User talk:Nemo bis

/Archive/2007-2010, 2011–...

Site notice for fellowships

Hi Nemo! I'm looking for feedback about running a site notice on meta this week, would be great to hear your thoughts if you have time :-) I'm not sure how people feel about site notices on meta in general. Thanks! Siko (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Nemo, I really appreciate it. I've followed your suggestions and would still like to have some more help implementing the site notice as you mentioned. I've posted the proposed language for the notice in that Babel thread. I think I have the ability to create the site notice myself, but I'm not sure about how to properly blank etc so would hate to make a mess of things. Thanks! Siko (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks so much for your help, Nemo!! I really appreciate it :-) Siko (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Survey_of_how_money_should_be_spent/Questions/it

Ciao, ho finito di tradurre un sondaggio di Wikimedia (Survey_of_how_money_should_be_spent/Questions/it) e vorrei avere una tua opinione sulla traduzione, se possibile. Grazie ;)

--Deniel (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

PD-Italy

Hello. Recently I have been interested to the problem of template "PD-Italy". Referring to the cancellation procedure, I want to be reassured that in the future the template won't be deleted. Otherwise, for example, many projects that support the images with template "PD-Italy" may be deleted and never replaced. So I'm writing to understand whether the template will be deleted and a possible way out wing problem. Thank you so much! Infatti non sapendo a chi rivolgermi per capire meglio la cosa, conoscendo te, penso che tu sappia la risposta. Questo problema non è solo mio, ma anche di AssasinCreed che di solito aggiunge le immagini alle voci. Il problema nasce dal fatto che se non si può riaprire il caricamento di immagini, neanche temporaneamente, e per soli amministratori, si deve usare il PD.Italy su Commons, dove già due volte è andato in cancellazione. Non vorrei che vengano in futuro cancellate tutte le immagini che lo utilizzano e quindi vedere tutto il lavoro andare in fumo. Per questo sono più propenso a caricare su it.wikiquote. Grazie mille!  Raoli  17:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Se vuoi possiamo anche discuterne qui, ma il posto piú utile sarebbe il bar italiano in Commons. Comunque, ho appena visto che l'ennesima procedura di cancellazione del PD-Italy, fatta apposta per confermare il ripristino, è stata chiusa col mantenimento, quindi si può tranquillamente usare. La cosa a suo tempo aveva causato grande sconquasso perché ci impediva di usare Commons, ma non è che la reimportazione delle immagini in sé sia chissà quale fatica, e l'eventualità sembra ormai improbabile. Una cosa che si potrebbe fare ora è chiedere a un bot in Commons di importare tutte le foto PD-Italia coperte dal template; la discussione di autorizzazione dell'operazione sarebbe un'ulteriore verifica e inoltre è una cosa da fare in ogni caso. Consiglio di aprire una discussione al bar italiano di Commons per vedere chi ha voglia di portare avanti la richiesta. Nemo 19:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Consiglio accettato. Ora la metto su Commons. Grazie ancora Nemo  Raoli  19:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ora la cosa diventa brutta. Che fare? Leggi la fine della discussione. Riapriamo il caricamento temporaneo su Wikiquote. Ê proprio necessario. Troppo voci su italiani e film italiani sono sprovviste di foto che invogliano il lettore alla lettura.  Raoli  23:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Non vedo perché, in it.wiki sono pazzi ma questo non significa che tutti i progetti debbano esserlo altrettanto. Quelle immagini servono a tutti, quale che sia il metodo caricarle in Commons non costa piú fatica che in locale ed è l'unica cosa giusta da fare. Potresti anche chiedere in Talk:Cooperation of Wikimedia's Italian regional projects alle "sorelle minori" di it.wiki. Nemo 13:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Www.wikimedia.org_template

Hi! Please note for my proposal about this page. --Kaganer (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it, but I've aimed at a basic improvement. If this is still relevant please correct the /temp page. Nemo 10:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Done... --Kaganer (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant only the tag. I don't feel confident about such a drastic change without broader consultations, you should perhaps open a discussion at Wikimedia Forum. Cheers, Nemo 12:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Kaganer (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Problema con la Pagina Principale di Wikiquote

C'è un bug molto evidente nella pagina principale di Wikiquote. Non riesco a capire da dove provenga visto che prima non c'era. Sospetto un cambiamento su Mediawiki. Grazie -- Raoli  16:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sistemato, ma guarda che se mi scrivi di là leggo comunque, e non serve nemmeno andarmi a cercare chissà dove. :p Posso essere un po' lento a rispondere quando mi poni mille questioni. ;-) Nemo 18:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ero sicuro che l'avresti risolto. Sinceramente grazie! -- Raoli  22:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Signature

As for my signature is not good. Jel something wrong with him. And there appeared unto me at all what you think it should be. -- Velimir Ivanovic talk 14:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your help on my Linked profile but I still don't quite get the free as in beer part because we are non-profit organization. :)Tanuyeiro (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Um

You can't decline your own block. The unblock template is for uninvolved admin only to edit, and that is standard in every project. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not "my block" [only] and no I don't think that a blocked user can renew an unblock request every day requiring a new admin to review it. --Nemo 06:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nemo. I agree with Ottava above, it was never a meta practice that the same sysop declined the block. --WizardOfOz ^talk 06:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

We can continue wikilawyering ad nauseam (and I'll convince you that I'm procedurally right ;-) ) or we can just cool down and accept that the decision is valid, although one may disagree with it, for the reasons above. Nemo 07:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The decision is invalid and against consensus. You are, not for the first time, abusing your buttons. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I said the same as Ottava, on Mbz1's talk page. Since Mbz1 was requesting that the six month block, that you had imposed (changing Mathonius' indefinite block), be lifted; you reviewed the unblock request for the block you imposed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Unreasonable and abusive block. Peter Damian (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nemo, if a few editors are telling you that you acted while involved, and that you acted against consensus, and you're arguing you did not, it means not they, but you are wikilawyering. You are not procedurally right. Mbz1 was appealing your sanctions, and you should not have been the one to decline her unblock request. Besides Mbz1 wrote this: "If I am unblocked, I will not be taking baits anymore, and I will not respond to users who have been attacking me on English wikipedia even now. I will be leaving Meta, but I'd rather not to be blocked. I hope you understand. With this to keep me blocking any longer will be a punishment, will it not?" After this statement keeping her blocked by an involved administrator who acted against consensus is a clear abuse of your tools. This block is an extremely bad block. Please unblock Mbz1. Regards. Broccoli • talk page 19:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That statement was not part of the unblock request. The request surely didn't add any new element. Further hint: I only suggested to avoid new requests, I didn't forbid them (I didn't block both email and talk). --Nemo 19:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblock templates are not for "new info" but for new admin who are uninvolved. The reason is because if there was merit, an uninvolved person would see that. We also do not make such large blocks either on Meta, and it is sad that we are deteriorating. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree, the unblock template is not a way to request an unlimited number of appeals but to bring new considerations in. One of those can surely be a new administrator' point of view. I certainly won't withdraw my last rejection, the blocked user knows how to proceed. Regards, Nemo 20:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The template's instructions say: Please include an explanation of why you think you should be unblocked. It does not have to be something new. But first, the blocking admin must supply a reason for the block. You have not done that. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the unblock template is to request an unlimited amount of appeals. Unblocking is not first come first serve. All blocks are consensus only. By closing a template in which you were part of a block, you have overridden consensus and have harmed one of our core, fundamental principals. Admin aren't allowed to do that. Other projects may tolerate it, but Meta has a very blatant history of not allowing long term blocks so that people always have the ability to seek an overturning of a block elsewhere. You have made a lot of controversial actions in the past few months and you lack support within the community. These actions show that it is probably a good time for you to step down and take a break from the project as you are no longer acting in the best needs of this community. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ottava, you're completely disconnected from reality here, I've no idea what you're talking about. In particular, I have reduced the length of a block. I'm not your problem here, you're wasting your energy. --Nemo 07:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"I have reduced the length of a block" Actually, the opposite. It is common knowledge that a block without a fix time on Meta is done only for a temporary basis and for assurance regarding an action. Instead, you added a very long block. If you were "reducing" the block you would have set 24 - 48 hours. 6 months is way excessive for someone performing an action that Meta was designed for. Meta is the central hub and the place for people to freely overcome difficulties that arise in the lesser projects. The people from en.wiki complaining about Mbz1 should have been blocked for disruption and trying to wage war against what is fundamental and sacred to this project. Not the other way around. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not what an indef means and that's not the reason for her block. --Nemo 14:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Saying no doesn't make it so. Indef has always meant that and it is impossible for you to rewrite it otherwise because the Stewards and the majority of the admin here have made it clear over and over and indef is not permanent nor meant to be so but only an un-limited schedule until a condition is met. And it is clear from who I've discussed the matter with on IRC and email that it is the reason and that it is a really problematic reason. You lack consensus and if you refuse to act appropriate then it is easy enough to remove you from power on Meta. You were warned to change your ways a short while ago. Normally people take those warnings to heart. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Nemo, you have explained a number of points, that guide your thinking as an administrator, that seem a variance with accepted administrative practice. It is starting to appear that returning this discussion to the sysop noticeboard will be justified, although I can not at the moment decide if it is worth the trouble of doing that within the context of Meta. If I do, I would appreciate your not closing discussions when you are involved in the subject of the discussion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're free to waste your time. On the other hand, if you feel I'm involved and I should step out, I can cancel my granting of the unblock request and restore the indef block. Nemo 12:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Nemo, I have already explained my thinking on this issue. If there is something I said that you don't understand, just ask. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I got it. --Nemo 13:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Nemo's images

Hi Nemo,

I like your wikimedia commons images and would like to use some of them in an travel site. I'm a photoshop man so I always end up manipulating them. I would like to use one in an website header (I can email a screenshot). I will attribute to you at the bottom of the page, but I can't get your name near the photo (as it is in an image rotator).

let me know if its ok. thanks, granolaperson Granolaperson (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Reminder re Berlin hackathon

Hi! I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 22:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces are not invisible!

Hi. Please don't use &nbsp; as a hack to not show something. It adds... a space! There are a bunch of variants you can use instead. In this case, I chose <span></span>. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thank you. It definitely makes sense, I didn't put enough thought in it and just copied what other wikis do (en.wikt perhaps the biggest one), you may want to notify them as well. ;-) --Nemo 07:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Bah! How does that additional space not drive everyone mad? I left a note for Dominic here. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

www.wikiquote.org template

Hi Nemo, I do not understand why you did this, making three arbitrary languages larger than the others, again. You may not be seeing the same result that I am because it may be browser dependent, depending on which stylesheet is loaded, but I do not see any reason not to use the same formatting tags on all of the languages for consistency in all browsers. Have you reviewed discussion at Talk:Www.wikiquote.org template#Inconsistent emphasis? If you do not know how to fix this, perhaps we should ask an expert to look into it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Double double double... redirect

Hi Nemo bis. I assume this is a mistake, but as I don't know to which page it should point to I'm leaving a note here. Could you please fix it? Trijnstel_talk 12:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you very much. Nemo 12:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

a question

Hello. I wonder when will the stewards intervene this? Nowadays, Turkish wikipedia is like a battle field. It's hard to cool users down. I'm in wikibreak now. The accused admins haven't written a comment, so it increases the tension. And because of this conflict, Turkish Wikipedia is taken a knock. I don't know what to do and I feel anxious...--Sabri76 (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we have no admin removal policy. It's been discussed but we haven't decided yet. Also, most of them has other responsibilities like bureaucrat, oversight, etc. In our wiki, there're lots of unactive sysops. Some active ones decided these blockings in themself and they declared. Me and other active sysop's thought is disregarded, if I intervene before the strict blockings, we can find a compromise. I accept that these users are not totally innocent but they're blocked indefinitely and some other users reacted it. And there is a hazard that these users can become trolls, because some trolls, who have been blocked many years ago, still see these sysops as an enemy. They start to abuse this reasonable complaint and it can replace the process. It's my main anxiety. If both sides accept, I can find a compromise. I'm working for them because I'm ashamed that all wiki community witnesses our non-agreeable attitude. As you stated, there is a crisis that 10 or 15 users are against these blocking decisions. This event is like a puzzle. There're many other things, anyway, you're right I really need to luck :)--Sabri76 (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Who's splitting the discussion?

Nemo, redirecting the talk page of an independent page over to a page that hasn't been used in years is splitting the discussion apart from the page being discussed. Perhaps I should just have put the discussion on the page itself. SJ added that section because the WMF had neglected to create anywhere other than the Wikimedia-L mailing list for the community to discuss the annual plan. The plan has changed so drastically that there is no discussion benefit in attaching it to a page that has not been used to discuss WMF budgets/annual plans for several years. Does it really make sense to put the 2012-13 annual plan on a page that hasn't been used since 2009? If you really think so, then please merge in the actual page as well, instead of just redirecting the talk page. Risker (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh you're *that* Nemo! (Sorry, I wasn't aware that you were the fellow posting as "Nemo" on the Wikimedia-L list.) I actually quite disagree with SJ's choice of venue; it's downright silly to highlight how very different this annual plan is from the budgets of many years ago. Anytime we are discussing $46 million in donations, the discussion deserves its own page. The net effect of having buried the information into an old, disused page while pretending that the discussion has been sent to the wiki from the mailing list is essentially derailing the discussion. Risker (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. So, you don't think that page is historical and not meant to be reused. Well, I went to add the links for the 2012-13 year to the Wikimedia budget page, and it is fully protected. That sounds like a pretty clear sign that it's not intended to be used anymore. So...that seems like a pretty obvious (if unintended) faux pas to have tried to move discussion there, and now compounded because the people most likely to want to update the page are unable to do so. Are you an admin on this project? If so, could you please add the section for 2012-13 with links to the WMF wiki? Thanks. Risker (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Translation extension

Thanks for fixing the Help:Promoting users language tag. However I did find another issue. Please see <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ATranslate&taction=translate&group=page-Help%3APromoting+users&language=es&limit=100&task=untranslated>. The extension rightly told me that the displaytitle section was outdated because the namespace changed, but once updated, it continues marked as "fuzzy" and I can't remove it. If you could use the magic wand that'd be great, otherwise Bugzilla (tell me if I need to or CC me if you do it). Thanks, — MA (audiencia) 14:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Changing it to "Help:" works but it shouldn't be required, bugzilla:39041 because I don't know what else to do and I don't want to bother Niklas in the weekend. --Nemo 16:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

language

On other wikipedias, please do not leave messages in English with the exception of the Community Portal. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Why? --Nemo 21:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It's disruptive, arrogant, and imperialistic. I'm surprised you need to be told that. Seb az86556 (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I was amused. ^_^ PeterSymonds (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Seb, you know that I share your view on this subject, but I really can't understand your suggestion: for instance, I find it way, way worse to make the "village pumps" or whatever desolate deserts of English announcements making discussions among the locals feel almost out of place (which happens even in some supposedly not so small Italian wikis always making me feel sad), so a message to a specific talk seems much less disruptive to me. I think it's important for messages to be correctly calibrated.

Perhaps you mean that the content itself of my message was disruptive, arrogant, and imperialistic? It didn't sound so to me, but it's easy to make mistakes, so if you felt so please tell me and give me the opportunity to apologize and correct my wrongdoing wherever and however you feel suitable. Thanks, Nemo 06:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Travel guide

All aspects of Wikivoyage wish to join. This includes all edits, the site and the name. All the administers of Wikitravel wish to join us and bring all of their content with them. These two sites would than rejoin as a WMF project. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe but I've not seen any proof of any of these assertions, not to mention feasibility of course. Anyway, this has already been discussed at length. --Nemo 21:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Which aspects do not have proof? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

All you said. Please continue the discussion on the general talk where I've explained my doubts better. Thanks, Nemo 07:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Unsure what sort of evidence is sufficient. Discussion took place on google groups as IB did not allow discussion there. Anyway the WT community is moving to WV and thus discussion will now be should we accept WV as a WMF sister project. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, to me it seems you're assuming what you're supposed to prove. I have placed some notes about things which have not been proved and I'd like to understand, also mentioning practices which we apply with users from Wikimedia projects when it comes to voting. Thanks, Nemo 21:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

We can see how many admins are on English Wikitravel and count them (48). We can than see if these admins have voted here on the RfC and how they voted and that is 34 or so. I am not sure what you are wishing? These are simple numbers. Are you wanting verification that these are in fact admins on Wikitravel (that the user names in fact equal the same users)? And if that is the case how do you want us to confirm the associations between these accounts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so 48 is only the number of English Wikitravel admins, this wasn't specified, please do and also mention how many admins the other editions have (and yes, I was too lazy to check the statistics myself because I didn't even know which stats I was supposed to look at). As for the verification, yes I'd like to see verification up to Meta-Wiki's standards, that is with the user on Meta adding a link to their Wikitravel userpage stating it's the same person and viceversa. --Nemo 22:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent that seems a reasonable way to verify it. Wikitravel has recently lost a number of admins as IBobi has begun blocking people. [1] We already state English admins.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I messed up your fuzzies

Hi, Nemo. I just wanted to let you know that I'm afraid I messed up your FUZZY markup on Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Legal_Fees_Assistance_Program/it. Sorry about that! Yesterday I had a really hard time with FuzzyBot marking updates after tiny tweaks on the master document - one change Philippe made to a link caused a whole lot of sections to be flagged, for instance. (Yesterday was kind of nuts.) I thought that was going on again. Once I realized my mistake (and that !!FUZZY!! was a command humans could use to mark improvements), I put them back and hope I have fixed it correctly. Not all of the sections are "pink" yet, so I'm hoping that this is something the bot must update. If I haven't repaired it, then I must even more humbly apologize and ask your guidance on fixing it. Either way, I'll better check the history next time. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea there was such a box! Thanks. I need to learn this system better. Is mw:Help:Extension:Translate the best place to brush up? If so, I'll dig into it before I wind up in this position again. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Amharic Input Method

Hi, I noticed the message you left on the Amharic Wikipedia about the Narayam extension. I've wanted an extension like this for a long time because it would solve a lot of problems on the Amharic Wikipedia. I have tried it on translatewiki and the mapping is very different from the javascript one we're using right now. How can I help improve the mapping so that it would be familiar to current editors? Elfalem (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm glad to hear from you like this! Developing a mapping shouldn't be too hard: most of the work is listing the characters correspondences, and for the rest the developers can help you. Full instructions are on mw:Extension:Narayam#Developing_a_key_mapping, do what you manage to. If you list the characters and what they should be converted to, plus some examples (which will serve as tests), I'll file a bugzilla request and follow up on it (so that the real experts can help ;-) ). I hope this is enough to start with. Cheers, Nemo 17:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your reply. I have taken the current experimental Amharic rules and changed them into a more familiar mapping (located at [2]). It mostly follows the current mapping we use ([3]). It can be tested by opening the edit form for any page on the Amharic Wikipedia. Elfalem (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Narayam in all Bengali project

Thanks Nemo, I/We shall report bugzilla after successfully install in Bengali wiki. Jayantanth (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)