User talk:Nemo bis/Archive/1

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

Welcome!

Hello, Nemo bis/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:RandomStringOfCharacters/Tools/ResizeTool[edit]

The reason I opted to make a streamlining tool rather than a bot is because there is less red tape for assisted editing tools. Also, it's useful to have a human double checking the sizing, to make sure it doesn't defeat the purpose of the image in the first place. RandomStringOfCharacters (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also thought about making this tool only tag images with a new size, and have a bot come along and resize them, but like I said, there's more red tape in making a bot. RandomStringOfCharacters (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding meta account...[edit]

Yeah, that meta account is mine. I have posted to the talk page at both accounts confirming that. --Jayron32 19:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re msg on my talk page. Been there done that and setup unified account. --Gibnews (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Invisible deleted contributions of users with lower case user name[edit]

Yes, this is bug 323. Graham87 08:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, see comment 21 of that bug. Graham87 08:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've noted your example in comment 31. It's interesting because it's the first time an that I've encountered edit with an initial lower-case username from the Phase II software. Graham87 09:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't need any more examples. But if they're historically interesting, which they probably are since I'm familiar with Mirwin's contributions, go ahead and undelete them. It might be a good idea anyway, because as it says on the user page I linked, the user has passed away. I wonder why he's not listed at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. After I found out about his death, I went through his deleted edits on enwiki ... they were quite interesting. Among other things, I unearthed the fact that he created Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. Graham87 09:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's listed at M:Deceased editors. Graham87 09:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is all fascinating! I think the discussion that you refer to at the disability etiquette page can be found in this edit on the Nostalgia Wikipedia. Just undelete all these old pages that you find. That user IDs page is amazing! Meta was the testing ground for the Phase II software before it was rolled out on Wikipedia, so there must be some gems there. Graham87 11:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great, thanks very much! Is there anything from around 2002 or 2003 in M:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion? Actually can you undelete it, since the redirect now exists? And how on Earth did M:List of cities by country end up on Meta? Was it a sandbox or something? Unfortunately the list of edits matching bug 323 doesn't contain any edits before February 2002, which is mainly what I'm after. Graham87 12:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Re the list, it turns out that it only contains edits where the rev_user field has an ID greater than 0, like I was talking about with Mirwin's contributions on Meta. With the edits that match bug 323 from before February 2002, the rev_user field will always be 0 (or maybe it will be null).
Io studio Italiano, così trovavo leggere i tuoi messaggi su it.wiki. Ho soltanto studiato la lingua seriamente per un anno, così spesso ho bisogno di un dizionario per parole nuove. LOL at the "Kill the 'key' key club" on Mauro's user page. I also liked the word "fuffa", which I was able to understand through the handy Italian Wikipedia entry on the word . Graham87 14:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list probably doesn't include deleted edits, since they're in a separate table; I think access to that table by toolserver users is restricted anyway. Hostname anonymous edits are always like "office.bomice.com". They always start with a lower-case letter unless they've been imported through Special:Import, and are indeed affected by bug 323. I've edited your entry on MediaWiki.org; I don't want to list the IP address I mentioned in the edit summary out in the open because it's obvious from the contribs who it belongs to ... it's the first one that came to mind!
Grazie the about the Italian. :-) I studied it in primary school, but it was only basic vocab things like colours, animals, and days of the week, and not much grammar. Graham87 12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all the revisions with hostnames would be interesting to retrieve. They seem to occur only in very early edits in en.wiki. I can imagine that there would be a lot of them on it.wiki since, if memory serves me right, it was one of the last wikis to be converted to use MediaWiki. Italian is commonly taught in Australian schools mainly because of a mass-migration of Italians to Australia after World War II. Graham87 13:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, they're exactly what I need! Yes, I think it'd be a good idea to produce them for the Nostalgia Wikipedia and any other wikis that want them. Graham87 13:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Essay on writing film articles[edit]

Done. Graham87 00:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further loss of data?[edit]

What do you mean? [1] emijrp (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logs exist from December 2007 to October 2009 in Internet Archive. In Toolserver, from January 2009 to present. So, all the files are saved, by now. But I want to upload those in Toolserver to Internet Archive. Also, I think that WMF is getting a copy, and perhaps soon, they will be available in download.wikimedia.org Regards! emijrp (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But, of course, if you can contact to an university for mirroring this data, it would be great. Also, I think that the XML dumps must be mirrored in other servers. If you have news, notice me. Thanks. emijrp (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not publicly available. They are in /mnt/user-store/stats emijrp (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MusicBrainz not being "free content"?[edit]

Hi, you've made a change to the MusicBrainz article saying that's not "free content". Did you have a specific reason for that? The majority of the MusicBrainz database is distributed under public domain and some internal data are Creative Commons licensed. What made you believe that MusicBrainz is not "free"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luks (talk • contribs) 12:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you CC-BY-NC-SA is not generally considered as a free license, but in the article you are comparing it to Wikipedia. Wikipedia also doesn't release all it's database dumps under a "free license" (various support tables in the MediaWiki database). If MusicBrainz didn't release the internal data, would it be considered "free content"? The content of MusicBrainz is licensed under the public domain, just like the content of Wikipedia is licensed under CC-BY-SA and GFDL. I don't think that's a fair comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luks (talk • contribs) 20:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Office Hours[edit]

Hey Nemo. Brandon Harris, Howie Fung, Fabrice Florin and I will be holding a second Office Hours session on IRC in #wikimedia office on Thursday, 3 November at 24:00 UTC. This unusually late time is aimed at permitting East Coast editors, who would normally be at work, to attend. We will be discussing the new Article Feedback Tool designs; if you have any questions about Office Hours, or how to get on IRC, feel free to leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there; thank you for your great contributions to the discussion so far :).Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And again your actions on meta-wiki are being discussed there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. While we're on it, I have to say that I won't comment on en.wiki, but you've misinterpreted and misreported many things (albeit in good faith and partly because of my language perhaps). Cheers, Nemo 01:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now on Jimbo's talk page - User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Admin_issues_on_Meta. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Help Survey[edit]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)[reply]

User page images[edit]

Hi Nemo,

I actually never even thought about it! Do you know the code I could use to make sections expandable so that my page isn't so heavy? Victor Grigas (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Ruisreikäleipä[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Ruisreikäleipä at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! VolunteerMarek 20:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ruisreikäleipä[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page Curation newsletter[edit]

Hey Nemo bis/Archive. I'm dropping you a note because you've been using the Page Curation suite recently - this is just to let you know that we've deployed the final version :). There's some help documentation Wikipedia:Page Curation/Introductionhere that shows off all the features, just in case there are things you're not familiar with. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Armnashif[edit]

Hey Nemo bis. Just a note to say I have declined your speedy deletion tag on User:Armnashif; "out of scope" is not a CSD criteria. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
For your help at the IRC. Thanks and do help many! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ProveIt listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ProveIt. Since you had some involvement with the ProveIt redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 21:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Ray_Fry Because of recent contributions to the capital punishment debate, you appear to have specialized knowledge and interest to comment on application of WP:NOT to convicted serial killer who remains on death row after his state abolished capital punishment! SteveAarons(talk) 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right, but[edit]

You are right, but have you ever thought that, if instead of the name of Carmen M. Ortiz, there was your own name whatever it is this statement of yours would have been quite right in regards to you too? Of course I do not mean it would have been right in regards to Aaron H. Swartz, but in regards to a person it would have been right: (BLP violation redacted. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)) Of course you are too paltry to really destroy someone, but you are definitely doing your best in trying. Too bad you do not even see it. 76.126.142.118 (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(You probably linked the wrong diff.) I'm not trying anything, whatever you may think about it: I do not have the responsibility or the power to prosecute or arrest anyone, I'm not judging anyone, etc. You're right that the mention of the name is not really necessary, you're warmly invited to change it to whatever concise alternative exists. The USA judicial system confuses me too much, I didn't know what subject the sentence could have other than that name; sorry for the ignorance. --Nemo 17:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the diff. Otherwise you probably did not understand the meaning of my comment, but whatever. 76.126.142.118 (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible: I admit that the language of your comment was quite convoluted and hard for me to understand. I suspect that you didn't understand my point either: I've no interest in judging or attacking a person, be it the attorney or whoever else, but only to highlight how high was Aaron's sense of justice, too high to survive in this world; if this is not clear in my words there are surely way to express the concept better, I'm just unable to (especially in English). Thanks, Nemo 19:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your attack on the living person, Carmen Ortiz, per WP:BLP. I shall put a level-4 template next. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the removal, and I thank you for it if you feel it was needed, but per WP:BLPTALK there wasn't any violation of WP:BLP I should be blamed for. Also, by associating the word "attack" to a real name above, are you sure you're not doing more harm than good? Initials (or even nothing) are probably enough for the purposes of this notification. --Nemo 08:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read WP:BLP. You don't understand it or WP:Talk. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I read and understood. --Nemo 10:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013[edit]

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into a Wikipedia page, as you did at User talk:AaronSw, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above, but the language of this warning is very funny. :-) In fact: 1) "unsourced or poorly sourced" doesn't apply to a talk page, 2) the facts referred to are proven despite (1), 3) the interpretation of the facts (legitimate in a talk) wasn't an attack but a mere observation of how things go, so there's no defamation, and even more so because 4) there wasn't anything personal about the person mentioned, as explained above. Regards, Nemo 08:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP policy applies to every English WP page.
The templated message is a formality, simplifying your being blocked for another BLP violation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the contrary. --Nemo 10:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Be well! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For amazing help with Wikipedia Club Outreach I.P Address problem. Thanks for all help and Support :-)

Keep Supporting, Keep Inspiring! :-) AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it took a moment for me to remember. Thanks! It cost me so little effort... --Nemo 20:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Pageviews stats tool[edit]

Thanks for your comments here. Henrik's tool seems buggy or broken, as mentioned here. I think that it would be trivial to fix it or replace it, as I mentioned. There already is this, but it's only for the top ten. LittleBen (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Image[edit]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Image re. the image you re-added to the WP:SOCK page. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 17:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

abuse-filter-helper question[edit]

You seem to be one of the very original founding members of the project... Just wondering, what do you do with view rights to the abuse filters? Is there some way I can gain read only access to these filters to help learn how the abuse filters work here on en-Wiki and at simple-Wiki? Thanks, T.I.M(Contact) 17:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian translatewiki.net article[edit]

I left you a message on my discussion page here. Cheers—Sebitalk 12:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see this message swiftly due to bugzilla:46691/bugzilla:46550. On "to be undone the minute you promise not to remove a thread on someone else's talk page anymore": I was strictly following precedents (mostly on the very same page). For instance, apart from one by DC himself:

--Nemo 14:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those diffs show the removal of posts from banned/blocked users, or removing single posts that appeared to be trolling/attacks. You were removing an entire thread that many people had participated in. Repeatedly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, the posts by banned/blocked users are not the best examples in the list above (although, DC has been blocked several times here and there; and en.wiki ArbCom "severely admonished" him). However, the fact that «posts that appeared to be trolling/attacks» are not removed quickly enough doesn't condone them from removal, so the "entire thread" argument carries no value, IMHO. I'm sure I could find better examples but I only looked at Tarc's removals; I don't intend to defend myself but I don't see robust indications of such a removal being improper, so I can't promise what you asked me to. --Nemo 15:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked[edit]

Unblocking after discussion with Floquenbeam. Please don't repeat the kind of action you were blocked for. Bishonen | talk 18:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't plan to, 3 reverts in a single day are more than my monthly dose. :) --Nemo 18:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tools[edit]

Hi, and thanks for helping me with my tools porting! I saw you marked "category_intersection.php" as important. Would this be an appropriate replacement? It is quite fast as well, and uses the entire category trees, not just the given categories. --Magnus Manske (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental rights after 2010 elections[edit]

Please don't write a section based on only one source (Tavares Report). You have to mention all the sides, not just one! I fact, most/lot of the neutral reports indicates, freedom level is greater than in the USA.

So, I suggest you to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Csendesmark (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Category:Article Feedback Additional Articles[edit]

Hello Nemo bis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:Article Feedback Additional Articles, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Category is not empty. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nemo bis. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 15:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Article Feedback Tool update[edit]

Hey Nemo bis. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFT5[edit]

Why are you mass removing the article feedback tool. And can you point me to the recent discussion where this has been discussed.Blethering Scot 12:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you need to check the pages a bit better because on the ones on my watchlist thats not the case. That volume in a short period of time is mass removing. Blethering Scot 13:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article feedback[edit]

How do you change who can post feedback and set an expiry on the article feedback tool, like you did on Burundi here? Puffin Let's talk! 19:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Help#How can I enable/disable this tool?. Note that the history entry is rather confusing, in particular as a normal user I can't and didn't set anything about autoconfirmed users or whatever, that's just what the software does when asked to disable the tool on a page. --Nemo 07:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caillou[edit]

Why did you change the visibility of the article feedback tool for this article? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it had very old unreviewed (ignored) feedback. Per the RfC, editors can enable feedback only if they plan to deal with it themselves. It's not nice to ask people feedback and then ignore it for weeks or months, adding to other editors' backlog. --Nemo 07:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I do not see such a consensus at the link you provided - please provide a direct quote. Second, please explain how such unreviewed feedback can be reviewed (or viewed in the first place, for that matter). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, why are you enabling a software which you have no idea how to use? Second, «they are a minority and as a result any further work on the tool needs to limited to a level which that minority cope with on its own». --Nemo 18:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing the quote. I'm aware of how feedback works in general, but this is the first time I've heard of the very existence of unreviewed feedback - although it's not particularly suprising, given just how confusing the entire feedback tool interface seems to me. I would still appreciate it if you explained where the unreviewed feedback is and how to review it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that's one of the reasons it's going towards gradual disabling. You can learn more at Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Help/Editors; if something is unclear I suggest to ask on the talk page before proceeding. --Nemo 19:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop disabling article feedback[edit]

stop Nemo bis, stop disabling the article feedback from articles. These have been deliberately set to have feedback enabled, and they are watched. You may be blocked if this behaviour continues. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of one such article where feedback was being dealt with? --Nemo 12:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just stop doing it please. Article feedback is used and has been a great tool to improve several articles. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's used, except when it isn't. :) --Nemo 12:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I see is a lot of people complaining about your removal of the feedback tool. This sounds like a consensus to me that you should not be doing this. Certainly I have improved articles at suggestions of feedback, and also responded to people that asked questions. Having old feedback that is not harmful does not matter. It can still be used for improvement. You are not forced to deal with the feedback. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot? I only see a couple, who were not even able to point out a single example. The RfC had hundreds of participants so that's where the consensus is. --Nemo 12:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voices has been raised for you to stop disabling the feedback tool. If you continue I guess you will be blocked. So deal with it.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather, you could deal with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback. Are you aware of it? Are you respecting the consensus? --Nemo 13:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the rest here. You need to quit doing that. You're not doing anyone any favors. danielkueh (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct! I'm not going to do "favors" to anyone, because we're here to respect consensus and not to do "favors" to friends. Maybe we could ask GregJackP and MZMcBride, the authors of the two most voted views in the RfC, to explain you the result in more detail. Or you could explain why you keep enabling AFT on articles without having ever reviewed a single feedback and how you think this is consistent with guidelines and consensus. --Nemo 15:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's very simple, I like to know who reads the articles and what they think about it. Regardless of what anyone, including you, thinks about feedback tool, it is an opt-in feature that CAN be used. So unless WP or Jimbo Wales has removed that feature from the website, you have no business to arbitrarily change the feedback tool on individual pages. danielkueh (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be a bit confused, this is a wiki (suggested reading): you don't own the pages where you enable AFT. Moreover, AFT is not your personal guest book and if you want to "know who reads the articles and what they think about it", please at least review the feedback they post so that you don't add to other editors' backlog. --Nemo 16:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I think you are being incredibly obnoxious by dismissing the concerns/views of everyone else on this thread. Exactly, this is a Wiki, and you are not being collaborative. I never said I own the those pages. Unlike you, I actually perform constructive edits on these pages. And how exactly do these feedback "add to your backlog?" If you don't care for them, then you don't have to review or even look at them. Everyone else on this discussion has already asked you, nicely, to stop disabling the tool. I suggest you take your own advice and learn that you don't own these pages as well. And that maybe, this tool may serve a useful purpose. So it is not up to you to decide whether they should or should not be enabled. Got that? danielkueh (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I suggest you read the long and short conclusions of the RfC that you keep citing. The RfC does not say that we can't use the feedback tool. The short conclusion of the RfC states "No to full roll-out but there is a large enough minority to support continued experimentation if the foundation wants to do that." No where in that RfC does it say that the feedback tool is to be completely disabled. And no where does it say you are the one to disable across different pages. So I suggest you stop arbitrarily enforcing your idiosyncratic interpretation of this RfC and instead use the talk pages of each individual page to get a consensus as to whether the tool should or should not be enabled. OK? danielkueh (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nemo, please cease and desist disabling of the article feedback tool. You recently disabled the tool on the global warming article, where the vast majority of feedback has been reviewed, and I personally have brought up the feedback on the talk page previously. There are two reasons you should stop:
    1. You are essentially enacting your own policy without community consensus.
    2. You are basing your edits on old unreviewed feedback. This a poor metric because feedback doesn't need to be reviewed to be useful for editors and some feedback is unclassifiable so it will never be reviewed.
Please cease and desist.. Or else I'm afraid WP:ANI is the next logical step. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yours is the first example provided so far in this discussion. Can you clarify what you mean that "some feedback is unclassifiable so it will never be reviewed"? I don't see any mention of unclassifiable feedback on the feedback response guidelines; if you think such a category exists, you should probably propose it on the talk page there and get consensus for it. If you mean that all the feedback there is not actionable, I don't see why it couldn't be marked so; if you mean that all the old feedback should be ignored (archived), this is an interesting suggestion that you should bring up at Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5. --Nemo 09:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating what Danielkueh said, the RFC conclusion was not to roll out article feedback every where. Things have moved on since then and the new plan is to have it so that it can be enabled on particular article. For some like Justin Bieber or facebook, there was so much noise compared to the useful suggestions. But for other more serious topic feedback is mostly relevant. Certainly consensus was not to mass remove the setting after it was individually added. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was no mass-disabling here, only a manual disabling of the tool on selected articles. Editors are enabling AFT as they see fit, surely they don't seem to need consensus on the talk page to enable it on an article; same is therefore valid for the symmetric action of disabling it. The feedback response guidelines don't say anything about consensus for disabling, while they state that editors enabling feedback should review it ("are encouraged [to]"). --Nemo 09:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly looked to be mass, of course that depends on the definition of mass, but I see hundreds of removals. So I will propose here that all of the AFT removals by Nemo bis are reversed. Does any one else support this idea? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme: I'd support that. I already undid a few that I care about. Nemo: In reply to the message you left me regarding that, I do plan to patrol the new feedback once in a while, but there's no deadline, so I'll get around to it when I have time. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme, I have no objections. danielkueh (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support reverting all of his disruptive disabling. I already took care of the ones on my watchlist. Certainly article feedback is a good tool, and it a great use to get comments on ways to improve articles. I hardly ever see the tool used for vandalism. STATic message me! 20:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi STATicVapor, Danielkueh, Jackmcbarn, Graeme Bartlett, et al.: I believe there's consensus to only enable this article feedback tool on articles where the feedback can be actively monitored and addressed appropriately. If a user enables feedback on a particular article and then no longer responds to incoming feedback and there's nobody else who is responding to incoming feedback, it's reasonable to disable feedback on that article. Another person is free to come along and re-enable feedback on the same article so long as he or she is willing to help out with responding to article feedback.

Is there a timeframe we can agree to for incoming feedback not being responded to that's sufficient to (temporarily, though speedily) disable feedback on an article? One month? Three months? Six months? --MZMcBride (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback is rather like talk page comments. These will stay indefinitely, and talk pages are not deleted or protected to prevent comments. Also reading the feedback makes no logable record, so that others cannot tell whether feedback has been examined or not. The big issue earlier was harmful feedback, eg vandalism, slander or outing. A secondary issue is people trying to talk to the subject, or just completely useless comments. Most of the articles that have been enabled are not those that attract such responses, and although I have hidden feedback like this before, it is more likely articles such as Justin Bieber]] that get useless feedback. The ones I have enabled it on have had very little unhelpful feedback. So there is no reason to disable it. You or Nemo bis are welcome to ask the enablers, or comment on talkpages if they see a problem with feedback. But there is no justification for an automatic disabling of it. (I am assuming that Nemo bis is not the same as the Nemo that I have met in person). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A post on the article talk page prior to disabling would be more than appropriate, and would deal with the situation promptly. Simply removing without any form of discussion and simply mass disabling which is what happened isn't on at all. I agree a timescale may be necessary but one month is too short and a look at the AFT history to see if comments have been reviewed usually should be a first step, 20 reviewed statements and 1 unreviewed just over a month old, would not be grounds to say AFT isn't being reviewed. Nemo's comment of feeling uncomfortable discussing on talk page makes me feel highly concerned that he is the one disabling. Thats the first common sense step before removal.Blethering Scot 20:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User reviewed by[edit]

What does it mean that I have a notification that I was reviewed by you?The Man against the Sky (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Man against the Sky, it means that there's a bug, I only patrolled your userpage. Please report. --Nemo 09:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Theodore Katsanevas[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Theodore Katsanevas at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! DES (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dewey Decimal Classification[edit]

Nemo, please have another look at my note on DYK Dewey Decimal Classification. If the only thing holding you back from passing this is the expansion criteria, you can pass it. DYK got new rules on GA last September, and their criteria is the date they attained GA status. They don't have to be expanded. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links to bug reports[edit]

Thank you for adding links to bug reports. I am curious though why it matters what case I used in the section name. :) Rockfang (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gyanvihar University[edit]

Once a prod has been removed, it should not be restored. Rather amusing that you claimed my removal was "out of process", then cited a section which clearly says a prod can be removed! If you do not understand prodding, then please consult WP:PROD properly before using them. If you still want the article deleted once a prod has been removed, then take to Afd. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Katsanevas[edit]

Hi. I'm afraid that I had to revert your approval of the Theodore Katsanevas hook - as you proposed it, and as it is contentious, it seems better to have and independent judgement. - Bilby (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Theodore Katsanevas[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 06:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation Popups and Hovercards[edit]

Hi Nemo, Based on the hovercards panel discussion we had in Zurich, I have posted a message to the talk page of navigation popups. The purpose is to discuss updates to the styling of the old gadget so it is consistent with navigation popups. The gadget has more complex functionality than hovercards, and we will absolutely retain all of that. If you have a chance it would be great to have your notes on this. Thanks, Vibhabamba (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nemo[edit]

Hi, User:Nemo bis is this you? Lotje (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are several "Nemo" across the languages. The English one arrived 4 years before me and the Italian one (me) was renamed to Nemo_bis everywhere in 2008. --Nemo 09:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good to know, it was just because of this. Thnks anyway. Lotje (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post on the Arabic community page[edit]

These superpower seem to be a worrying precedent. But one has to wonder why the foundation would do anything it didn't feel like; there are already hundreds of opposing voices that have signed the petition, but nothing seems to have culminated.--عبد المؤمن (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC[edit]

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor)#Requested move 20 December 2014[edit]

You were involved in this article. I invite you to a page move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request at wm2016:Project:Requests[edit]

I know it's a bit early for that wiki, (and sorry for pestering you here,) but I made a request a while ago at wm2016:Project:Requests; in particular, please import some rather important templates listed there, protect the main page, and a request for b'crat, sysop, and translation admin rights so I can do it myself and also handle further requests there if need be. (See also my rights on Wikimania 2015.) Cheers, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry[edit]

Hi there. Is this you? If so, would you be willing to discuss something with me somewhere off of Wikipedia? I'm sorry for bringing this up here, but I didn't know how else to contact you. Shadow2 (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wmflabs[edit]

Ciao Nemo. Scusa se ti inseguo sin qui… Volevo cortesemente chiederti se avevi la possibilità di verificare il funzionamento di questo utilissimo tool dal quale si otteneva l'elenco delle ultime modifiche sulle voci di una cartelle e relative sottocartelle. Da un po' di tempo ha smesso di funzionare e il suo creatore, Ervin, mi sa che ha smesso di contribuire e parlando con Incola ho saputo che in qualità di manutentore potresti forse fare qualcosa tu… --Discanto (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Online szótárak a Web 2.0 platformon – A Wikiszótár és a Wiktionary[edit]

Hi, regarding your question on Online szótárak a Web 2.0 platformon – A Wikiszótár és a Wiktionary, here is the published English language abstract (the full study is not available for free download): "The study aims to introduce a possible way of collective online dictionary making in a web 2.0 environment through the example of a popular Hungarian and an English online dictionary (Wikiszótár and Wiktionary). Structural and operational principles of the dictionaries are presented by their analysis. Furthermore mega-, macro-, micro- and mezostructure of the dictionaries are also presented through the analysis of dictionary entries. It has been demonstrated that collective free dictionaries contained relevant data and gave a useful alternative along with ordinary dictionaries and institutional internet reference works by their new technical solutions and the huge amount of processed information." Sorry I could not provide more information. --Panda10 (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an email to request a copy. I will let you know when I get a response. --Panda10 (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I received the following reply: "Unfortunately, I don’t have access to this journal. It looks like a very small/obscure journal in Hungarian that is not held by US libraries." I sent an email to the author requesting a copy. --Panda10 (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The author provided a copy. What is the deadline to submit the review? --Panda10 (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the review. There is a problem with the doi number in the {Cite journal} template, but I can't figure out what, since the URL is correctly resolved when I copy it to the address field of a browser. Can you take a look? Let me know if there are further questions. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Et nequeo sine te, sine vita viuere[edit]

Hi Nemo bis. How does one "receive welfare services or other goods in return for their editing of this wiki"? I am intrigued. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Forum Software[edit]

I couldn't care less about the number of sources you've added. I can add a bunch of sources in an article that hasn't anything do with the subject and call it a day too. The fact that you added 4 columns to that table and didn't even fill 81% of the fields you added says enough about the quality of your contribution. As if that wasn't enough, another 11% of the filled fields are just saying "Maybe" and adding even more insult to injury, one of these even has to question its own content; "plugin?". How can a feature 'maybe' be included? What does that mean? It's part of one download and not of another? It's either Yes, No, Plugin or Planned. If you add a column, that's fine, but you should make sure that it actually adds some value to the article and do proper research for every forum software in the list, not just the ones you like. Neither is that table for how features are implemented (OAuth, server-side plugin; that's all irrelevant in this table), it is there for whether it is available in the particular software or not. Stop reverting back to your changes because as they stand now they simply don't belong in an encyclopedie. The alternative is you looking all needed information up and providing useful content. The choice is yours, but as it stands now, you're responsible for an edit war. --YannickFran (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ho, and for that "This is a collaborative project"-comment; sure it is, but you can't expect from anyone to do the research you where supposed to do. If you add something, you make the information included complete and you do not - you cannot - expect anyone else to finish that work. The only thing that will achieve is a mess. --YannickFran (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YannickFran (talk • contribs) 15:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BetaWiki listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:BetaWiki. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:BetaWiki redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I responded to your inquiry in this discussion. I didn't ping you and I noticed that you edit infrequently, so I don't know if you were notified when I responded to your comment. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm just fine with any outcome and I don't want to consume more of your time. Nemo 23:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox college football player[edit]

Hi, I just reverted this edit as it only works if there is 1 image. In cases such as Johnny Mack Brown with three it just produces an error. I don't know if there is a way to only pick one of the images? I assume this would need a change to Module:Property. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KylieTastic, I fixed it. you just have to use {{#invoke:Wikidata|claim|P18}} instead of the simple {{#property:P18}} property call. you can set the default image in wikidata by setting the 'preferred' rank. I did this for the example you provided. Frietjes (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Frietjes, cheers for the update, never noticed the ranks before (thay are a litlle subtle) good to learn new things. This will fix the image errors, but in cases like Johnny Mack Brown or George Marshall where the {{Infobox college football player}} is a sub module of another primary infobox you end up with two images. So I'm still not convinced this is a good move as most editors would not realse you just have to add a blank 'image =' to the college infobox to fix it. Unless there is a way to tell if an infobox is hosted inside another one? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KylieTastic, I fixed it, by disabling when the box is embedded. Frietjes (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Red Hat
added links pointing to Fuse, ADS, Extra, Alfresco, BPM, IKS, Ceph and Eurotech

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Nemo bis. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prospects[edit]

See Wikipedia_talk:User_access_levels. What do you think are the prospects of being able to get a copy of the archive table with ar_comment, ar_user, and ar_user_text redacted?

I think it's time to create a new user right (limiteddeletedhistory?) with access to everything but those fields. Compy book (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017[edit]

Hopefully you withdrawn your proposal to disabling file upload at Malay Wikipedia. Many administrators there have objected this proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.140.90.43 (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators have a very fine option to object to the closure of local uploads: deleting the copyright violations uploaded in the past. --Nemo 05:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn’t you do that at the Indonesian Wikipedia, there also had a copyright violation too. Users there still upload copyrighted images. 175.140.90.193 (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember exactly, but I proceeded in order from the wikis which were deleting less. Nemo 11:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know that Wikimedia Commons does not allow any licensed use of fair use of files (including logos, book covers and recording albums, screenshots, or other copyrighted files) as the law of fair use may vary by country; some even do not apply at all. This has resulted in the most widespread doctrine of use in the United States-which can not be fully applicable in many countries. Therefore, all files in Commons that are licensed for fair use will be immediately deleted without notice. So we hope local uploads at the all languaged wikis should re-enabled for the convenience of the users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.100.232.48 (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm too old to have the discussion on fair use for the 100th time. You might be interested in m:NonFreeWiki. --Nemo 20:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you hate fair use?. 118.100.232.184 (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about hate. :) --Nemo 13:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators and users at ms.wiki are currently unable to upload movie posters, album/single covers, screenshots, company logos and audio samples, which all of them are not permitted on Wikimedia Commons. Please enable the local uploads at ms.wiki, we promise we didn’t upload copyright violated images anymore. It has been year ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.140.90.128 (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


{{open access}} and |doi-access=[edit]

Regarding this edit, are you aware that you can use |doi-access=free in the template instead? − Pintoch (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access#Goals and {{Open_access}}. Feel free to change the wording if necessary. − Pintoch (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. By the way, I notice Help:Citation_Style_1#Registration_or_subscription_required says "Links inserted with |url= are expected to be free to read by default". Was there already a discussion about replacing such links with oadoi.org targets? --Nemo 17:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, but I'm not sure what you mean. That the template automatically generates a oadoi URL when no |url= is provided and a |doi= is? Headbomb has been pushing for automatic URL generation based on access status for a while, that is similar but not identical. (I've added this page in my watchlist so we can continue the discussion here, so that Headbomb can follow too.) − Pintoch (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be appropriate too, but it's something to be fixed in the template itself. I was thinking of removing and replacing the |url= parameter when it contains an URL which is redundant with the (publisher) DOI link and closed access. If there is some agreement for this we should perhaps first fix Citoid so that it doesn't add such URLs. --Nemo 18:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would make sense. Detecting a posteriori if a URL is redundant with a DOI does not seem completely trivial by the way. I'd like to bake that into OAbot of course. − Pintoch (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The easy case is that you make a HEAD request to doi.org and the Location is the same as the URL in the |url= parameter, but at the same time oaDOI considers the DOI closed and the DOI is in the |doi= parameter. Yes, that makes up to two HTTP requests per citation. --Nemo 19:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but publisher URLs can have a great deal of variations ^^ Concerning requests, I am not worried at all, it is already extremely slow anyway… − Pintoch (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relativistic trolley paradox[edit]

Hi Nemo, I wonder why you did this. As far as I can see, this is someone's private work with hardly any reference in the literature: Google Books and Google Scholar. See also User talk:DVdm#eprint link. Were you contacted off-line by one of the authors perhaps? - DVdm (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Phabricator[edit]

No problem :-) Ah yes, Mmodell has talked about in answer to a question on Quora, right here: https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-review-of-Phabricator/answer/Mukunda-Modell?srid=38DRN. Would a third-party source be preferred, or should I keep the primary source and add this source onto it (have both sources)? SamanthaNguyen 21:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

adding free to read links[edit]

If you are going to add free-to-read links to citation templates that have |subscription=yes as you did with this edit, don't you think that you should have also removed |subscription=yes? By leaving it there you are telling readers that the external links associated with that citation are behind paywalls. Perhaps you should tweak your bot to fix that.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite journal/doc does not seem to agree with your interpretation of the "Subscription required" note: it can as well apply to the DOI link, even if other links are open access. This is demonstrated just two lines above by a citation which has both a "green open access" icon (for PMC) and a "Subscription required" note (for the doi.org link). If you were right about the meaning of the parameters, the template should remove the "subscription required" note whenever a green open access identifier is provided.
You're right that the note might be misleading, but to make sure that the community agrees with you I suggest that you propose to change the behaviour of the template accordingly. Nemo 15:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that you refer to §Subscription or registration required. In that documentation section, particularly §§Ambiguous access parameters is this: "If the restriction applies to an identifier, these parameters should be omitted." The rationale for that is given in §§Access level of identifiers where, in the first sentence, you will find: "Links inserted by identifiers such as |doi= are not expected to offer a free full text by default." Documentation, of course, is never as good as it could be / should be.
In the time between the posting of my first comment in this topic and the time of writing this post, I have removed all |subscription=yes from §Journals and done other improvements; it was your edit that brought those issues to my attention.
There was an RFC regarding access-signalling icons that included the proposal to deprecate |subscription= and |registration=. That RFC, one of a pair of related RFCs, was written in such a way that editors and the closer could not make much sense of it. While the RFCs were in the writing phase, I attempted to get them simplified and to have them run sequentially rather than in parallel. I was not successful. If one is to believe the closer's comments, editors supported deprecating the 'old' (|subscription= and |registration=) system. See Aspect B3) Deprecate old system vs support both old and new systems.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message, I'll look into the matter in more detail later as now I'm focusing on another task. Nemo 16:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the RfC closure, documentation and template behaviour again. Thank you for pointing out that the "subscription required" note is only supposed to apply to the publisher-provided URL for the DOI. As the documentation says, these notes are intrinsically ambiguous, so I don't see a way for me to avoid user confusion in the case of mixed statuses that you rightfully denounced. I can only expect the users to take those notes with a grain of salt or ignore them.
I'm wary of removing information added by other users and I definitely I cannot fight with the template, so I'm deadlocked. Based on logic and the direction set by the RfC closure you mentioned, I think it would be uncontroversial for you to make the template ignore the "registration" and "subscription" parameters whenever a more precise information exists (i.e. an X-access= parameter or a green OA identifier which already adds a green lock, such as arxiv or pmc). If the template is changed this way, I'll be happy to start filling the more precise parameters and even removing the "hidden" ones after a while. Nemo 08:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links[edit]

Please, verify that a link is alive before adding it to an article: I had to revert the majority of the links that you have added to the articles that I watch, because the page does not exist, or is unreadable. This is WP:Disruptive editing. D.Lazard (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I normally check all links before adding them but today I was testing something else with the tool so I forgot to check some. Thanks for looking into them. --Nemo 16:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed several dozens of my edits again and I believe I fixed all outstanding errors. Sorry again for the trouble and thanks for the help pointing it out. Nemo 08:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COPYVIO[edit]

In this dif you added a link that violates WP:ELNEVER. Please don't do this. Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

paste reply here that was left on my talk page in this diff Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your note re [2]. What reasons do you have to think that [3] is a copyright violation? The author can have a contract addendum with the publisher, a specific license or other statutory rights. --Nemo 16:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, WP takes copyright very seriously. If you continue violating the COPYVIO policy, you will be blocked.
This is not a matter of "can have", it is a matter of what is verifiable.
The paper at the journal's website is not OA
The policy of the journal in which that paper published is here and says:

Access policies: After publication, authors may post the accepted version of the paper on the author’s personal Web site and are provided one referrer link that can be posted on a personal or institutional Web page, through which users can freely access the published paper on the Science Signaling site. Science Signaling follows Science policies and allows deposition of the "accepted version" of peer-reviewed content (Research Articles, Research Resources, Reviews, and Protocols) into the NIH PubMed Central or other PMC International repository 6 months after publication, in accord with the requirements of the funders NIH and Wellcome Trust, provided that a link to the final version published in Science Signaling is included. The "accepted version" is the version of the paper accepted for publication after changes resulting from peer review, but before editing by Science Signaling editorial and copyediting staff, image quality control, and production of the final PDF. No other types of content may be submitted. Research Articles and Research Resources will be freely accessible at Science Signaling 12 months after publication.

Zenodo's terms of use puts the onus to ensure that content is OK on the uploader.
Where do you see there, that it is OK for the author (or somebody else) to have uploaded the actually-published paper to Zenodo? Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you were not trying to insinuate that I don't take copyright very seriously.
Could you clarify what parts of the policies you believe to state that the non-copyvio status of the link targets needs to be verifiable? The very section you linked says something very different.
For some ways the authors can retain or gain the right to share the published version beyond the standard policy, please read for instance: [4] [5] [6]. --Nemo 16:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still recommend that you avoid hasty conclusions on the copyright status of things based on incomplete information; as you saw, such a practice can lead to mistakes. --Nemo 23:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just came here because of this[7] which appears to be a link to a copyright-violating copy of a journal article - and see the above. This looks like a big problem. If there is some permission granted to publish these pay-for things on the open web, you need to furnish WMF with proof of that permission, otherwise this looks like out-and-out copyright violation. Alexbrn (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not hosting nor uploading or otherwise providing that copy. The responsible way to proceed, when one has a doubt, is to contact the author so that they can check their contracts and if necessary revise their archived copies. I happen to have already done so for the author of [8], but you can easily be helpful in reducing copyright violations even if you are less familiar than me with publisher policies: just point authors to the respective records on https://dissem.in/ . Thanks, Nemo 19:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are linking to it, which you should not. That published article is copyright Blackwell (*not* the author) and they advise they need to be contacted for permissions. The onus is on you to ensure you are not linking to copyright-violating resources, and if permissions do exist they need to be lodged with the WMF. Alexbrn (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sympathetic to your concerns, but I'm afraid this is an inaccurate description of the matter. --Nemo 20:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017[edit]

Stop icon

When adding links to material on external sites, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This template spells it out. Alexbrn (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you just wanted to inform me of the existence of Template:Uw-copyright-link, because the text doesn't apply to any edit of mine. I'm definitely not «Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright». --Nemo 20:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the article I mentioned, you are linking to a site that violates Blackwell's copyright, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This will need escalating. Alexbrn (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is no reason whatsoever to blindly assume that CERN or the author of the article would be violating copyright. Civil systems exist for rightsholders to have their rights respected, and I don't think your second-guessing here is one of them. Are you sure you're not getting emotional due to personal connections to Blackwell? You may want to sleep over it. --Nemo 20:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An incredibly flippant reply to a potential serious problem. Anyway, now at AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is indeed potentially serious, which is one more reason we should be careful and follow the advice of established policies such as what I linked. I hope you will consider it. Nemo 20:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spent the weekend replying to a few dozen authors (mostly users of academic social networks) who might not have noticed certain restrictions of their publishers' policies, to help them follow open access best practices. In the coming days I'll probably have less time for editing as I use spare time to check some sample files authors have sent us to ask whether they're ok for green open access. Nemo 07:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AIN[edit]

I have started a thread about the zenodo.org links at WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NonFreeWiki[edit]

How to use NonFreeWiki? 175.140.90.128 (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a proposal, you cannot really "use" it. Ask at m:NonFreeWiki and please stop writing me, thanks. Nemo 05:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nemo_bis/Archive/1&oldid=1136159375"