User talk:Zero0000/2017
Alert on anti-Semitic propaganda wasn't an advertisment
editThe message I posted was an attempt to warn editors about people who claim Israel somehow had sinister motives in their effort to rescue Yemeni Jews from persecution in their homeland. It was not an "advertisement," and was an effort to make editors aware of unreliable sources on the subject. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- @DanTD: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and talk pages are for discussing article improvement only, not for discussing the subject of the article or for warning people about anything. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for the official guideline. I wasn't attempting to impugn your motives (apologies if it seemed that way) but the fact is that posting about unsavory web sites serves more to publicise them than to refute them. Linking to them even moves them up search engine metrics, so they are more likely to come up in google searches. The only situation in which such a website should be mentioned on Wikipedia at all would be if someone tried to use it as a source in an article. Zerotalk 00:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- I get what you're saying, and as long as you know about my motives, we're cool. Also, I did see the Yemenite Children Affair link in the "Critiques" chapter after I posted this. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Question – Samaria?
editHello Zero, I wanted to ask a question. My sources for many things are usually Hebrew or Israeli. I am now adding info to articles about the 1948 war and in many cases they mention the Samaria region. Is there a parallel English name to Samaria or that's how you call the region in English?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Bolter21: Samaria is the name used in English. It isn't used all that often though, except in situations where precision is not important. The traditional boundaries seen on old maps, the district of that name under the British mandate, and the northern part of the West Bank are all called Samaria but all differ quite a lot from each other. Zerotalk 00:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, so it meens I can continue to assume that when I read Samaria in Hebrew (in the context of geography) it is means in English, the northern part of the central hill region, from north of Jerusalem to Mt. Gilboa and the Jezreel Valley.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
- NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
- Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
- A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
- Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
- Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
- When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
- Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
- The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
- The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.
- JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Diff 765225615
edit> Please don't make changes to policy pages without discussion. Copyright is out of place here. (Zero0000)
Policy rationale needs to be mentioned somewhere. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Erkinalp9035: According to long established practice, non-trivial edits to policy pages should be discussed first. That usually means starting a discussion on the corresponding talk page, or perhaps on WP:VPP. Personally I cannot understand the meaning of what you added, and if someone who has been an administrator for more than 12 years can't understand it what chance does an ordinary editor have? Copyright considerations are not the rationale for the part of the policy that you added a footnote to. Zerotalk 12:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2017
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).
- Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
- Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi
- A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
- AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
- Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
- The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.
- A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
- Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
- A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Beyt Nattif
edit1. There are two Netofot (Netofa in the plural) mentioned in the Bible. One indeed is in the Galilee, the other clearly labeled as "near Bethlehem" in the Midrash. Unsourced? I provided the exact Midrashic reference (as well as Biblical and Talmudic references, including chapters and pages). Do you even read Hebrew? If not, I request that you verify this with someone who can.
2. II Chronicles 2:54 states (in the classic English translation): "The sons of Salma: Bethlehem, and the Netophathites, Atroth-beth-joab, and half of the Manahathites, the Zorites." This is the origin of the name places of 1) Bethlehem, 2) Netofa (in Hebrew = נטופתי = Netofati = someone from a place that would be pronounced either as Netofa or Netof), 3) Atarot (exact location unknown, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataroth), and 4) Manahat (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malha) and Zorah (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorah). With the exception of the unclear location of Ataroth, all the others are, as stated in the Midrash, in the Bethlehem area. Not the Galilee.
3. Regarding the Semitic root n-t-f, I would cite as a reference "A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature" by Marcus Jastrow, Ph.D. Litt.D., the classic source on the subject, originally published in Philadelphia in 1903 by the Jewish Publication Society of America, page 898 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Jastrow).
Zozoulia (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zozoulia: I am moving this discussion to the article talk page. Zerotalk 01:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC) @Zero0000: Thanks, but I already did that. Zozoulia (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Police stations
editDear Zero you have helped in the past identifying police stations. I think I may have got in to a mess with photos I have added to the Safed, Biriyya, Biriyya Fort pages. Where was/is Mount Canaan? Were there two police stations? One seen from Mount Canaan and one seen in the common view of Safed. If they are the same building where is Biriyya? What to make of the aerial view of Mount Canaan? Any suggestions gratefully received. Padres Hana (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Padres Hana: Mount Canaan is the large rise to the NE of Safad. See J. KA'NAN (J=Jebel) on this map circa 1940. Also on that map you can see a rectangle labeled "Adm. offices" just to the right of Safed — that was the government and police offices. To get a closer look, go to NLI and select the map "19-26.45-52". (Won't work in Safari, use Firefox.) You can see from there approximately how it should look in photos. I didn't figure out "Birya Fortress" yet. It was supposed to be on Mount Canaan but I don't see it on the map. Maybe it was too recent. The coords at Birya Fortress point to near the spot marked "909" above "Sh. Rabi". I'll check that out more later. Zerotalk 02:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Padres Hana: Yes, Birya Fortress is at the point marked "909". There are a few photos at Google maps. Zerotalk 07:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- Many thanks. None of the Biriyya identifications were right. The aerial of Mount Canaan is still a puzzle. A trip to the Map Library is called for. Padres Hana (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2017
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).
- TheDJ
- Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott
- Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
- The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
- An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
- After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.
- After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
- Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
The general 1RR restriction in ARBPIA
editUser:Zero0000, I wanted to thank-you for explaining to me the new guidelines. Indeed, there is some ambiguity over the new edict, as its wording currently stands. Is this to imply that all new edits made since 26 December 2016 in Palestine-Israel articles can be deleted by editors, and they can challenge the editors who put them there in the first place, without the first editors restoring their edits until a new consensus has been reached? If so, you open the door for "abusive editing," that is to say, the new guidelines allow editors to freely delete areas in articles based on their sole judgment and conviction and which edits had earlier been agreed upon by consensus, and that such changes will remain in force until such a time that a new consensus can be reached. As you noted, this can be problematic. The second ambiguity is whether or not the new guidelines also apply to reverts made in articles where a consensus had already been reached before 26 December 2016, or do they only apply to reverts made after 26 December 2016? To avoid future problems arising from this new edict, can I make this one suggestion, namely, that the new guidelines in Palestine-Israel articles be amended to read with this addition: "Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense, or where abuses arise over reverts made in an article where a consensus had already been reached before or after the edict of 26 December 2016 took effect, such editors make themselves liable to disciplinary actions, including blocking. (This might help solve some of the ambiguity involved in the new edict). Sincerely, Davidbena (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: There is a slow-moving discussion on this at WP:ARCA. As you will see, there are too many opinions and counter-opinions. Zerotalk 15:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Question
editUser:Zero0000, since you are an administrator, I wanted to ask you about the propriety of another editor's edit, someone who took an entire Wikipedia article that I created, entitled Roger D. Craig, and made it into a Redirect, which directs one unto the Trial of Clay Shaw, as you can see [here]. Anyone who searches for Roger D. Craig will not normally think to search for him in an article treating on Clay Shaw, but would first search under Roger's own name. I find it very strange that anyone would do this. Was this action actually called-for or warranted, and is there not sufficient notability on this one man to warrant a separate article on himself? No explanation for the Redirect was given in that editor's edit and move. What should I do?Davidbena (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- To editor Mangoe: @Davidbena: When changing an article into a redirect in a way that makes a significant amount of content disappear, one has to either move the content to somewhere visible or make a case that the content is not appropriate for Wikipedia at all (for example, that it fails WP:V or WP:DUE). In this case the content seems to be sufficient that removing it from Wikipedia needs an AfD. I'm not passing judgement on the quality of the content, just that it deserves better than silent deletion. Zerotalk 00:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Have it your way....
Nomination of Roger D. Craig for deletion
editA discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roger D. Craig is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger D. Craig until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mangoe (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- User:Mangoe, User:Zero0000, I noticed where an administrator closed the discussion on the article Roger D. Craig, and has decided to merge it with the "Clay Shaw trial." See [1]. My question to you is whether or not the decision to close the discussion may have been a little too premature, seeing that there was no consensus to merge the article? The results of the discussion were these: 3 people wanted to merge it, 3 people wanted to keep it, while only 2 people suggested that it be deleted. How then did the administrator decide to merge it without a clear consensus?Davidbena (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Family law in Mandatory Palestine
editHi, sorry if this is the wrong place for contacting you. I'm quite new to editing. I was wondering whether you would support the creation of a separate article for Family law in Mandatory Palestine, which would cover both legislation and practices, seeing as the information is equally relevant to Marriage in Israel and Marriage in the Palestinian territories. Cheers --ארינמל (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- @ארינמל: Yes, it would be a good topic for an article. But what can be used as sources? It is against policy to base articles primarily on primary sources, though cautious quotation of primary sources is ok. Zerotalk 12:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose any sources after 1948 would qualify as secondary, few as those may be (Law and Identity in Mandate Palestine,Marriage, Divorce, and Succession in the Druze Family,Islamic Law in Palestine and Israel). Would hindsight commentary in primary sources (for instance an official description of the situation prior to a certain ordinance or reprinting of information from previous years) also be considered primary or would it qualify as secondary?--ארינמל (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2017
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).
- Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
- Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight
- An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
- Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.
- You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
- There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
- Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)
- Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
ARCA
editIn accordance with your clarification request (archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Clarification request: ARBPIA3 (May 2017)), the PIA 1RR restriction has been amended by motion. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 00:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Jordan Lead Codices
editThat was so blatant and serious a BLP violation I rev/del'd it myself, but as I've been editing the article haven't protected it but requested protection at WP:RPP. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2017
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).
- Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
- ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned
- An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
- Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
- An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.
- Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.
- Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.
Urgent Intervention
editUrgent intervention: On 26 December 2016, Wikipedia's WP:ARCA ratified a new amendment affecting all articles broadly construed with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, making all newly deleted content subject to consensus before it can be restored. But, as you can see by my edit made on 16 June 2017, where the word "illegal" was deleted (see edit), since it did not apply to settlements around Husan, User:Huldra followed in suit by responding in a questionable manner, (see edit), deleting this time valid content, knowing that she can hardly be held accountable in Palestinian-Israeli related articles after the ratification of the new amendment, although, in actuality, what she did is considered WP:Gaming the system. Another edit that can clearly be construed as "Gaming the system" is that of User:nableezy, whose recent edit on the Urif article deliberately caused valid sources to be deleted, those sources which showed that, by one account, no Israeli had set fire to a field, and that it had been set ablaze by somebody else, perhaps even unintentionally. See edit. He deleted what was "balanced" reporting, to make Israelis appear as the sole culprits. What disciplinary measures can be taken against this phenomenon, to assure that we maintain a basis of cordial collaborative editing, and without abusing the system?Davidbena (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have just learned that the need to gain consensus before restoring a deleted edit has been removed. So, my concerns were unfounded. See Modification.Davidbena (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Ginsburgh
editHi -- you might not have seen this -- the editor didn't succeed in notifying you as intended. I'm getting pretty frustrated: the editor wants to remove academic sources and use crap like this... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Question
editIf I wanted to address a question about Wikipedia policy to an administrator and how it might apply to Wikipedia articles, what is the best way (channel) for me to do this?---Davidbena (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: Depending on the nature of the question, there might be an appropriate noticeboard, like WP:RSN for reliability of sources, WP:NPOV/N for neutrality, WP:BLPN for articles on living people, WP:NORN for original research. About particular incidents, WP:ANI. Discussions on policy, WP:VPP. You can also ask a particular administrator on their talk page but they may choose to not be helpful. It is considered bad form to ask in multiple places at once, or at one place after another until you get an answer you like. Zerotalk 20:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, that was helpful. Thanks!Davidbena (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2017
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).
- The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.
- Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding
?fuzzy=1
to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term. - A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.
- Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding
- A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
- A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
- Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Aden riots
editIf I remember correctly, you said you were going to expend and give citations to the 1947 Aden riots article, so it is about time to remove all of these [citation needed].--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- You remember correctly, but I'm travelling far from home for a few months. Zerotalk 21:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Question
editI opened-up a RfC on the Husan Talk-Page, on 17 June 2017, but one of our fellow co-editors came along and put part of that section into a collapsible window, calling it "Other discussions" (See: [2]). Was he within his bounds for doing so, since the discussions were all relevant to the section? Secondly, who is qualified for closing the discussion?---Davidbena (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Your Recent Delete on "Hebron" and "Cave of the Patriarchs"
editUser:Zero0000, If I might cordially ask you, what did you see as a "falsehood" in the category, prompting you to delete it?Davidbena (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: David, Hebron is not in Israel. It is a fact even according to Israel. You are wasting your time trying to convince everyone of your political opinions. Please stop it. Zerotalk 21:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Zero0000:, Israel is also a country historically defined as such in the Midrash and Mishnah (compiled in 189 CE). Saying that a place (Hebron) is in the Land of Canaan, Judea, Palestine, the Land of Israel, the Holy Land, or whatever, is NOT necessarily a political statement, as it is a historical statement. It just so happens that the Government of Israel calls the country by its historical name. Had the Wikipedia article been titled "World Heritage Sites in the State of Israel," your argument may have held up, insofar as that is disputed. But, historically, there is no dispute whatsover about this fact. If UNESCO wanted to politicize something, does that mean that we, on Wikipedia, must also politicize the same thing?Davidbena (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: I'm not convinced by that. I interpretted the category name the same way as the great majority of readers would interpret it. We must not use categories which trick lots of readers into believe something different from what is intended. Zerotalk 09:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- But even if you should say that "Israel" refers to the modern State of Israel, after all, that is exactly how the Modern State of Israel is portrayed in this country. The entire country, included places captured in 1967, are portrayed as the State of Israel. So, it is disputed between the western media and the government of Israel. In reality, however, it is governed by Israel. Perhaps you can add there an asterisk, showing that the region is disputed. That will solve the problem.Davidbena (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: I'm not convinced by that. I interpretted the category name the same way as the great majority of readers would interpret it. We must not use categories which trick lots of readers into believe something different from what is intended. Zerotalk 09:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: Nobody will understand the meaning of an asterisk, and I wouldn't agree to that even if they did. Please tell me exactly when Israel annexed the West Bank. It needs a law to be passed by the Knesset, like there was a law for East Jerusalem and a law for the Golan. Which law and when? If you can't do that, you should stop making this claim. Zerotalk 17:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- You're either playing ignorant, my friend, or being quite disingenuous in your statements. You know, just as well as I know, that a country needs NOT to formally annex a captured territory for it to be annexed. There is a thing called "de facto annexation" (as opposed to "de jure annexation"), and this is well-documented in peer-review journals, some of which I've posted on the Husan Talk-Page. Do you think Israel will invest millions of $US to build cities and to improve the infrastructure in the so-called "West Bank" if it were only to relinquish its hold of this territory at some future date, the historical and ancestral home of Israel? You must be dreaming.Davidbena (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- So you can't meet my challenge. Incidentally, there is no such thing as "de facto annexation" in international law, even though some authors use that phrase to describe situations which have some similarities to annexation but aren't actually annexation. There is nobody who believes "de facto annexation" is the opposite of "occupation". Zerotalk 18:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Have you not considered that "international law" objects to even "de jure annexation," as in the case of Israel's hold over Jerusalem!? How much more then will it object to "de facto annexation," which basically means that their objection is based on biased political grounds, not necessarily any juridical legitimacy that is binding upon parties to a suit. However, this does not mean that "de facto" doesn't exist. It does exist! Even the US does not adhere to international law (case in point, Syria) when it serves its better interests; neither does China adhere to international law (which is not binding), per its claim on man-made islands in the South China Sea, nor does Russia accept international law per its claim on Crimea. You see, you have put too much credibility on "international law," and have ignored more common forms of handling disputes and conflicts, id est, expediency. In short, per Meir Shamgar's argument, there is no such thing as "occupation" in terms of Israel's hold of territories captured in 1967. Davidbena (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- So you can't meet my challenge. Incidentally, there is no such thing as "de facto annexation" in international law, even though some authors use that phrase to describe situations which have some similarities to annexation but aren't actually annexation. There is nobody who believes "de facto annexation" is the opposite of "occupation". Zerotalk 18:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- You're either playing ignorant, my friend, or being quite disingenuous in your statements. You know, just as well as I know, that a country needs NOT to formally annex a captured territory for it to be annexed. There is a thing called "de facto annexation" (as opposed to "de jure annexation"), and this is well-documented in peer-review journals, some of which I've posted on the Husan Talk-Page. Do you think Israel will invest millions of $US to build cities and to improve the infrastructure in the so-called "West Bank" if it were only to relinquish its hold of this territory at some future date, the historical and ancestral home of Israel? You must be dreaming.Davidbena (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: Nobody will understand the meaning of an asterisk, and I wouldn't agree to that even if they did. Please tell me exactly when Israel annexed the West Bank. It needs a law to be passed by the Knesset, like there was a law for East Jerusalem and a law for the Golan. Which law and when? If you can't do that, you should stop making this claim. Zerotalk 17:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Elpeleg
editHi Zero0000,
Would you be close to your books ?
If so, could you please check if these sentences can be found in Elpeleg p.162 :
- For many years, Hajj Amin had been the central figure at extra-governmental Islamic congresses. At the 1974 Lahore gathering, however, Yassir Arafat, a new Palestinian leader took the spotlight.
I have some dbouts and I can't unfortunately check myself. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Pluto2012: The first sentence is a quote and the second isn't. Not too bad as a summary though. I'll email you the surrounding paragraphs (prob. too much to post here). Zerotalk 10:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Many thanks! (I have problems with emails).
- Is the meaning that Hajj Amin was a kind of leader at these different congresses and that starting 1974 Arafat in a way took over from him ?
- That doesn't seem to comply with the idea that :
- Husseini had lost any credit after ~ 1960
- Arafat grew independently from Husseini
- Pluto2012 (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Right, the two sentences alone make it sound like 1974 was a sudden turning point. But the book section as a whole describes a decline in Husayni's influence over a much longer period. I have the book on computer, but how can I get it to you? Zerotalk 20:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Zero0000,
- Thank you for your help.
- I will h&ve access to my emails in 48 hours.
- So if you sent this to me by emails that's great.
- Pluto2012 (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Pluto2012: I don't use the same email address as earlier, and wikipedia mail doesn't allow attachments. Please send me wikipedia mail and I'll reply to it with the book attached. It is 6.5mb. The extract I sent before isn't really enough. Zerotalk 20:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Zero0000,
- If you remember I had another usnername in the past : C _ _ _ J _ _
- You can email mail at [email protected].
- Thank you !
- Pluto2012 (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2017
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).
- Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
- Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem
- Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
- A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
- An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.
- LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
- The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.
Your Recent Edit in Khirbet al-Keifa
editYes, that is what I meant to say. I suppose it's a problem in translating the name "Sha'arayim," which literally means "two gates," or what others might incorrectly call "double gates." Anyway, thanks for the correction.Davidbena (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Beth-zur
editUser:Zero0000, shalom. It's interesting that you noted that there were two separate identifications for Beth-zur, the two places being, as you said, 300 meters apart. I don't know who wrote this article and who supplied its information, but I would think that, in terms of city location, anything within the radius of 300 meters would be in the realm of accuracy, and perhaps could be considered the "same place," technically speaking. Often times, old ruins are found outside a newer town that carries its old namesake.Davidbena (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC) @Davidbena: Yes, they are essentially the same place, but it was necessary to say why the article mentioned both places without explanation. Zerotalk 15:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Seems relevent for the 1917 Tel Aviv expulsion
editThe 1917 Expulsion of Tel Aviv’s Jews, Seen Through Turkish Eyes - Nir Hasson - Haaretz. I call it "expulsion" cause that's what I remember from school. By the way the 1947 Aden riots still need some improvment.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Bolter21: Thanks. Ben-Bassat and Halevy wrote a paper on it: A tale of two cities and one telegram: The Ottoman military regime and the population of Greater Syria during WWI, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2016.1246240 . If you don't have access but would like to read it, send me mail and you'll get it. Zerotalk 02:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2017
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).
- Nakon • Scott
- Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee
- ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
- Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.
- You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
- Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
- In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.
- Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Invitation to Admin confidence survey
editHello,
Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.
The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.
To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.
We really appreciate your input!
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2017
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).
- Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
- Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box
- Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
- Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.
- You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.
- Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
- A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
One source say it was founded inside a British army base.Did the British Army confiscated the land from nearby village?--Shrike (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Shrike: I wasn't able to confirm that there was a British camp exactly at the kibbutz site, but such things were sometimes omitted from maps. The Sidney Smith Barracks were 2km SW away on the coast and there was an airfield 2km SE. The article should mention that the Shraga Camp (headquarters of the Golani Brigade) is just across the road. Zoom in here and see what is blurred. Zerotalk
- Thanks according to this [3] Shraga and Kibutz first buildings is the remnants of the same British military site --Shrike (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. at any time by removing the
Onceinawhile (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I changed my email address. I'll reply soon. Zerotalk 07:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. at any time by removing the
Huldra (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. at any time by removing the
Speedy deletion nomination of File:ShawMinutes.pdf
editA tag has been placed on File:ShawMinutes.pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2017
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).
- Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
- Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
- A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.
- Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
- Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.
- The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
ANI Experiences survey
editThe Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.
Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2017
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).
- Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.
- Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
- A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.
- Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.
- Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
- The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
editHello, Zero0000. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
editHappy Holidays | |
Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC) |