User talk:Mhhossein/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Hey...

If you have AWB laying around, please dust it off and crank it up! ;)

We have a growing backlog!

There are now 538 portals. Of those, 52 are of the new design.

Many of the new portals are orphaned or near orphaned, and need links pointing to them:

1. A portal link at the bottom of corresponding navigation footer template. E.g., Template:Machines for Portal:Machines. See examples of a portals link at the bottom of Template:Robotics and Template:Forestry.
2. A {{Portal}} box in the See also section of the corresponding root article for each portal. If there is no See also section, create one and place the portal template in that. (Rather than placing them in an external links section -- they're not external links).
3. A {{Portal}} template placed at the top of the category page corresponding to each portal.

To make a list of corresponding templates, you can use AWB's make list feature to make a list of the pages in

. That will give you a list of templates to work on. Then you set skip in AWB to skip the ones that already have the portal link.

To make a list of corresponding root articles, make a list of portal links, and then remove "Portal:" from the links.

To make a list of category links to process, make sure you use a leading colon (:) in the category links, like this: [[:Category:Blue Öyster Cult]].

All new and revamped portals can be found at Category:Single-page portals.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   20:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

) 20:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The citations need a little bit of work; afterwards, I'll try to help with copy edit for paraphrasing and NPOV. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I've approved your DYK nom. Good stuff. Part of me really wants to expand the article, it's that interesting. Let me know if you have any other questions about it. I don't think the inline cleanup tags affect DYK (if it were a GAN I'd want to know who first used the term and when, but that's not needed for DYK). I'm leading an editing blitz this week so won't have a lot of time but let me know if you have any questions. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Reidgreg for your nice job. I wish you a nice 'editing blitz'. I'll be more than happy, if you could help with expanding the article when ever possible. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I imagine the DYK promotion will bring a lot of editor attention to the article. (Hopefully some of that attention will be constructive.) – Reidgreg (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

) 17:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I left a comment on the nomination; not sure if you saw the ping. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman: Sorry for the delay, I was busy for some days. I'll respond to it very soon. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

AN3 is for ongoing issues, and the incidents at

) 11:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend: Thanks for the response. You're experienced enough at dealing with such cases. The report was made soon after the violation occurred and it did not receive any reactions from the admins part at the time. This may convey hidden messages to those who violate 3RR. I think that would be normal if you had at least warned the violator against repeating it. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, the purposes of warnings are to stop the warring and to make the warned person indefensible in the case of future warring; the warring has stopped (or I would have blocked), and the extensive discussion has definitely made the warned person aware that warring is prohibited. I might think otherwise had Stefka not edited since the report, but as Stefka's participated several times in the discussion, that purpose has obviously been served. Meanwhile, it seems to me that the point of an admin reviewing requests at WP:AN3 is to check whether there's ongoing edit-warring or a really obvious problem (e.g. vandalism) of some other sort, and since I didn't see either of those, I suggested that someone raise a WP:ANI report because maybe one of you is wrong and the rest right, or maybe you're all in the wrong. That's the main reason for others to have the opportunity to comment on it, since more discussion or evidence ought to be presented before anyone's sanctioned, and my main reason for saying nothing to anyone in particular there — I don't want to make it sound like I'm supporting any individual, because I don't know enough to do that fairly.

talk

) 15:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend: Thank you again for the comprehensive response and for putting time on this. I though violation of 3RR would warrant action or warning. I'll certainly do the ANI job if his behavior continues in future, however I prefer discussion before anything else. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

How do we know that the purported source was in existence prior to the initial added in 2006?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sphilbrick: Thanks for letting me know about it. My search did not show if there was such a source at the time. Should I revert it? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

On the one hand, I'm not crazy about the text claiming something is the second tallest building in the world under 40 floors. I'm a fan of trivia, but this is carrying it a bit too far. That said, any removal of that should be on editorial grounds not copyright grounds. It might be that the original edit copied from someplace but absent evidence, I am not comfortable removing it on that basis.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That's right Sphilbrick, it was un-sourced since the inclusion and could be removed for this reason. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I'll let you make the call (when I'm in copyright mode - I sometimes don;t want to think about other issues. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mhhossein. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of

11:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129: It was originally speedy deleted by an admin. See User_talk:Bbb23#Farshid_Hakki. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 17:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

I have noticed that you marked the portal Ashura for manual maintenance in June 2018, but this notice has not been updated in 6 months. This notice needs to be kept up to date to reflect the current status of the portal in December 2018. You can:

1. Update the date to December 2018 if you have and are continuing to maintain the portal.
2. Remove yourself as a manual maintainer, which will allow for automatic maintenance.

If you don't respond by updating the date in the notice in 2 weeks, then your name will be removed from the notice and the portal marked for automatic maintenance.

Thanks for your dedication to

23:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

You tagged Arun Luthra for copyvio-revdel; are you sure? The oldest web capture of http://sweetsoulsound.com/ at archive.org is dated 20 August 2013 [1] while the alleged copyvio content exists on the Wikipedia article dating back to 2010. It is possible that sweetcoulsound is (an unattributed) mirror of the Wikipedia article not the other way round. Nthep (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Nthep: Many thanks for the notice. I'll address it within some days. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's a quicky status report:

Old-style portals: 1,018

Single-page portals: 4,367

Total portals: 5,385

But of course, there has been more going on than just that...

Dreamy Jazz Bot is up and running!

Dreamy Jazz Bot has been approved and is now up and running.

What it does is places missing links to orphaned portals. It places a link in the See also section of the corresponding root article, and it puts one at the top of the corresponding category page.

We have thousands of new portals that have yet to be added to the encyclopedia proper, just waiting to go live.

When they do go live, over the coming days or weeks, due to Dreamy Jazz Bot, it will be like an explosion of new portals on the scene. We should expect an increase in awareness and interest in the portals project. Perhaps even new participants.

Get ready...

Get set...

Go!

Another sockpuppet infiltrator has been discovered

User:Emoteplump, a recent contributor to the portals project, was discovered to be a sockpuppet account of an indefinitely blocked user.

When that happens, admins endeavor to eradicate everything the editor contributed. This aftermath has left a wake of destruction throughout the portals department, again.

The following portals which have been speedy deleted, are in the process of being re-created. Please feel free to help to turn these blue again:

And the corresponding talk pages:

New portals since the last issue

Keep up the great work

Until next time,    — The Transhumanist   09:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Discrimination against Muslims, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

19:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

A new hook will be needed. Please stop by the nomination page. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: Thanks for the notice, I was busy with real life. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
• Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
• MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
• Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
• Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
• Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Mohammad Habali until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

A page you created, Eric Walberg has been nominated for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi: minor detail, but I did not merge the "Awful contributions" section with the "POV pushing by Saff_V" section at ANI; that was someone else. The note I left was unclear and made it seem like I merged all three (my fault, and I'm about to clarify it), but I only merged the third thread with the already-merged first two threads. I'd appreciate if you would change your recent post to remove my username (you can mention the user who did the merge if you want to). Thank you! ^Leviv_ich 19:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Leviv, sorry for my misunderstanding. I'll omit your name. Sorry again. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Mhhossein ^talk 16:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein, no problem, it's really my fault because of the way I wrote that note. You're not the first editor who thought I merged all three. Thank you for updating the post! Cheers, ^Leviv_ich 16:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I have closed this ANI thread. You are strongly warned to avoid making

) 06:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I know it was not easy to close that lengthy and messy discussion. I'm not sure if it was OK you were "not going to track down precisely which categories of misconduct were committed by which individuals." Who made PAS? Who were hounding? I don't say my hands were completely clean, but I believe that no closure is better than a bad closure! since I hate being followed by other users globally and I hate seeing those old ANI links used against me. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The number of links posted to that discussion was enormous. I reviewed a very large number of them, enough to see that there had been some misconduct by all of the editors I named in my close. I was not inclined to dig further than that, because there was no clear consensus for a sanction against any of you, but more than enough evidence to warn all of you. In your case, there were some page moves (mentioned in the close) and some unnecessarily personal rhetoric. If you feel slighted because your behavior wasn't quite as bad as some of the others, I'm afraid there's not much I can do about that. You acknowledged yourself that your hands weren't clean; if you keep them clean from here onward, you'll be just fine. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde: Yes, there were plenty of links but my major concern was that one of the users keeps pasting my old ANI links whenever possible. He even hounded me to the Commons and took those links to my RFA in Commons. I hate being followed and seeing repeated aspersions. It's very annoying! Anyway, thanks for the advice. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I know it's annoying, Mhhossein. Hounding isn't acceptable, and I mentioned it specifically in my close. That still doesn't change the rest of the advice I have for you, though. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making the article on Hijabophobia. I didn't know about that term until I encountered that article.VR _talk 16:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

AadaamS for helping with completing the article. --Mhhossein ^talk

17:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It's always fun to help with something interesting; I was lucky enough to have a little free time when that came up. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Previous issue:

Single-page portals: 4,704

Total portals: 5,705

This issue:

Single-page portals: 4,562

Total portals: 5,578

The collection of portals has shrunk

All Portals closed at

during 2019

Grouped Nominations total 127 Portals:

1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/US County Portals Deleted 64 portals
2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Districts of India Portals Deleted 30 Portals
3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods Deleted 23 Portals
4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Allen Park, Michigan Deleted 6 Portals
5. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cryptocurrency Deleted 2 Portals
6. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:North Pole Deleted 2 Portals

Individual Nominations:

1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Circles Deleted
2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Fruits Deleted
3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:E (mathematical constant) Deleted
4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burger King Deleted
5. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cotingas Deleted
6. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada Deleted
7. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Agoura Hills, California Deleted
8. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Urinary system Deleted
9. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:You Am I Deleted
10. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cannabis (2nd nomination) Reverted to non-Automated version
11. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Intermodal containers Deleted
12. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adventure travel Deleted
13. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adam Ant Deleted
14. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Benito Juárez, Mexico City Deleted
15. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Spaghetti Deleted
16. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wikiatlas Deleted
17. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Greek alphabet Deleted
18. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Deleted
19. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Accounting Deleted G7
20. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lents, Portland, Oregon Deleted P2
21. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ankaran Deleted
22. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jiu-jitsu Deleted G8
23. Portal:University of Nebraska Speedy Deleted P1/A10 exactly the same as Portal:University of Nebraska–Lincoln also created by the TTH

Related WikiProject:

1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals Demoted

(Attribution: Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Portal MfD Results)

WikiProject Quantum portals

This was a spin-off from WikiProject Portals, for the purpose of developing zero-page portals (portals generated on-the-screen at the push of a button, with no stored pages).

It has been merged back into WikiProject Portals. In the MfD the vote was "demote". See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals.

Hiatus on mass creation of Portals

At

, mass creation of Portals using semi-automated tools has been put on hold until clearer community consensus is established.

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals.

The Transhumanist banned from creating new portals for 3 months

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal 1: Interim Topic-Ban on New Portals.

Until next issue...

Keep on keepin' on.    — The Transhumanist   04:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello:

I have finished the copy edit you requested of the article on Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr.

There are several direct quotations in the Scholarship section of the article that need to be cited. It would also be a good idea to include the title of his work in this sentence: "This led to a major work on Islamic banking [title missing], which still forms the basis for modern Islamic banks."

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Regards, Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist: Many thanks for your nice work. I should also thank for accepting my request swiftly. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

• Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
• Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
• Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
• Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, Ceranthor, Lee Vilenski, and Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Back to the drawing board

Implementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design.

Some of the reasons for the purge are:

• Portals receive insufficient traffic, making it a waste of editor resources to maintain them, especially for narrow-scope or "micro" portals
• The default {{bpsp}} portals are redundant with the corresponding articles, being based primarily on the corresponding navigation footer displayed on each of those articles, and therefore not worth separate pages to do so
• They were mass created

Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases.

In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted.

Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:

• Manually maintained portals are not scalable (they are labor intensive, and there aren't very many editors available to maintain them)
• The builders/maintainers tend to eventually abandon them
• Untended handcrafted portals go stale and fall into disrepair over time

These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at

.

However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal.

See you at

.

Curation

A major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer.

There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion.

See you at

.

Traffic

An observation and argument that arose again and again during the

}} default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get.

And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals.

The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are?

And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)...

Some potential future directions of development

Quantum portals?

An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself.

Non-portal integrated components

Another approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible.

What kind of features could this be done with?

The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on.

Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts).

The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List when completed enough for beta-testing. Be sure to watchlist that page.

Where would that leave curated portals?

Being curated. At least for the time being.

New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface.

But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them.

Keep on keepin' on

The features of Wikipedia and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other.

And who knows what else?

No worries.

Until next issue...    — The Transhumanist   00:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

) 10:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Ashura

Per your request at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ashura, I have moved Portal:Ashura to User:Mhhossein/Ashura.

Good luck with incorporating it into Portal:Shia Islam ... and thanks for being so nice about the MFD.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome BrownHairedGirl. Hope I can do it soon. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl: I wonder if you can check everything is OK. Almost all of the sub-pages are empty. For example, see User:Mhhossein/Ashura/Selected article/2, where the history shows I had added some contents to the page. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The content is all there, but it isn't being displayed, because portal was built in an unconventional way, wrapping the content in a Portal:Ashura/Selected article/Layout. That doesn't exist, because it has been renamed to User:Mhhossein/Ashura/Selected article/Layout without leaving a redirect.

You could fix this by editing the page ... but if all you want to do is to extract the content to place it in another portal, then why bother? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl: Thanks for the swift reply. I could simply understand it by trying the edit button! Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Was it necessary to say a file is up for deletion right below the sentence that the file is up for deletion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt: I had not seen the portion of your comment mentioning the deletion discussion. So, yes, it was necessary. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't follow the logic, but never mind. Next time you edit a DYK template, please don't miss looking at the request at the bottom, needed to keep a comment within the template. I fixed this one for you, but don't watch them all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Writing below that line was a mistake, thanks for fixing it.--Mhhossein ^talk 12:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for speaking up. I don't know if you saw this, but the thread was closed without comment on the issue. I'm sorry I didn't dig into the history a bit more; I've kind of had my hands full. Best wishes, SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome SashiRolls. Unfortunately no has even told him not cast aspersion. Hope you success in your works. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

read

14:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns. But, What are you talking about? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
• Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
• SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
• Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your email. Accept my apologize to response you with a belated period. My best wishes and DUA to Almighty for YOU. Thanks Nannadeem (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I have just seen shia Islam portal. I am happy for the contribution in the news portal. However, I would prefer to have your attention over news items + its contents. Thanks. Nannadeem (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Nannadeem: Thanks for your interest. I'd like to have it automated. There should be someone keeping on the job. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

) 15:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

See my response. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, your edit is a breach of

) 15:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

And there's a consensus for my edit. Btw, note that building consensus is a matter of substantiating something, rather trying to make everyone content. I asked you twice to present your fair objections, and you failed to do so. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein, as noted on my talk page, you (involved: plural) can't unilaterally make that determination on your own, even if it seems crystal clear to you. El_C 17:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

El_C: Thanks, will respond on your TP. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Iranian politics general sanctions notice

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September,

) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Closure review- Order of paragraphs in lead of MEK article

Do you really wish to cast aspersions of wikilawyering, given, you are taking my quote out of the fuller context, you appear to be arguing that the lead should not follow good organizational and writing principles and you are arguing that guidelines which are silent on the order of paragraphs somehow give weight to the matter of ordering paragraphs? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Cinderella157: There was no casting aspersions. See the ANI AN thread I opened against you. There other admins objecting your closure. I really think "organization" is just a pretext, since there would be no problem with the organization if the lead was according to my suggestion. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Using same argument as yours; Are you arguing that we should ignore the guideline asking the editors to make the lead interesting? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The guidance is satisfied by the inclusion of the material in the lead. Where it occurs in the lead (ie order) is another question and you acknowledge that the guidelines are silent in respect to this. What ANI thread? There is the making of allegations and/or casting aspersions of wikilawyering per this post, with this comment: No Wikilawyering please (but also using the term twice during the post). You have also edited my post, contrary to

WP:POT might reasonably apply [IMO]. It is therefore disappointing that you have not taken the opportunity to consider this more closely. Cinderella157 (talk

) 09:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I meant AN thread, sorry. Also, I think it was you who edited my comment! Where did I edit yours? As for the rest, I don't think there was any attacks, since I really hate being attacked (see Golden Rule). --Mhhossein ^talk 11:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Moving a post, as I did, does not contravene

WP:NPA. Cinderella157 (talk

) 13:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea why this arrived into your comment. Certainly I did not want to insert that. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

As for the personal attack, as I said, I did not mean to make such an impression. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Assassination of Ali Sayyad Shirazi

valereee (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I've taken one of our discussions on the MEK's TP to Dispute resolution. This message is to notify you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear Mhhossein, El_C has given his OK to put the photo back in the article. Since I am still under sanction, would you be so kind to put it back in the article? To refresh your memory it should be located in the "State-Sponsorship" section. Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein, between September 14 and 15 (can't tell for sure because admin Diannaa crossed-out the edits), Kazemita1 added the subheading to the MEK article "Violence and Terrorism". I then reverted this to the long standing version of the article, which means you shouldn't have reverted it back to the article based on its current restrictions. To avoid reporting you and as a sign of

) 11:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I was not aware of the recent developments of the article. Let's ping User:Kazemita1 to see his comment on this, too. By the way, the edit you mentioned dates back to almost 2 weeks ago which I think make the text old enough to be considered as longstanding. Why did not you revert at the time? So let's see what El C thinks about it. Anyway, I am ready for revert if El C says 2 weeks is not long enough.

p.s. Please never compare my edit with your recent violation; you did it amid an on ongoing discussion where you were actively involved and my edit, if its proved should be reverted, was because the the history is "crossed-out" by admins. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what should count as longstanding text for this article. Perhaps that's something both parties should hammer out together. Intuitively, 2 weeks does seem like it falls short, though. But again, this is something that should be decided by participants on the article talk page. (An evaluation of longstanding text usually relates to how active an article is edited. The more active, the shorter the duration threshold.) El_C 20:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: In this particular case, edits were difficult to check because they were made unaccessible due to copy-right infringements. I am open to discuss a time limit concerning reverts on the article's TP, but in the meantime could you please instruct Mhhossein to self-revert to the long-standing version of the article since diffs were not available for checking? (also Mhhossein previously reverted an edit to the "long-standing version of the article" 6 weeks after the edit had been made). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Mhhossein, you can't have it both ways. El_C 22:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Please refrain from making misleading comments, take it as a warning. I never reverted an edit to the long standing of the article after 6 weeks. El_C: The conversation he mentioned was in fact an edit request and I could not make edits because the article was locked at the time. @Kazemita1: can you respond please? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: you were indeed suggesting that it was my responsibility "to achieve consensus" over text that had been added to the article 6 weeks prior you complaining about it:

• @El C: Do I have a wrong understanding of the policy saying "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content," means objected materials should be included only if there's consensus over them? --Mhhossein talk 19:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing to include — this is longstanding text. In this case, there needs to be consensus for the removal. El_C 19:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Long standing? It was included just sometime before the recent waves of lockings...and we know 'long standing' is not a policy or guideline. Mhhossein talk 20:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

El_C asked you to self-revert 3 days ago, and you still have not. @

) 16:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I honestly can't tell. Mhhossein then re-reverted my revert — what, no diff? Again, both parties should make claims they wish for me to evaluate to be as easy to parse as possible. That includes always having diffs whenever possible. Otherwise, I'm just not gonna bother. This article is taking enough of my time already. El_C 16:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: here are the diffs:

• On September 15th Kazemita added "Violence and Terrorism" to the article (I can't provide the diff because it has been made unavailable due to copy-right infringments.
• On September 29th, I reverted this.
• On September 30th, Mhhossein re-reverted my revert.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Mhhossein, although longstanding text for that article has yet to be determined, as mentioned, you invoking it after only two weeks probably falls short — why have you not self-reverted, then? El_C 16:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Done, your time is valuable for me, I think there are more important issues to focus on. But @Stefka Bulgaria: I don't want to see more misleading comments on your part. I saw your response. No, it does not show I "reverted an edit to the long-standing version of the article 6 weeks after the edit had been made." Take care when choosing the words. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: the diffs above speak for themselves. I'm done here. Bless, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes they truly speak for themselves yet none of one shows I "reverted an edit to the long-standing version of the article 6 weeks after the edit had been made." These false accusations ans misleading comments need to stop somewhere. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:

1. Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
3. Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
4. Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
5. SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
6. Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
7. Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
8. HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

• Casliber (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
• Yashthepunisher (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
• MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
• Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
• Ed! (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2019 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk ) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The Teamwork Barnstar

سلام. این ستاره تقدیم به شما برای انعکاس اتفاقات ایران در ویکی پدیا انگلیسی تا جهانیان درباره آن بخوانند. پیشنهاد میشود اتفاقات قطع اینترنت و خسارات ناشی از آن در مقاله انگلیسی : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship نوشته شود. بنده دسترسی لازم را ندارم زیرا این مقاله حفاظت شده است. از شما درخواست میشود اتفاقات پیرامون قطع اینترنت در ایران را در بخش shutdown و censorship درج کنید. به امید موفقیت برای شما و ایران Baboneh212 (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork: Many thanks, I wish you a very nice 2020! --Mhhossein ^talk 20:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of a battleground attitude, and I'm sorely tempted to sanction you for it. An RfC is a consensus building mechanism. If another editor comes up with an option that resolves the dispute, that is a good thing. You removing options looks like you're interested in pushing your preferred text rather than in resolving the dispute; if that's not the case, please drop the issue now. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: To be honest, I find your comment to be against WP:AGF. You can see how I collaborated with the user (also [2]), when he asked me to change the RFC, which shows I was really striving to resolve the dispute. Expecting others to act in a collaborative manner is far way different from having a "battleground attitude". --Mhhossein ^talk 06:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

What you've done elsewhere doesn't excuse the edit I mentioned above. I'm not keen on discussing it; whether or not you've understood what I'm saying will be made apparent by how you handle this dispute subsequently. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the advice, but from the very first day, I was among the most active editors on the talk page. What I did elsewhere shows "battleground attitude" was not a suitable description. The records of my comments shows I also collaborated with the former admin in an active manner. This dispute is nothing more critical than the previous ones which I handled according to our policies and guidelines. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
• Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
• Raymie
  was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
• Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
• CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
• The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D, Kingsif, Enwebb, Lee Vilenski and CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

As a member of the

) 22:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion led me to this paper (Islam in the Modern World) found on google scholar, maybe this helps us regarding the subject. I would like to read it on my own but it is night there I live and I do not know if I have the time soon. I would recommand to use Google scholar for the disputed matter. Blogs and Quran-Quotes are not good sources on Wikipedia to show a dispute over something.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@

BoogaLouie Thank you. Do you find all the removals by VFF to be cited by unreliable sources and blogs? --Mhhossein ^talk

06:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

here I comment every change I made step by step. I will write my comment in brackets. I do not know how to outline it better:

Importance of hadith complementing the Quran

The theological importance of hadith comes from several verses in the Quran such as (The claim is not back up by any source, it is only concluded from the following statements within the section):

Say: Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away, he (the Prophet) is only responsible for the duty placed on him (i.e. to convey Allah’s Message) and you for that placed on you. If you obey him, you shall be on the right guidance. The Messenger’s duty is only to convey (the message) in a clear way. (An-Nur 24:54)^[1] !(a webpage about introduction to Islam, without any research or academic viewpoint)!

In God's messenger you have indeed a good example for everyone who looks forward with hope to God and the Last Day, and remembers God unceasingly. (Al-Ahzab 33:21)^{[2][Note 1]}

Yes, the entire section was build upon this. Next one: "derived solely from the hadith" (I changed to "reported in hadiths" since not all practises are on hadiths alone, there are even other sources apart from the Quran which simply derived over time as folkloric pracitises or they derived from exegesis of the Quran n combination with the hadith. Regarding the source given, I could not find the reference, but probably because the page number is not shown at GoogleBooks (have not found it in my libary). The most close I found was "As Nawawi explains, when the ulama have arrived at certainty about a stance derived from the Qur'an and Sunna as a whole, all individual Qur'anic verses and Hadiths must be interpreted to accord with it." Not sure if this cites the statement above, but I think it does not matter, since it is evident from that follows and that is self-evident. This is also the reason I did not removed it and would not eve remove, if the source actually makes no explicit statement. But I thought it should be rewritten (the "solely")).

Here we have the next: " Almost all Muslims, therefore, can be called Hadithists (i.e. believers in hadith), and maintain that the hadith" (as stated in the edit-summary, the term "hadithiss" seems to be invented. Never encoutnered any scholar who refered to non-Quranites as "hadithists". The term simply does not exists (there is also no source given, which could have introduced the term).)

"Quranists, on the contrary, hold that if the Quran is silent on some matter, it is because Allah did not hold its detail to be of consequence; and that some hadith contradict the Quran, evidence that some hadith are a source of corruption and not a complement to the Quran." (This is a statement about the belief of a specific group, what should have been sourced. Also, it implies about the Quran, it is silent about something, a point Quranites would disagree entirely, since they hold the Quran does not need explanation but is complete already. For example the prayers, usually regarded by opponents of Quranism, as relying on the hadith, Quranits use Quran-verses only to perform prayer. This debate was also written below. But since this implies as dispute, not supported by any reliable source, I removed it. It leads to an ongoing discussion Quranites and non-Quranites have and we are not a forum for discussion, we add discussions, when we have unbiased sources for them and not write that either we think or we think others might think. It is not a blog, neither is it an essay.)

"A classical example is salat (the five daily prayers of Islam), which is commanded in the Quran, and considered by all Muslims to be an obligatory part of Islamic religious practice, one of the five pillars of Islam." (More Essay-Style, when referring to an exmaple provided by the author of the article, tells about a dispute. Since the dispute is well known, I shortened it to " An example are the obligatory prayers, which are commanded in the Quran, but explained in hadith." and added it to the section above, but the conclusion made up by the author of the article (still the author of the article, not a source!) was removed by me, that is the " demonstrating to Hadithists that hadith "validly" fulfill the Quranic command of ritual prayer"-part."

Although I think the following part " However, hadith differ on these details and consequently salat is performed differently by different hadithist Islamic sects.^{[Note 2]} " is still unencessary, I kept it, since I think it does not violent any WikiPedia Guidelines, nor that it is biased. But the removed content (or in another case adjusted content), was rather like an Essay, providing two points of arguements with a final conclusion, based on the opinnion of the former author, only supported by Webpages, which only confirmed one side of the arguement."

Just to sum it up. My objection was not solely based on the sources used as explained above.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Going to move the discussion to Edits_of_why_hadith_are_important Pretty sure Mhhossein will not object. --

talk

) 00:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@

BoogaLouie: Good move. --Mhhossein ^talk

19:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

references

Thank you for closing the two AfDs which I withdrew my nomination on. Your work is appreciated. That should have been something I did myself, but the last time I tried to close an AfD, it resulted in the temporary mis-formatting of the entire AfD page. So, thanks again! Best ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia. I hope you and your dear ones are safe from the outbreak. I did it using a cool tool! --Mhhossein ^talk 08:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! I have activated that tool. Best ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	An admin-ship of WP is Your Laborious efforts and constructive + rational dealing with opponents. I up my hands for your further achievements. Nannadeem (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nannadeem, but I don't have sysop rights in Wikipedia while I am an admin in Wikimedia Commons. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, the edit that led most directly to this sanction was this one. Not only do you dismiss fairly substantive sources through the use of sophistry, your final argument essentially comes down to "I don't believe this, so it isn't true", which is a clear-cut demonstration that you are unable to separate your personal POV from that of the sources. You've done a lot of decent content work with respect to Iranian topics, but you need to either get back to things you feel less strongly about, or learn to set aside your personal feelings when editing. I've given you a month's block from a single page to let you figure out a strategy to do that; the next sanction, should it prove necessary, will likely be both longer and broader. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

El_C: Thanks for the comment. To be frank, discretionary sanctions seem ridiculous. Users with crystal clear violation and previous blocks may escape sanction[5]. I feel like receiving one of the most ridiculous sanctions of the WP history. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the

19:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
• Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
• The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
• Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
• MX
  with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:That which that orphan saw.jpg

Thanks for uploading

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

fa.Wikipedia deletion needed: هدکوارترز، آریزونا

Hi, Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headquarters, Arizona and, if you are willing, nominate fa:هدکوارترز، آریزونا for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallups, Arizona / fa:گالوپس، آریزونا. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Farsi Wikipedia - COVID-19

Hi Mhhossein, I hope you're doing well. I found your username at the Wikipedia Embassy for Farsi.

Over at fa:دنیاگیری کروناویروس بر پایه کشور و سرزمین, the image "COVID-19 Outbreak World Map per Capita.svg" is used from Commons with a specified date, but the file is continuously updated. To try to make sure the dates are up to date, the person who created the image and I created an item on Wikidata, which will have the correct date on it.

For the most part, I'm just updating the pages on other wikis as appropriate, but in the process of trying to find the relevant bit to update on fawiki (as I'm fa-0), Google Translate translates نقشه موارد تایید شده سرانه کووید-۱۹ (تا تاریخ ۰۰ فروردین ۱۳۹۹) as Map of the approved per capita cases of Quaid-19 (until April 30, 2016). This doesn't seem right...

Would you mind telling me if that's the correct place to put the date that the corresponding map was last updated, or whether the date there is meant to represent something else?

Thank you! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Hey Naypta. Sorry for the belated reply, I was a bit busy with RF issues. Many thanks for your concern. I have addressed the issue by asking a local admin if the caption date can be set to get updated automatically. You are right, the caption is not showing the correct date and I corrected them for now. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@

ping}} me in your response. huji—TALK

13:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Huji: Hi, I think this is the wiki data item. I hope it helps. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: Thanks! Unfortunately, we don't have Template:Data in fawiki and the module it depends on (Module:Wikidata) is not compatible with the synonymous module on fawiki, so it was not an easy copy-and-paste! I think the better approach is to use a {{#property:...}} command on that page. However, I am not familiar with the format of this function and I cannot find its documentation either. Are you familiar with it? huji—TALK 13:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mhhossein, greatly appreciated! @Huji:, let me take a look at what modules are available on fawiki and get back to you - thank you for bearing with my lack of Farsi :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: actually, I found a solution and implemented it in fa:Special:Diff/29189803. It turns out that the dates on Wikidata contain a mix of Latin (1,2,3) and Persian (۱,۲,۳) digits, so for now I am passing it through formatnum but I will submit a Phab task for it. huji—TALK 18:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Huji: Awesome, thank you so much! There's a whole lotta pain in the area of date formatting at the moment, unfortunately, but it looks like you've got it working brilliantly :) Thanks again to both you and Mhhossein! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: You're welcome. Thank you huji for your swift action. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting help

Hi greetings,

I have been looking for update and expansion support for 2 following articles in draft namespace

• Draft:Aurat (word)
  (article to cover grammar and linguistic part)

and

• Draft:Aurat (article to cover cultural women)

Please do have a look at the article, do update, expand, correct inaccuracies, suggest and discuss better article titles

Looking forward to your kind support.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Bookku. I just made some edits as a way of accepting your request for help. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your support to the article, very nice of you. Actually I am also looking for opinions on moving article

Draft talk:Aurat (word)#Draft:Awrat (word)

as 1'st round informal discussion. Since you have visited the article your opinion will be helpful. Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome Bookku. Can you tell me how your pages are not having large overlap with Intimate parts in Islam? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

In a way you are partially right, Right now I see it as possibly either as a main article covering historical linguistic factors or if community decides later will get spit and merge in other articles. Basically length of the article would depend how much enthusiastically people from different geographies will work of historical and contemporary linguistics and other aspects (depends again not get stone walled).

Some of the historical linguistic part will remain out of scope of

WP:COATRACK

.

Any way etymological section in

WP:COATRACK

is used to stone wall global view. Historical transformation and usage of certain word is it my making? I study deep write in detail encyclopedic only. I find Wikipedia decision making strange some times.

Although by now it is bit of long story but to cut it short actually I worked for article Aurat as women. added etymological information in normal course with refs as I usually work in detail it grew to two paras, some body else forced word 'Word' in title and indirectly forced to split out Aurat Women. I didn't liked all the presumptuous stone walling, in Wikipedia concerns of curation get precedence even before researching and writing. Those who neither have subject background, study or research take decisions such situation I find myself helpless in a way. I prefer to focus on research, study and write. I am coming to terms with Wikipedia environment with 'Let others do fights over curation and decisions how so ever illogical those are'

Bookku (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 July newsletter

The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
• The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
• Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk

) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=Note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}} template (see the help page).