User talk:Zero0000/2020
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Need Your Help
Hi Zero0000,
Happy New year and wish you a prosperous 2020,
As I see you work on pages about local historical places I dare to pose my question. I used to create pages about some small historical places of my country, Iran, but I had to stop because they were locally and failed notability.This was also true for the articles which existed in Wikipedia:Persian and i translated it into English. I wonder if I can use your advice on how to continue that? Thank you.Alex-h (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Alex-h: Hi, can you tell me some examples? I can see them even if they were deleted. Zerotalk 13:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Zero0000, it’s very kind of you accepting to help me with my edits. These are the articles I had problem with. Fortunately, none was deleted but all stayed in draft for sometimes.
Minaret Kabir, I had real problem finding sources outside its local circle.
Map of Iran in Afsharid Era. Although it existed in Persian Wikipedia but they put it in AFD, fortunately survived.
Alliance School, Tehran, stayed in draft for one month for not having enough sources.
Alliance School, Kermanshah, Stayed four months in draft.
Xerxes I's inscription at Van, another editor worked on it and improve it.
At last fear of having deleted articles made me to give in. I stopped creating these articles. I hope you can help me. I do appreciate that you are putting your time and efforts on this. Alex-h (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Onceinawhile (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).
|
|
- A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
- A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
- Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.
- The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being
the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted
rather thanreasonably construed
. - Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.
- The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being
- This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!
Recuest
Good evening I am a bengali wikipedian and trying to translate Aslo accord article in Bangla. But there is a security issue and I can't copy the html text of this article to translate. Can you send me the copy of full html text in my gmail id? My gmail id is here Sorghum 14:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by প্রলয়স্রোত (talk • contribs)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).
|
|
- Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
- The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with
wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input
. No proposed process received consensus.
- Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
- When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title.
- Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators
that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
- Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators
- Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!
Abel's book
On vol. 2, page 301, there is supposed to be a "Tell esh Shammām" or "Tel esh-Shamam". Can you tell me what is written there about the site?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).
- Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops
must not
undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather thanshould not
. - A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
- Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops
- Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
- Following the 2020 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: BRPever, Krd, Martin Urbanec, MusikAnimal, Sakretsu, Sotiale, and Tks4Fish. There are a total of seven editors that have been appointed as stewards, the most since 2014.
- The 2020 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Ajraddatz and Uzoma Ozurumba; they will serve for one year.
1979–80 Shia uprising in Iraq
Hi, due to your interest in Middle Eastern history, you are welcome to contribute to the newly created 1979–80 Shia uprising in Iraq article.GreyShark (dibra) 12:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Propose changes to articles
Please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Changes_to_many_pages I would like your opinion. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Re canvassing
Hello. I have just seem the message you left on my personal Talk page regarding canvassing. I assume it is referring to the messages I recently left on the Talk pages of the users Shrike and Tritomex. I was not sure whether this was canvassing, and I have also received messages from other editors requesting my input on pages (to address recent edits) or regarding discussions. On the canvassing page, two instances of appropriate notification listed include notifying: "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" and "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". .Thus seems to apply to the twi editors I notified. Was the issue perhaps in the way in which I wrote my messages (in which I included the objections I had had with the edits in question (rather than characterizing the issue more neutrally)? If my recent messages were canvassing, what should I now do? Is the appropriate course action to delete the messages, or should I do something else? Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Linking to crappy articles
Hey Zero,
I just noticed you reverted my edits liking a couple pages to The Stone of Losses. I understand your reasoning, it really is a crappy article, but I'm just trying to de-orphan it. I was hoping that by linking it to higher trafficked (and relevant) articles, it would receive some attention and hopefully provoke an expert on the subject (which I am not) to get it properly researched and sourced. Is this misguided? Mbdfar (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Mbdfar: I don't think there is a firm rule about this situation. My general approach is to consider the experience of the readers, rather than of the editors. The hope is that a reader who clicks on a "see also" link will come to an article with more reliable information related to the subject, but I don't think that is the case here. I think that even the association of the "stone of the strayers" with the Temple Mount is conjectural, since the primary mention in the Mishna does not say where it is. (My amateur reading is that the story of Honi implies that the stone was not on the mount, see page 398; if they were on the mount already, they wouldn't have to go somewhere else to look at it.) Actually the most efficient way to get action on an article is to list it for deletion; that was done once before but the case was closed prematurely with little benefit to the article. Zerotalk 10:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Descendant of refugees, UNHCR vs UNRWA
Can you please point to where in the document that you mentioned on the talk page does it mention the definition of refugees? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).
|
|
- There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.
- There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a
Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment
. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
- Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a
- The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
About PEF survey
I am using the PEF survey for reference in articles about archaeological sites. Is there a place where I can see in what timeframe each of the sheets was studied? I want to write exactly when these places were visited because some of them were for a time small hamlets made of mudbricks and these settlements don't always have a permanent nature.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Israel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transjordan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

- Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
- Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
- A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
- A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.
- The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
- Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.
- A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.
Ain Jalut
I'm guessing I don't have to explain BRD to you. Your bold addition that I reverted and you reinstated is, by your own admission, part of ARBPIA. So, please self revert and follow the usual process. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 05:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Levivich: There was nothing bold about my edit. It was a perfectly normal act of article improvement. This is an article about a place and you claim that it is trivia that there used to be a village there; that's simply nonsense. It was your deletion that was bold (and unjustified). BRD is not a policy and ARBPIA does not mandate discussion before reverted content is reinserted. That rule was removed in the last ARBPIA arbcom case. Zerotalk 05:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm speechless that you are saying your addition wasn't the "bold" part of BRD but my reversion was, or that you don't have to follow BRD because it's not a policy. And
ARBPIA does not mandate discussion before reverted content is reinserted
?? The WP:ONUS policy is what mandates that. It's currently 2-1 opposed to the addition in the talk page thread I started. You're arguing that this content is covered by a DS area while simultaneously ignoring our policies. I ask you a second time to self revert and follow our normal editing procedures. You need consensus before you can re-add the content per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 05:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm speechless that you are saying your addition wasn't the "bold" part of BRD but my reversion was, or that you don't have to follow BRD because it's not a policy. And
Let me get this straight: At 03:33, 5 May 2020, you added some disputed content to the article, which was subsequently removed. At 03:46, 5 May 2020 , you logged this ARBPIA notice to the article's talk page - That notice clearly says "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert". Then, at 05:00, 5 May 2020 you restored the content that was removed by Levivich, directly violating the restriction that you yourself added to the page, and are now claiming doesn't apply? I think WP:AE should be the next step here. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I actually think SPI is the next move, I'll start working on that. nableezy - 23:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Nableezy, who do you think is a sock this time? Sir Joseph (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you watch Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100 you can find out for yourself. nableezy - 00:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Nableezy, who do you think is a sock this time? Sir Joseph (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Did you know this beauty?
this beauty.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Bolter21: Yes, I know it. A large amount of work went into that site. I don't use it much because I have all the maps and more on my computer, but still the search function is useful when I can't find something. Zerotalk 03:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I started the Survey Department of Palestine article – it would be a good place to list all the notable series of maps produced during the mandate, and to explain why the 1:20,000 and the 1:100,000 are the most important. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have also started to organize the maps we have at commons - I have put all the ones I can find at commons:Category:Survey Department of Palestine maps. Pinging @Padres Hana: who was good enough to upload many of these. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- I started the Survey Department of Palestine article – it would be a good place to list all the notable series of maps produced during the mandate, and to explain why the 1:20,000 and the 1:100,000 are the most important. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Bolter21: Yes, I know it. A large amount of work went into that site. I don't use it much because I have all the maps and more on my computer, but still the search function is useful when I can't find something. Zerotalk 03:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Ein Qiniya
I can’t find the “thank” button but thx for rectifying my oversight here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Qiniya
Also, since OETA was not set up yet, how would you characterize the type of governance the city was under at that point? Martial law? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Difficult edit
Re: Belt and Road
Copyvios: so do I, I take breaches of BLP seriously too. I can also see an editwar that needs to be nipped in the bud.
It appears that we have an editor that intended to point to an article (of dubious use) who used the wrong syntax He was then hammered (breach of AGF) by an editor with an extreme POV. Ignoring the impolite message you sent me, you have the tools to sort this out- can you ammend the edit so a link to the reference remains, and the copyvio is zapped. Can you watch this article, and if necessary put on protection- the talk page also need watching. Looking at the section that is disrespectful to a politician- using your powers can you moderate the language in the H2. Thank you for being so speedy in you action. ClemRutter (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Can I ask you for opinion?
thanks GizzyCatBella🍁 15:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Antisemitism in Poland: Motion (May 2020)
The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) 500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.
- Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by the methods mentioned above.
- Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area.
Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
For the arbitration committee, Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 20:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL
- A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
- The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.
Nablusi soap
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nabulsi_soap&action=history
Just because nationalistic, why not just reword description then? Especially if the sources are good.
I am not trying to promote viewpoint here; I usually try to edit (and love) by “less is more” concept. But again, if sources are good, I believe commentary on sources should be rephrased, rather than altogether omitted Zarcademan123456 (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Zarcademan123456: This type of discussion should be on the article talk page. The only possible mention of Israelites is in the Hebrew source, as the other sources here don't mention Israelites. I checked. I can't fix text based on a source I can't access, and it can't stay like it is because it says "were used in soap production, known as potash" which is simply false (potash cannot be used as soap). Soap production in the Middle East long predated Israelites anyway, so why is this insertion here at all? I still think it looks like a standard type of nationalistic push. If the ancient history of soap making is to be covered, it should be done in a balanced fashion. Both of the other sources (Abu Rabia and Cohen, which are good and should be cited) are about soap production in Islamic Palestine but the text makes it sound like Israelites are still being discussed. Zerotalk 10:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

