.209 (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1947 vs later

[edit]

Is this just a careless error? or something intentional? I.M.B. (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Metal Brain: I suspect they intended to remove the 1947 case but hit the wrong section link. Zerotalk 05:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but wouldn't they see what they were deleting? They even wrote something explaining it? It would make sense if there was a "delete section" button, but it seems hard to miss? Unless there is an editing tool that does have a delete section button? but editing tools usually auto tag in edit summaries. I.M.B. (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a one-off it's probably nothing. It just seemed like a weird error. I.M.B. (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision of Palestine-Israel articles 5 posted

[edit]

Hi Zero0000, in the open Palestine-Israel articles 5 arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

[edit]

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
  • AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
  • Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
  • WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
  • Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
  • The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
  • The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
  • Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
  • Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.
  • If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

Regarding WP:ARBECR

[edit]

Hello Zero! I have a question that I wish you can answer. You previously encountered me on the MEMRI TV talk page where you deleted my reply to another user (and their reply) named "the odd edit" or something similar. The guideline you cited was WP:ARBECR, which states non Ext-Con editors should only be in talk pages regarding edit requests. That same editor put up a re-edited version of their reply to me as a separate topic and I replied to them about it. My question to you is whether that's also not allowed to reply as an non Extended-confirmed user to topics others started and if I should delete my reply to them.

I ask this because an extended confirmed user replied to them furthering the discussion of the post and id assume they would know whether or not they are allowed to do that.

Sorry for the long winded question, I wish you a good day! AssanEcho (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AssanEcho: Aside from clearly defined edit requests (replace X by Y), non-EC editors are not allowed to write anything on talk pages covered by ARBECR. EC-editors are allowed to delete anything else. Usually we don't delete a non-EC comment if an EC-editor has responded to it, but that doesn't give permission for the non-EC editor to continue the conversation. If this seems anomalous, you aren't completely wrong, but it's the rules. Zerotalk 00:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thank you for the well written answer! I'll cease replying now beyond my edits requests. AssanEcho (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request archived

[edit]

Your recent clarification request has been archived with consensus among participating arbitrators that "strictly within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area" refers to "primary articles" in the area of conflict. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1923 in Mandatory Palestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British Mandate of Palestine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

readded
removed Euryalus

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversighter changes

removed

Technical news

  • Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
  • A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

X as a source for an org's opinion when it comes from the official twitter page

[edit]

You removed a sentence detailing the opinion of an organization, with their official twitter page as a source [1]. Can you tell me why you view X as unreliable, even when it comes directly from the organization in question? DuckOfOrange (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamnotanorange~enwiki: X no longer has a process for verifying the identity of account owners. Per https://help.x.com/en/managing-your-account/about-x-verified-accounts , the main requirement for the blue tick is to pay for it. This means that stuff on X can no longer be assumed to derive from the person or organization whose name appears there. As always, considerations like this are applied more strictly in BLPs than in general articles. Zerotalk 02:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Account ownership is certainly an important consideration, but the linked tweet did come from the official twitter account linked on their official website here and I don’t see any disputes about the ownership of this twitter page. Given that context, it seems clear that this tweet is an official statement. DuckOfOrange (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updating you as a courtesy that I've reinstated the statement WOL made from their official (and uncontested) twitter page. As a backup, I've also listed some lower quality sources, which refer to the statement and do not mention the identity of the twitter page being an issue. If you see any evidence that this twitter page is fake, please let me know. DuckOfOrange (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.adl.org/resources/article/anti-israel-activists-pay-tribute-107-architect-yahya-sinwar-reflecting-pattern

Edah HaChareidis

[edit]

I see you changed the CT template to related content with the note "will comment" but haven't actually commented. I'm not sure which parts aren't related and which are, could you please clarify this? The article is about an anti-Zionist group "who refused to be affiliated in any way with the new Zionist institutions. Inspired by militant anti-Zionist ideology, " and I would have thought the entire article would be covered because of that. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: There isn't any guidance about what fraction of an article has to directly concern PIA before it comes under full PIA coverage, so there are a multitude of boundary cases (hundreds at least). My idea was that this group has more on its mind than Zionism, such as its strict halakhic interpretations, so there is room for non-EC editors to work on the non-PIA bits. But reading the article again I tend to agree with you that the defining characteristic (at least as the article is written) is anti-Zionism so it is ok to treat it as full PIA. I removed "relatedcontent=yes" from the template, so it is now in conformity with your EC-protection. Cheers. Zerotalk 03:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug weller if u wouldn't have reverted the article it would have alot less to do with anti zionism Esotericmadman (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Esotericmadman: To ping someone it does not suffice to add "@" before their name. You have to link to their user page or use one of the many templates that generate a ping, such as {{Re|Esotericmadman}} that I'm using here. The only exception is that writing directly on their user talk page generates a ping automatically. Zerotalk 01:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Yitzchak Sternbuch (February 15)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Zero0000! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not my article, see discussion at User talk:DoubleGrazing. Zerotalk 13:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore content posted on Yad Vashem page

[edit]

No opinions were stated, just facts which anyone can easily verify by visiting the Yad Vashem museum and Web page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emesz (talk • contribs)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).

Administrator changes

removed

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversighter changes

removed AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
  • Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:ValueofTruth

[edit]

@Zero0000:, abovementioned user has made a total of 12 edits (Special:Contributions/ValueofTruth), edits exclusively in the israel palestine area, consistently mislabels his edits as simply adding a source, and refuses to engage at User talk:ValueofTruth. I didn't put up a stink until now bc I felt his edits were constructive, but his recent edit to Michael Dov Weissmandl were written like yellow journalism. I'd like to also point out that all his sources are exclusively to one website. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Esoteric madman 13:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for finding my contributions as constructive, which is what I think they really are. I never mislabel my edits, so your remark has no relevance to me. Your statement regarding my recent edit is very inaccurate. I provided a source from wikipedia itself to prove that Yehuda Brauer has lied in his wild and derogatory claims which are not substantiated in historical evidence regarding Rabbi Weissmandl and his activity to rescue Jews in Europe. I am talking about factual evidence where Brauer lies regarding the number of trains sent from Slovakia during October 1942 and also lies about the fact that it is not being mentioned in Rabbi Weissmandl's book, when it clearly is. There was only one such transport sent on 20 October 1942 which was also the last train, as proved in my source which is based on Wikipedia. That is NOT yellow journalism. Quoting from Rabbi Weissmandl's book who is a holocaust survivor, a direct witness to these events and saved thousands of people from death is NOT yellow journalism. However, to accuse a prominent Rabbi who saved the lives of thousands during the holocaust as if he forged a book without any evidence, just out of spite and sheer hatred, is really antisemitic. Which is exactly what Yehuda Brauer has done. So then please also delete Yehuda Brauer's comment. 202.172.96.148 (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ValueofTruth: @Esotericmadman: First, we don't use Wikipedia as a source. This is a strict policy, see WP:CIRC. Second, in Wikipedia we don't construct arguments of our own to contradict published sources. This is also a strict policy, see WP:NOR. Third, accusing one of the leading Holocaust historians of antisemitism just makes yourself look like a fanatic and can even get you blocked as Prof Bauer is still alive. Fourth, Bauer does not say there were two trains in Oct 1942. He says there were two trains after Yom Kippur, which in that year started at sunset on September 20. I don't have Min HaMetzer, but Fuchs "The Unheeded Cry" quotes Weissmandl as writing "From the day after this Yom Kippur 5703 until the day after Yom Kippur 5705 ... there was respite from the expulsions in Slovakia". So even one train in October contradicts Weissmandl. If there was a transport on Sep 23 (which I can't confirm) it also agrees with Bauer and not with Weissmandl, though only just. Zerotalk 07:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Im glad to see you finally engaging, please be aware that you are not allowed to contribute in the entire Israel Palestine area, broadly construed, that includes any and all contributions regarding zionism and Zionists, and all opinions on the matter. Repeated violations may lead to you being banned from editing. Esoteric madman 09:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Zayit

[edit]

Thank you for the pointer to WP:RSP about jewishvirtuallibrary. I myself noticed that something is fishy with it. So I decided to see how it is cited in WP. Surprisingly external link search tool gives no hits, whereas google search gives a HUGE number of hits. So I have two questions:

@Altenmann: I'm dubious about the utility of clearing all JVL refs at once, but bear in mind that it is fine to do so as they are encountered. The best thing is to replace them by a better source; otherwise choose between deleting the content and adding a tag according to how contentious the material is. When JVL gives a ref it is often easy to go to the ref itself, bypassing JVL. In this case, the actual ref was a tourism site, but such sites have poor reliability, especially for history. In some cases the ref is Encyclopaedia Judaica, which is a reliable source, but you should not assume JVL quoted it accurately. On one occasion JVL cited EJ for something but when I went to EJ to check I found that JVL had silently added some nonsense content in the middle of EJ's text. EJ can be searched at encyclopedia.com. Zerotalk 02:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2025).

Administrator changes

added
readded Dennis Brown
removed

Bureaucrat changes

added Barkeep49

CheckUser changes

added 0xDeadbeef

Oversighter changes

removed GB fan
readded Moneytrees

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2025).

Administrator changes

added Rusalkii
readded NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)
removed

Interface administrator changes

removed Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2025).

Administrator changes

removed

Interface administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef

CheckUser changes

readded L235

Oversight changes

readded L235

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to determine whether the English Wikipedia community should adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and its affiliates.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case named Indian military history has been opened. Evidence submissions for this case close on 8 June.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

[edit]

Hey, Can I ask you something real quick? We’ve got a user on German Wikipedia who’s been using AI a lot since 2022, and in the process has added AI hallucinations into articles. At least one of those articles (Theopathy) was translated into English by the same person. We’re not totally sure yet which other articles might have made-up sources or are affected the same way. Any idea where we should report something like that? Thank you! DaWalda (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DaWalda: There's no perfect place. Try WP:VPMISC with full information including links to the discussion at de.wiki and the username concerned. Zerotalk 02:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might enjoy...

[edit]

...Draft:Antisemitism in social work. Oof. Polygnotus (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing talk page history

[edit]

Concerning the article Antisemitism on Wikipedia, if you have a source stating that the editor was "exonerated" that is not written by the subject themself, you might be able to source the claim you want to add. In fact, ArbCom's finding of fact was that the editor was topic-banned from the topic area for canvassing in 2021 (which is far from being exonerated) and that no evidence of misbehaviour since that time had been presented to the committee. A reminder to that editor about canvassing was repeated as a remedy. G&K's article goes back much farther, obviously, and the ArbCom decision explicitly states that they did not consider all the evidence in the paper, only what was brought forward in evidence as unlikely to be considered "stale". Best, in my opinion, to leave the POV claim out. The Signpost, for example, did not mention any "exoneration" in their write-up of the decision...

It would perhaps be more useful to look into the massive loss of talk page history I've mentioned on the TP. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 20:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SashiRolls:, this is an obvious BLP violation on your part. You can't write that G&K charged that editors "intentionally introduced skewed views and distortions in the encyclopedia's history of the Holocaust", naming Piotrus, and that arbcom ran a case leading to a banning of two editors, without mentioning that arbcom unanimously rejected those charges in Piotrus' case. In fact the older canvassing charge, which is not mentioned in your text, is the only thing that stuck. You are not entitled to second-guess the arbcom decision, and you are not entitled to make a veiled insinuation against a named person on these fatuous grounds. It is a very serious matter to accuse an academic of distorting history. This argument can be moved to a behavior noticeboard if you prefer the role of defendant, but I will not let it rest. Zerotalk 02:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, get your facts straight. I wrote 0 (zero) words of "intentionally introduced skewed views and distortions in the encyclopedia's history of the Holocaust". I also did not introduce Piotrus' name in the article, I removed it, you readded it. The only things I did were remove the claim that Piotrus was "exonerated" by ArbCom which as it stood was only sourced to Piotrus himself, and note that his article was written from the perspective of an involved participant in the dispute. One who incidentally historically defended Glaukopis as an RS, but evolved after the publication of G&K. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 02:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SashiRolls: When you add text to a paragraph you are responsible for its meaning in the context of what is there. So it makes no difference who wrote the sentences before yours. The real name of Piotrus is in the citation, so you only partly removed it and the veiled accusation was still present. You are the one who directly associated Piotrus with G&K's charges, and that is the point of departure here. There was no need to mention arbcom's exoneration until you added the accusation. Neither or both, make your choice. Zerotalk 02:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source cited (Piotrus) states that he was named in G&K. The G&K likewise states that Piotrus was named in G&K. Everyone familiar with the situation knows this. Get TP consensus if you wish to source Piotrus' exoneration to Piotrus' claim he was exonerated when more neutral sources make no such claim. Usually, reminders do not exist without a reason and if you look into the evidence that ArbCom explicitly linked to in FoF #15 search for "potential coordinated editing" concerning notably now-blocked GizzyCatBella, you'll see why the reminder about off-wiki concertation was made. You can also read Piotrus himself mentioning the evolution of his views on Glaukopis. I could find diffs of his older views if necessary, but I think you're smart enough to realize that won't be necessary. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 03:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SashiRolls: Arbcom's ruling is a perfectly reliable source for what arbcom ruled. I don't give a fuck about your personal analysis of Piotrus or his onwiki conduct, so save your breath. What it looks like from your doubling down is that you are intentionally implicating Piotrus in unprofessional behavior. Readers can't even tell from your text that Piotrus wasn't one of the banned editors and the appearance of this on a page called "Antisemitism on Wikipedia" makes it much worse. It is shocking and shameful. And incidentally I do not need a consensus to remove BLP violations. As an administrator it is even my duty. Zerotalk 03:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And hiding the fact that the editor who wrote the source was involved using admin privilege could lead to recall, as could your attitude above. I have made no accusations against anyone, nor have I violated BLP. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 03:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SashiRolls: Is that your best shot? BLP is an exemption to the revert rules for everyone, not just for admins. As an admin, I'd even be entitled to block you or protect the page, see WP:BLPADMINS. I won't do either of those things because it isn't my style, but I will never accept this obvious violation that you are so insistent on including. Zerotalk 04:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not my "best shot". I'm going to walk away from the table and wish you a good day. That's a pretty good shot isn't it? FWIW: I do not believe that Piotrus' wears a "black hat" as you put it on page 10 of his article (either really or metaphorically) in real life, though he certainly has been known to do so online. (I've even taken a screenshot of it in case I should be challenged on this point.) ^_^ -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 04:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

tb

[edit]

See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/False accusations of antisemitism. Polygnotus (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2025).

Administrator changes

removed NuclearWarfare

Interface administrator changes

added L235

Guideline and policy news

Miscellaneous

  • The 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
  • Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and FYI

[edit]

I just noticed the interplay of edits at Antisemitism on Wikipedia that mention me, and that you were involved there. Thanks for trying to ensure this topic area is NPOV. I noticed one technical error, which I fixed now. Amusingly, I was not aware I have a pl wikipedia article - nobody told me about it :D Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

see User talk:Gjb0zWxOb#August 2025

[edit]

The editor is appealing my block saying their edits were justified. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry if I was not clear in my appeal. I provided my rationale at the time of making the edits and my justification for them at the time. I do not think that they are justified now, which is why I did not pursue them after being persuaded by other editors such as Zero as to why. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, you seem to have seen the problems. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: I'm "involved" in PIA, so I shouldn't play admin for this. Cheers. Zerotalk 23:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that's ok. Doug Weller talk 07:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2025).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
  • Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

grid-numbers

[edit]

When I inset the numbers for Al-Majdal, Suwayda into

I get 28191 for Palestine 1923 / Palestine Grid?

What am I doing wrong?

cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: 28191 is just the index number for the grid, not a coordinate. Probably I don't understand the question. Zerotalk 23:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My question is then: how do you get from the index number for the grid, to the grid-numbers? Huldra (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: There is an Input coordinate system and an Output coordinate system shown. That URL takes you to a page with Input=PalGrid and Output=WGS(Lat+Long). If you click "Swap" you will have Input=WGS and Output=PalGrid. In either case, type numbers into the input box, click "Transform", then numbers will appear in the output box.
Hints: For PalGrid you need units of meters, which means 6 digits. For Lat and Long you can enter a single number of degrees, or you can enter degrees minutes seconds with spaces between (no need for the degree symbol). Zerotalk 08:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, after a bit of testing and failing, I finally managed it! (I think...), cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA EC Protection Based on your subpage list of articles

[edit]

Hi, I was looking at edit requests and saw that one of the requests was due to a page being ECP and it took me to your RFPP where you posted a link to pages that had an edit notice but not protection and you also noted that pages should generally not be protected if only a small portion is relating to the IP conflict. However, I found pages that had zero mention of the conflict yet were ECP. I don't think we should be locking down articles when it's just, for example, a page about an Israeli Arab village or town. Take Kafr_Manda for example. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: I made that list by an automatic process that used evidence such as the presence of talk page notices. I didn't actually look at the pages, which is something an admin should do before applying protection. There are lots of boundary cases. In the case of Kafr Manda, it is in the list because there is an ARBPIA notice on the talk page, which was added by an admin here. There is a section of the page which is clearly ARBPIA. I would judge it to be in the partial coverage category, but the notice is of the full coverage type. Note that such notices may only be removed by admins. I don't think there is a technical option of protecting only part of a page. Zerotalk 01:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the end result is that many pages are protected that don't need to be. I don't know if it's a big deal or not. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph: The arbitration committee ruled in its last PIA case that EC-protection should be the default state for every PIA article. That leaves unsolved the problem of how to decide whether particular articles are included and it is of course true that there are many unclear examples. Zerotalk 01:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2025).

Administrator changes

readded Euryalus
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

readded AmandaNP
removed SQL

Oversight changes

readded AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
  • An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation of a seemingly concluded RfC

[edit]

Hello.

Since you are an administrator and have displayed some interest in the page in question, would you be interested in evaluating a seemingly concluded RfC, which has lasted for over a month with a 47 to 27 vote in favour of the change, or would that be inappropriate? David A (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David A: According to policy, I am not allowed to act as administrator in parts of Wikipedia where I am active as an editor. For me that includes all pages related to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Zerotalk 08:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. No problem, and my apologies for being a bother. The RfC seems to be in danger of being ignored to death though, despite seemingly being concluded. David A (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how we should get the RfC properly evaluated? David A (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David A: I made a request at WP:ANI. Zerotalk 07:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help. David A (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

[edit]
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 11:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFAA

[edit]

Hi there, multiple groups of editors are at an impasse on Talk:Gaza genocide#No more mass removals of text please. If you could please leave feedback on your view of our dispute that would be greatly appreciated. The subject originally came up in Talk:Gaza genocide#Template review for context. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandraaaacs1989: See my response there. Zerotalk 12:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2025).

Administrator changes

removed

CheckUser changes

removed Vanamonde93

Arbitration

  • After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zero0000&oldid=1315777338"