User talk:Nemo bis/Archive/2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Nemo bis" hides abuse by administrators[edit]

A discussion of bad actions by "Nemo bis" takes place on my personal talk page:
Sukčių vaikytojas
In short: he saw the abuse. But he removed the article about it. Rather than prosecute the abusers.

He ignores all arguments, and rules.

He imagines that a discussion is a deletion.
That an administrator is a king.

Sukčių vaikytojas 19:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, stop this, for it will lead to nothing. Continuing this line may get you blocked from editing Meta. Thank you. Wutsje 20:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We will see where will it lead. You want no discussion. Then there will be no wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sukčių vaikytojas (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2011

Welcoming by bots or autowelcoming ;)[edit]

On pl wiki we have something special and easy for newbies ;) Maybe better than welcoming by bots. pl:MediaWiki:Welcomecreation - inputbox leading to user page (preload) with useful links. Effects - pl:Specjalna:Rejestr/newusers - look on blue user pages. Or new userpages log: Nowa strona: == Przydatne na początku == * Wikipedia:Strona użytkownika Przykuta 23:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I remember the discussion on foundation-l. :-) If I remember correctly, at the time the message was quite different and I objected that the user didn't have a permanent list of useful links, so this seems a good idea. ;-) However, in this manner a) users who don't click are "lost", while the welcome on talk is a permanent invite; b) auto-created accounts can't be welcomed, c) users are not introduced to the talk usage. This doesn't mean that your system is bad, it's just something to consider. The matter is open to different opinions; I still think that welcoming by bot is more fit to the WelcomeNewcomer rule/pattern, although not perfect; see also MeatBall:WelcomeVisitors page for automated welcomes. --Nemo 10:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I know - but - autowelcomed users are introduced to the talk usage - second link on they new user page ;). Maybe better will be fix - if user not used autowelcoming -> use bot... For auto-created accounts probably better will be template with text about local wiki. Heh, I don't know, how to fix it. So, many times newbies remove welcoming templates. The best template which I use (the most effective) is simply - "Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. If you have a problem talk [link to new section on my tal page with me]..." with several based links. Przykuta 14:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
3 months - ~700 users with autocreated user pages ;) Przykuta 06:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Video conference[edit]

Ciao Nemo bis! I read that you will have a meeting in Vicenza for the 10th aniversary of Wikipedia on 15th January 2011. Maybe you have heard that a lot of Wikipedia meetings on this day will try to make video conferences via Skype. I am talking on behalf of the meeting in Vienna, Austria. We will meet at 18:00 and we would be very happy if we could also make such a skype video-conference with you in Vicenza. If you have internet-connection at your stand and a webcam and microphone, such a Skype-call would be easily possible. Just tell us your Skypename and we will make such a call at this evening. At our meeting there will maybe even be some journalists from Austrian newspapers present, so this would certainly impress them, if we make such international video calls with Wikipedia colleagues from other countries. If you want to contact us, go to our page discussion at Wikipedia_Diskussion:Wien. Saluti --El bes 16:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)



I answered you there:



Category:Proposed projects[edit]

Cool, let me know if you have any further ideas for cleanup of Category:Proposed projects. And flood flag tip duly noted!--Pharos 15:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome message for new users[edit]

Hi Nemo,

I just got a Meta-Wiki Welcome message on my talk page - seems I was never logged in when visiting meta before. Anyway, the bot writes "If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page". I think this should link to a real talk page, maybe the forum, if possible. Thanks, and keep up the good work :-) -- YOC 18:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I know, that part of the message sounds really weird now. I've not changed it because as I wrote here I hope that someone will fix the template; we could also make the bot add a random "real" signature. In the meanwhile, if you click the "talk" link of the bot account you're redirected to Meta:Babel, which is not so bad. --Nemo 19:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your quick answer. Maybe as a workaround the bot could simply get its own template as the message is in English anyway. Best regards, -- YOC 23:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Input requested[edit]

See Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Requests_for_comment.2FThekohser_-_user_talk_access. Cheers, Guido den Broeder 19:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder[edit]

This edit does not bode well. It's been said that crying "personal attack" without clear evidence is a personal attack. While I'd give great freedom to people to complain about incivility, there are limits. I still think your close of the RfC on Thekohser was not the best decision, but, quite simply, it's not worth all this fuss, as you pointed out. If I pitched a fit every time someone disagreed with me, they'd have to hospitalize me. Thanks for your attention so far. --Abd 15:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if «crying "personal attack" without clear evidence is a personal attack», at least per se. I didn't like that revert because your message was on-topic etc.; try and just re-add it explaining why. --Nemo 06:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Nemo, others have claimed harassment when I've added comments like that. I'll try it once, at your suggestion, but I certainly won't revert war with Guido. --Abd 18:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I did not restore the comment, it's enough that it's mentioned with a link. Instead, I responded to Herbythyme, and if it's removed, I'll probably place it on Talk:Herbythyme, and, in future, comment directly to any admin who is considering the behavior of Guido.... within reasonable limits. Personally, I'd rather it be on my Talk page, where I could see it and respond to it! The issue I raised with you was not any kind of allegation that Guido could not remove comments, per se, though the right to remove comments is within administrative discretion. Uncivil removal might be an issue, but I'm not really raising that; my concern was simply what that removal bodes for future cooperation with the community on Guido's part. --Abd 19:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


I would appreciate it if you address my comments here. Frankly I do not see "attacks" just some rather intense discussion. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Your threat[edit]

Here you are threatening me with multiple blocks, without cause. Please withdraw this threat, or I will be forced to start a desysop procedure against you. Guido den Broeder 20:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about: what do you mean with "threat"? Moreover, the "without cause" above refers to "threatening" or to "blocks"? If the diff is correct, perhaps you're referring to "shorter and prompter blocks", but still I don't understand your concern: don't worry, nobody is blocked on Meta without reason. Nemo 20:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
He's on his way, it seems. It may be necessary to write a little about what "ad hominem argument" means. Herbythyme seems a tad unclear on it. --Abd 23:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


Ti ho scritto in wikiquote per una questione che mi pare piuttosto urgente. --Micione 21:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

File talk:Wikimedia Italia - State of the chapter - Wikimedia Conference 2011.pdf --Elitre 20:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania 2011[edit]

Ciao! Ho letto il tuo nome tra i partecipanti di Wikimania 2011: anch'io saro' presente! Sono anch'io di Milano, sto contattando gli altri partecipanti italiani per scambiarci informazioni pratiche (volo, passaporto, visto, ecc). Ho gia' contattato un altro ragazzo piemontese. Potresti darmi il tuo indirizzo mail? Grazie a presto :-) -- Larry.europe 09:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


Ok, gli do un occhiata. --Deniel 19:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Research Team Category[edit]

Hi Federico, thanks for helping out reorganizing the research pages, my understanding is the Research Team category is obsolete and we shouldn't be using it any more. I think we should create an RCom category for RCom-related initiatives and tag the relevant pages accordingly. How does that sound? --DarTar 20:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't see that Category:Research Team is six years old (it should be noted somewhere): I hadn't seen any RCom category under Category:Research and I thought it was it; a new category is certainly needed, although perhaps pages should be categorized by subject rather than by author, so only pages strictly related to RCom should be there, while e.g. Template for research projects could be put under Category:Research guidelines and best practices or something like that and so on. Anyway, do as you want, just don't leave pages uncategorized. :-) Nemo 09:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Federico we're discussing the renaming of research pages on IRC (#wikiresearch-rcom) wanna join? --DarTar 23:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi Nemo. Could you please repair this template (it's protected). Parameter name (e.g. id-sign) needs to be added instead of "2". It doesn't work correctly at the moment (see: Board_elections/2011/Candidates/en). Thanks, Mikołkatalk (plwiki)e-mail 12:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The template works, with this standard fix. Nemo 17:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, you're right. But it could be done anyway - for consistency - other parameters have meaningful names. :) --Mikołkatalk (plwiki)e-mail 17:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Russian translation[edit]

I've noticed you recently reverted my edits to the "ru" section, summarily along with some other languages ([1]). You also removed the stated rationale behind choice of specific words for translation which was included by me in the HTML comments specifically for other "ru" section editors. Could you elaborate on the reasons? Cherkash 16:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Romanian Wikisource[edit]

Sorry to impose on your time, but after reading the discussion on WS:Scriptorium I am so bold as to ask if you could help us with the new namespaces we need for proofreading. We would need something like:

$wgExtraNamespaces[100] = "Autor";
$wgExtraNamespaces[101] = "Discuție_Autor";
$wgExtraNamespaces[102] = "Index";
$wgExtraNamespaces[103] = "Discuție_Index";
$wgExtraNamespaces[104] = "Pagină";
$wgExtraNamespaces[105] = "Discuție_Pagină";

and the main namespace to be renamed from Pagină to Text. Thank you in advance and have a nice day.Mishuletz 13:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC) (excuse my spelling)

Done. You can see the request on bugzilla:29190 (I suggest you to register and add yourself to CC to follow it). I don't know how much time it will take. Bye, Nemo 16:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank for your help.Mishuletz 14:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Wikisource namespaces[edit]

I will poke an admin to try it. Thanks for the tip. Lugusto 23:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi Nemo bis, did you stop receiving my emails? Maybe check your spam folder, I just resent the mail. Sorry for misusing this discussion page. Thanks, he!ko 12:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


(Per quanto il messaggio qui sopra sia inquietante...) Wikimedia Foundation contractors dice esplicitamente di non aggiungere gente già elencata altrove, ad es. Brion che è staff. Più che altro cmq passavo per chiederti se non c'è invece una pagina che raccolga che cosa hanno fatto 'ste persone e chiunque lavori per WMF, per capire alla fine del contratto se effettivamente hanno apportato qualcosa o meno (dubbio legittimo credo, visti i pareri contrastanti letti per l'abbandono della geek sferruzzante). --Elitre 18:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A me non interessava una valutazione, chi dovrebbe farla?, ma solo un report di quello che hanno fatto, detto ecc. (cose importanti intendo). Per esempio per ogni membro del board non dovrebbe essere difficile mantenere una pagina con la lista dei voti che hanno espresso sulle varie questioni, e magari le motivazioni (tipo così ma con più dettagli), alla openpolis. Non è che possiamo continuare in eterno a valutare solo la bella presenza o se sanno parlare o meno (che nemmeno lo si può fare decentemente col sistema di elezione board attuale peraltro). --Elitre 19:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Importing text[edit]

Ah, thanks for letting me know, I'll be sure to do so in the future. Sorry about that. Staeiou 06:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


Hi Nemo, why don't we just Import those templates and we avoid any copyright issues? axpdeHello! 07:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't really need the full page history. Nemo's linking to the source page is adequate. Cbrown1023 talk 15:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

copied from my talk page:

I'm a great fan of Special:Import, but there are no copyright issues to avoid. When we switched to CC-BY-SA we took the opportunity to clear completely how import/transfer/derivation of text within our projects should work, and we really shouldn't make it more complex than needed (also because draconian rules in this area have always been written but never respected, while reasonable requests are more likely to succeed and reach the goal). The normal import, by the way, is not different from copying the page and linking to the original (except that it's faster); the import of the whole history is not so useful and can be very confusing. If I remember correctly has different rules (unless they've changed lately), but this doesn't matter. Nemo 07:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Just linking the source page bears a big problem: What happens, when the source page is (re)moved? Then the file history is gone and no attribution of authorship accoring to CC 3.0 is provided anymore! axpdeHello! 17:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
What is the likelihood of the page being moved or deleted? Even then, record is still preserved somewhere (deleted content, redirect left, notice of deletion, etc). I agree, we don't really need the full page history, and linking to the original quite satisfies the copyright stuff. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If the page is moved, there will be a redirect, unless admins delete harmless redirects (something which should really be avoided), or at least a log action. Pages copied elsewhere are very unlikely to be deleted (unless you're moving them or, again, admins delete histories with no reason). If something bad happens we can always restore the page temporarily and import it. Nemo 17:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Abuse filter on zhwp[edit]

Hi Nemo, just to drop a note that we have already made changes to the 2 filters you mentioned (allow edits to be submitted and modified the message template). I also proposed changes to some other filters (such as error in reference tag or missing <references />) to make it clearer and more friendly. Thank you again!--Bencmq 06:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


Hey Nemo! Making sure you see this: [2] Cbrown1023 talk 16:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Translator, We need you![edit]

Dear Nemo bis,

You have helped us in previous years with translations and for that we are most grateful. Now we turn towards the 2011/12 fundraiser. It may seem forever away, but work has already begun getting everything ready to go. This year we want to have landing pages covering as many countries in as many languages as possible.

Right now, we want to figure out who is interested in translating for the fundraiser. This year we're hoping to have more of a solidified "core" group of translators that we can count on to have work done by a few key dates, but we'd also welcome help from people who are willing to just help out when they can.

If you would be interested please take a look at this little sign-up survey and fill it out With that we can start building a list of people and filling any gaps in the languages we serve.

Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon (User:Jseddon (WMF))

Production Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
Jseddon (WMF) 00:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Pagine nel namespace principale[edit]

Io intendevo in questo senso (con le opportune modifiche ovviamente). Comunque devo indagare e farmi una idea più precisa. P.S.: Guarda che WikiQuote in inglese è infinitamente meglio di quella in italiano. Ci sono più articoli, più citzioni e molte più fonti. Io più che contribuire a WikiQuote in inglese, lo consulto (principalmente contribuisco alla Wikipedia in inglese) e, quando esiste un link alla corrispondente versione in italiano, ogniqualvolta che disgraziatamente ci faccio click sopra, poi mi metto le mani tra i capelli (idem per Wikipedia). Le versioni in italiano sono al momento irrilevanti e spesso disinformative. –pjoef (talkcontribs) 11:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Aiuto:Collegamenti interwiki[edit]

Ieri ho finito di fare un controllo globale della pagina di aiuto ed ora mi sembra che vada bene. Credo di aver controllato anche tutti i link presenti, ma sono così tanti che qualcosa mi potrebbe essere sfuggita. Comunque, appena trovo il tempo, la controllerò nuovamente.
Per quanto riguarda le pagine sulle Wikipedie (in inglese ed italiano). La Wikipedia in inglese ha quattro pagine: "w:en:Help:Interwikimedia links" (tra le pagine di aiuto e riporta il link alla pagina di Meta, Help:Interwiki linking, a fondo pagina nella sezione "See also"), "w:en:Help:Interwiki linking" (sempre tra le pagine di aiuto è una copia della pagina presente su Meta), "w:en:Interwiki links" (nel namespace principale) e "w:en:Help:Interlanguage links" (nelle pagine di aiuto). Sulla Wikipedia in italiano invece ci sono: "w:it:Aiuto:Interwiki" che è simile alla prima di quelle sulla Wikipedia in inglese e "w:it:Aiuto:Interlink" che è simile all'ultima. Poi, su entrambe le Wikipedie, ci sono altre pagine di aiuto su wikilink, link, namespace ed altro. Per ora mi fermo qui ed a questi due progetti. Spero di trovare il tempo per approfondire la questione magari anche su altri progetti.
Buona domenica. –pjoef (talkcontribs) 10:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Interview at Wikimania 2011[edit]

Hi Nemo. My name is Matthew Roth and I'm a Storyteller at the Wikimedia Foundation. We're chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community, especially editors, administrators, and active contributors in the movement like you. I'll be traveling to Wikimania in August to collect stories for our 2011 Fundraiser. While there I'd love the chance to meet with you and hear your thoughts about Wikipedia. We’ll have a schedule of available times for you to sign up if you’re interested, but right now, I’d like to gauge your interest. Please let me know by emailing me at Thank you, Matthew (wmf) 21:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

relocation of page to my userspace[edit]

Hi Nemo

You relocated this page to my userspace last year: User:Manning_Bartlett/A_definition_of_Philosophy. Because I am the first name on the history log you appear to have assumed I created it - I didn't, I probably just corrected a typo (in those days Meta was a dumping ground for anything which didn't belong on Wikipedia). I have no idea who wrote this, and as the history log has been long since lost (as are much of the 2001 era logs) there is no way of ever knowing. Regardless, it is pretty awful and can probably be deleted safely. Manning 02:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done per user request. (Strangely, this edit triggered a message in the cvn-meta channel as possible copyvio, just in case you're wondering how I found this.) --Courcelles 03:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
LOL. I've found a few other weird pages I inherited as well - I'm listing them at deletions. Manning 03:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


I believe you wanted to redirect WM:RfD‎ to Meta:Requests for deletion instead of Meta:Requests for adminship :) mickit 06:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a bit silly this morning. Thank you, Nemo 06:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Never mind. It happens to everyone :) mickit 06:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Fundraising 2010/Chapters[edit]

When you have a minute, could you please update Wikimedia Italia's row at Fundraising 2010/Chapters? Thanks! --MZMcBride 23:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Grazie di tutto[edit]

Ciao Nemo bis, ti ringrazio per avermi accolto tra voi. --Daniele1996 18:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


  • Visto come stanno andando gli eventi per Wikipedia e la nazione italiana mi sono messo a lavorare da un po' di tempo qui, vedendo anche quanto lavoro ci sarebbe da fare. Hai visto ehh che voce su Tito Livio su Wikiquote. ;) Sulle traduzioni, invece, non ho problemi. Basta solo tradurre utilizzando i termini tecnici già usati dalla versione precedente. Non rimango mai su un unico progetto per troppo tempo. Lavoro su Source poi Quote poi Commons poi Wikipedia, poi Quote poi Commons e ora Meta (a seconda di quello che mi va!) Io lo trovo un buon modo per non appesantire il cervello lavorando a pieno nella vita "reale" e anche qui.
  • Comunque se ricapitano le stesse condizioni su un altro progetto mi è molto gradito che aggiungi il pannello Babel (o quello che ti pare; basta che non fai come qui che non ci capisco più niente). :)
  • L'iscrizione a quella lista già l'ho fatta: ho visto il banner e già tutto OK, anche se non ho capito a che serve la lista.... :?
  • Per il Fundaraising 2011 ho lavorato sulla pagina con molta incertezza derivata dal fatto che certe volte per capire meglio la questione perdevo circa 30-50 min. su altre pagine e potevo perdere tutta la traduzione perché magari il browser perdeva i dati (come già successo praticamente su tutti i progetti Wikimedia) oppure per modifiche insieme. Per questo ora non ci lavoro sopra, ma su una mia sandbox più nascosta. I template (c'avrei giurato che danno fastidio quando sono posti in area personale) hai fatto bene a escluderli.
  • Poi ho notato in Fundarising 2011 che traduzioni di articoli etichettati [READY] in realtà erano [NEEDS UPDATING] e che vi erano frasi sicuramente tradotte dal solo "google traduttore" che erano senza senso. Quello che ho trovato ho migliorato.
  • Parlando d'altro, secondo te come andrà con la famosa "legge Bavaglio" o DDL intercettazioni per Wikipedia e company? C'è, io, pensavo che forse il consiglio che ho letto qui sarebbe la cosa che si meritassero per tutto ciò che non funziona in Italia (cioè quasi, praticamente, appunto tutto). Non so se ti va di esprimerti in poche parole a riguardo.

Grazie ancora per tutto --Raoli 20:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Gli errori di traduzione e le frasi sconnesse se le ho trovate le ho sistemate. Non ti preoccupare. Ciao :) --Raoli 23:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


Ho pensato solo ora che qui Translation requests/WMF/Board of Trustees/en è presente una versione vecchia del Consiglio Direttivo. é un problema poiché se qualcun altro traducesse quel testo farebbe una fatica inutile visto che qui [3] ce ne è uno più aggiornato. Sai per caso a chi posso chiedere per problemi del genere? Grazie Nemo --Raoli 23:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Grazie. Non pensavo che si potesse fare così. :) --Raoli 22:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Don´t be a dick[edit]

I think that as a sysop who is involved in the discussion you shouldn´t decide in this case about consensus. Sorry but I can´t see any kind of consenus on the talk page at this moment. So would you please revert it to the last version as I protected it? Thanks. --WizardOfOz talk 18:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree: if there's a consensus, there's no reason in general why a sysop who followed the discussion and knows it shouldn't apply such consensus; what involved sysops are usually/often asked to avoid is the protection, which can throw non-sysops out of the discussion. In this case there was a consensus and I showed it in the discussion, while I don't understand on what basis you say there was no consensus. Also, I'm not sure that a poll can produce anything useful and I don't like the idea much, but we'll see (thank you for trying). Nemo 16:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Traduzione Completa[edit]

Ora a me non è chiaro perché dopo aver finito la traduzione del Consiglio Direttivo e segnalato come "published", la nuova versione non sia presente sul sito della Wikimedia Foundation. Dove posso chiedere? Ciao :) --Raoli 13:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Traduzione Completa[edit]

Come Faccio a pubblicare la versione aggiornata delle Sedi Locali sul sito della Wikimedia Foundation? Non ho capito se segnando "italiano" come published significa che io l'ho pubblicato o significa che lo mando in lista di pubblicazione. Grazie mille ancora. :)

-- Raoli  03:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Fatto -- Raoli  12:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Ho notato come mi hai detto la differenza fra maiuscole e minuscole it:Aiuto:Maiuscolo e minuscolo -- Raoli  12:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Problemi vari[edit]

1. Come si fa a registrarsi alla Wikimedia Foundation?

2. Su Non fare l'idiota ho corretto l'errore madornale che avevo fatto senza farci caso.

3. Ho letto tutta la discussione a riguardo della pagina e non sono riuscito a capire qual'è il problema. Per supportarti ho pensato di tradurla com'è ora. Alla fine della discussione si chiede di ritornare alla versione precedente. Perché non lo fai? Tanto in italiano questa versione c'è. Se a loro non piace quella perchè impuntarsi. Non capendo logicamente cosa cambi in peggio tra quella vecchia e quella nuova penso che si possa ritornare a quella prima. Non ti preoccupare, se ho capito bene, anche qui sono troppo conservatori.

4. Qui si parla di questo User_talk:WizardOfOz#Nemo_bis.

5. Non mi pare di aver messo questo: Category:Open requests for translation. Forse si inserisce automaticamente facendo una determinata azione.

6. Secondo te, quando devo tradurre dei saggi a cosa devo stare attento? Grazie mille Spero la situazione si risolva al meglio ;) -- Raoli  17:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Grazie mille Nemo per tutto. Se avessi problemi su meta con traduzioni a doppio senso o in generale ti ricontatterò. Face-grin.svg  Raoli  00:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


Cool3, an admin account on en.wikipedia, was supposedly put up for auction and sold to Thekohser. Who knows if that really happened or not, but that was what was said. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Lista Fundraising[edit]

Ciao, ho visto che hai cercato di iscriverti alla lista fundraising. Quella è una lista in cui si discutono cose noiosissime ed è pensata soprattutto per la gente dei capitoli (due o tre per capitolo), sicuramente non ti interessa e non ne capiresti nulla senza aver prima partecipato per un po' a liste come foundation-l e a quella di Wikimedia Italia (se sei interessato a queste cose dovresti associarti! :-D). Peraltro adesso è quasi morta... Ciao

Nella pagina di spiegazione delle liste questo non c'era scritto. Grazie di avermelo detto. Mi ero inscritto alla lista ma mi è stato rifiutato di farne parte, quindi è come se non mi fossi iscritto, tutto ok. Se non sbaglio mi sono iscritto ad un bel po' di liste tra ieri e l'altro ieri. Sai che è successo. Quando mi è arrivata la risposta negativa sull'iscrizione c'era scritto:

La tua richiesta alla lista Fundraising Subscription request è stata rifiutata dal moderatore. Il moderatore ha dato la seguente ragione per il rifiuto: "See with Nemo"

Curioso eh! ;) -- Raoli  16:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-specific Protocol[edit]

Hey nemo,

It was actully an intentional decision to use those type of url's . The reason is that the banners are show on both the main sites and the secure version of the site. The secure servers are not up to scratch for us to use secure images across all of the projects for 100% of page views for the fundraiser, but we also do not wish to be using non-secure images on the secure sites. This way we can have satisfy all our users. I have reverted the changes already since we have a test soon.

Thanks anyway Jseddon (WMF) 13:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Global sysop inactivity[edit]

Hey Nemo bis, I just wanted to let you know that the activity of global sysops is measured by whether or not they have performed log actions (anything that is recorded in a log that requires sysop tools), not whether or not they use the tools. A very recent case has come up where a global sysop was still using their rights to view deleted content, but not performing any log actions, and their rights were still removed. While you may consider the word action to be unclear, it much better represents the actual criteria for removal than your wording of "used respective rights". Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, after doing some more research into it I've found that, although activity is being measured by log actions, there was never a discussion to that effect. I've started one now. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Articlefeedback-field-wellwritten-tip[edit]

Hi Nemo - see my response. Looking forward to more feedback, thanks!! Siko 18:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Dare una mano[edit]

Ciao Nemo, ho appena terminato la traduzione di Translation requests/WMF/Answers/Process in Translation requests/WMF/Answers/Process/it. Potresti per favore ridare uno sguardo alla traduzione. Non ho ben capito se è importante tradurre questa pagina. Essendo in dubbio l'ho tradotta! :)  Raoli  23:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

e... anche dare un'occhiata a Fundraising 2011/Banners and LPs/it. Ti ringarzio.  Raoli  23:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Se hai tempo anche Fundraising 2011/Thank You Mail/it.  Raoli  00:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Se potresti pubblicare Translation requests/WMF/Home/it sulla Wikimedia Foundation. :)  Raoli  02:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok Grazie per la risposta e non ti preoccupare per la lentezza. Ho visto che nonostante la vita reale hai collaborato con altri progetti. Forse essere admin toglie molte forze e libertà! Grazie ancora per aver contatto il responsabile di Answers. Per le categorie di traduzione ho messo tutto a posto come hai detto te in category:Translations it. Per home, scusa ma non ho capito se per esempio il titol odella sezione Il Piano Strategico di Wikimedia dovrebbe invece essere Il piano strategico di Wikimedia. Oppure Le nostre Priorità Strategiche: Stabilizzare l'infrastruttura di base diventerebbe Le nostre priorità strategiche: stabilizzare l'infrastruttura di base. Oppure bo. Per questo non ho capito, e, non ho capito il problema dei link. Quell iche io posso modificare hanno il testo visualizzato in italiano che rimanda ad una pagina fornita dalla pagina Home/en così. Non mi ricordo di aver apportato modifiche i nquesta direzione. Se me li dici ti sono grato. -- Raoli  19:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Ho sistemato, spero così vada bene, i link nella Home della Wikimedia Foundation. Se fai un salto da queste parti vedi se ho sbagliato qualcosa. -- Raoli  20:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Making URLs protocol-relative[edit]

Hi. I saw you ran AnankeBot to fix up some protocol-relative URLs in CentralNotice banners. Thanks for doing that. It was on my to-do list as well, but I've been crazy busy/distracted lately.

Would it be possible for you to do the same on I can make you a bot/admin/bureaucrat whatever as necessary. --MZMcBride 02:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Creating of userright[edit]

Could you remove it? There was no consensus and is creating drama. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 14:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Terms of use / Condizioni d'uso: traduzione completata[edit]

Ciao. Volevo solo salutarti e ringraziarti per l'accoglienza dello scorso 3 novembre, quando sono entrato "ufficialmente" nel progetto. Mi scuso se non ti ho risposto subito, ma la mia presenza sulle varie "Wiki", a causa dei soliti impegni quotidiani, è sempre molto irregolare. Nel frattempo ho completato la traduzione italiana dei Terms of use. Mi sembra corretta, ma mi piacerebbe che tu o qualche altro utente esperto ci deste comunque un'occhiata.

Seguendo il tuo suggerimento, ho anche specificato nella mia pagina utente il mio livello di conoscenza dell'inglese. Spero di poter contribuire presto a qualche altra traduzione. Intanto buon lavoro e grazie ancora. Chemako0606 10:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it allowed in Wikipedia?[edit]

To keep in the pages of wiki Administrator's personnel thesis? at ? Other problem is We call Computer as same in English, but admin forcibly used his word Ganpukar of Computer. I have proof that thousands of published books called it Computer not Ganpukar. If some one oppose him he started abusive language. That is the reason never got attraction to Sindhi community. Plz check record there. Other things are he locked CSS due to that on the same site there are lot of font styles appeared there. He is not able to set commonCSS or Monocss. We are in trouble to work in our local Sindhi language. I don't know where to say for this problem. Record history says all the situation there. I appeal plz warn him to follow rules, other wise he will continue use his personnel details and personnel promoted articles there. Dear I am sorry If u r not right person to say all about this, Plz suggest me where I can raise this issue. My ID is same. His thesis is not a violetion?ماحولياتي_انتظام_ڪاڻ_اُپُگِرَهِي_عَڪس_ضماءُ_۽_درجه_بنديءَ_جي_طريقن_جو_اَڀياس Alixafar 23:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Still no response there[edit],_a_house_of_problems

But still no one came to give suggestions Alixafar 19:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


^ FYI. It seems the fundraising folks aren't really getting the message. Hopefully this will help. --MZMcBride 05:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


Diciamo che questo mese sono stati chiesti lumi, ma non ho visto risposte in merito. Del resto, è davvero come ti ho detto tante volte: OTRS è un mondo a parte. E comunque da quello che ho visto finora è quasi un copincolla di FAQ. L'improvvisazione regna sovrana. --Elitre 11:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Meta:Article feedback[edit]

Hi Nemo! Yes, agreed, when the tool becomes completely localized, we should make sure the background pages (like this one) are also localized. The tool has not been fully customized for this new translation use we've been piloting, as you've seen, so there are still loose ends like this - ideally maybe we would just remove the link to this page from the tool, its not entirely applicable. For the moment, there is so much to do for fundraiser translations that changes like this are still somewhat low on the list of priorities...but hopefully we will have time to get to cleaning this up sometime soon. Thank you for the reminder. Siko 20:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi Nemo, I just noticed this (don't log into the WMF wiki often)... I probably missed your question, I don't think I follow the fundraising list. Let me know if it was a question specifically for me :) -- phoebe | talk 18:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

NWI header edit[edit]

New wikis importers#Access says one week, which is why I had a week there :-) Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi. I rewrote CentralNotice a bit. It's somewhat related to this discussion, if you're interested in participating. --MZMcBride 17:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

HTTPS things[edit]

Hi again. I'm pleased to report that is now working fine (at least, as far as Google Chrome can tell), but there are a number of smaller Wikimedia wikis which have red or orange HTTPS tags. For example, (orange), (red), (red), (orange), (red). Is there some sort of centralised discussion of HTTPS implementation where I can report this, since I don't speak all the languages listed and notifying the software developers will probably lead to a speedier resolution than notifying small wikis individually? Thanks. It Is Me Here t / c 12:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe it would be possible to create a global bot which could search for and correct whatever it was that was causing the problem here? It Is Me Here t / c 12:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Not everything can be fixed by a bot, for instance I had run a bot on Meta before fixing those issues you reported; but yes, it's something that should be done. I think devs won't take care of this; see Stewards'_noticeboard#Fixing_HTTPS_on_Wikimedia_wikis instead. Nemo 08:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Has there been any progress with this? After taking a random walk through various Wikiprojects on Chrome, German Wiktionary is red, Korean Wiktionary is orange, Korean Wikisource is orange, Catalan Wikisource is green, Catalan Wikiquote is red. It Is Me Here t / c 14:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
No, this is not something that will be fixed in a few days, there's a very long tail of needed fixes. Nemo 15:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

RE:Translation requests/WMF/Staff/it[edit]

Lavoraccio che t'ho dato. Sai, alla fine della traduzione ho dato uno sguardo alle altre lingue e ho notato che nessun'altra li traduceva. Gulp! Ho detto tra me e me: "è un lavoro sprecato e ho perso tempo". Poi, tutto soddisfatto ho trovato il lato positivo della cosa: "queste traduzioni faranno strada in Italia, sono le prime in italiano"! Il lato negativo è stato anche quello di procurarti nel lasso di tempo dello shopping pre-natalizio un bel po' di grane. Di questo me ne scuso, ma ti ripeto, alla fine della trad. non avrei mai voluto iniziarla. :-P  Raoli  02:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


Il titolo senior secondo una mia logica è = esperto oppure onorario. Il primo poichè anziano in senso di sapiente, esperto. Il secondo dettato dalla logica che sembrebbe un titolo di onore ad una determinata persona. Vedi se uno dei due è meglio.  Raoli  02:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

e si, è irrisolvibile. Grazie per il link al dizionario. Non sapevo esistesse. Buone feste di nuovo. -- Raoli  19:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Idee aumento utenti iscritti che editano[edit]

Lo so che è folle, ma che ne pensi di ""Wiki-Browser" o qualcosa del genere? Poi pensa a un browser sviluppato dal 2009 da Diamantini (un italiano penso) basato su Webkit come Chrome o Safari e avente per ora il più basso utilizzo. Pensa ad un browser che si affianchi ad un'altro browser per la visualizzazione. Insomma un browser solo per siti Wiki o anche solo Wikimedia. Io penso che reconq abbia queste potenzialità poiché utilizza Webkit (il migliore motore di rendering al momento e in futuro io penso), è semplice da usare, ha un lettore tutto suo per pdf e soprattutto ai più si presenterà tra mozilla e chrome (cioè tra i maggiori browser del momento) sviluppato da un italiano in più. Poi se l'idea di appoggiarsi ad un'altro browser sconosciuto a tutti non ti piace si può sempre pensare a crearci un browser tutto nostro e indipendente. Questa è l'idea. sai dirmi inoltre a chi potrei rivolgermi specificatamente? Ciao e grazie -- Raoli  00:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

E invece che ne pensi di un Wikipedia Journalist Giornalista Wikpedia cioè un tipo di utente che ha il compito di scovare le novità più importanti su Wikipedia, cioè uno che conosca tutte le discussioni a riguardo di un certo progetto e scelga quelle più importanti per far notizia non nella Bacheca ma ad una pagina dell'utente chimata News Notizie. In questo modo si avrebbe più gente alle votazioni, le persone si sentirebbero più partecipative e contribuirebbero di più al progetto e ognuno sarebbe a conoscenza delle votazioni/discussioni in atto e se ha tempo può parteciparvi. -- Raoli  22:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, hai colto nel segno. Approfondisco la questione.
  • 1) Per esempio nel Wikipediano appaiono molte cose ma ciò so cui mi volevo concentrare è Discussioni in evidenza, Vetrina: segnalazioni, Votazioni in corso. In Discussioni in evidenza, chiamiamola categorie per semplicità, vi sono solo discussioni al Bar Abbastanza recenti, non vi sono discussioni al Bar più importanti che non hanno avuto un seguito ma che potrebbero averlo per esempio mesi dopo. Inoltre in discussioni in evidenza mancano completamente quelle discussioni su voci eminenti che potrebbero interessare l'utente. MAncano anche le discussioni tese a miglorare tramite vagli le voci. E mancano le discussioni riguardanti l'importazioni di importanti template o la modifica dei più usati.
  • Vetrina: segnalazioni è OK così com'è. Votazioni in corso non tiene conto delle diverse realtà di wikipedia e company poichè tiene conto solo delle riconferme degli amministratori e non delle più importanti votazioni che hanno destato più commenti o novità in chi vi ha partecipato.
  • Queste discussioni/votazioni avvengono e ci stanno sotto il naso ma non sappiamo che esistano e quindi le ignoriamo. Per questo di solito ai vagli ci sono poco più di 10 persone che vi partecipano. Per questo stesso motivo le votazioni non sono mai giuste, poichè rappresentano una infima parte del totale degli utenti attivi sul progetto Wiki. In questo modo le Wiki non crescono nè nella direzione migliore nè crescono abbastanza velocemente e in modo continuo ma con lentezza e discontinuità (meglio, con dei veri e propri punti di discontinuità nei momenti di maggior lavoro e poco dialogo tra gli utenti).
  • 2) Però quello che intendo non è tanto di fornire un unico spazio in cui trovare Discussioni del Bar, Discussioni su Template Fondamentali, su Regole da Modificare, segnalazioni alla vetrina e votazioni in corso, ma uno spazio che si deve trovare sulla propria pagina utente in modo che soprattutto un utente registrato possa avere da un lato dei vantaggi nell'iscriversi e fondamentalmente l'utente possa interagire con l'attività del proprio wiki (altrimenti per motivi di tempo, di voglia l'utente non va in cerca di discussioni o quanto espresso sopra a cui partecipare, ne ne verrebbe informato).
  • Personalmente è da poco che visito e contribuisco assiduamente al Bar di Wikiquote o a discussioni su wikipedia, prima, sai, un po' mi vergognavo pensando di non esserne all'altezza e ciò mi portava a fare le cose col paraocchi per conto mio senza fare esperienza delle cose altrui. Ciò è avvenuto perchè, secondo me, ci sono troppe cose nuove da fare quando si entra in wikipedia e company per stare a guardare il Wikipediano e le varie discussioni). é più difficile integrarsi su questo circuito di wiki che integrarsi in un luogo di lavoro poichè non si ha un diretto contatto con la persona quindi sarebbe molto utile informarlo senza farlo girare troppo fargli perdere tempo.
Per queste idee mi rivolgo proprio a te perchè so che tu puoi fare qualcosa, se le condividi, per metterle in atto. Wikimedia in generale è un'associazione che comprende wiki organizzate in modo orizzontale, ma molto spesso su tali proposte non si tiene conto di questo precetto. Ora se non hai tempo/voglia nè pensi che debba essere giustamente a occuparti di queste idee lasciami perlomeno qualcuno a cui possa rivolgermi, perché penso proprio che questo sia un importante tassello per il futuro dei progetti Wikimedia.

 Raoli  15:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Però non abbandonare la vetrina di wikiquote. Quella voce ancora aspetta giustizia. ;)-- Raoli  22:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Sono socio si, ma purtroppo solo da quest'anno. A proposito come faccio a registrami alla wikimedia Foundation, è possibile? Io pensavo che più di scrivere su un giornale (cosa che non ho mai fatto), magari avrei potuto proporre l'idea espressa sopra a qualcuno. Non è che non mi va è che non voglio dare fregature a nessuno , perchè naturalmente non so quando e in quale quantità potrò contribuire. -- Raoli  05:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Ci lavorerò ,non nell'immediato. Prima devo capire da che cantoni prendere le informazioni. Grazie comunque per il supporto morale. -- Raoli  11:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What Gender Is Wikipedia[edit]

Hi, fix this please. --Z 08:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Distribution list entries for etwiki[edit]

[4][5] Hello! et:Vikipeedia:Saatkond seems correct to me as its header says that international announcements are wanted there. The messages usually aren't translated. If they get translated then further copying and moving could be done as suggested. Perhaps this could be reconsidered? Or am I missing something? Thanks! 13:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The intro of Distribution list means that if no local "village pump" or whatever exists we may as well use Project:Community_Portal. Why can't messages in English be moved to the other page if they're so disturbing, instead of doing the opposite when they're localised or not problematic (which increases the chances they're just ignored)? Anyway, I've only suggested to think about it, that's your wiki and you decide. :-) Nemo 14:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:Global contribs[edit]

You have new messages
Hello, Nemo bis. You have new messages at Waldir's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


You have new messages
Hello, Nemo bis. You have new messages at Talk:CentralNotice/Calendar#Concurrent_notices.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oltre SOPA[edit]

Qui Fundraising_and_Funds_Dissemination/Recommendations/it ho tradotto il messaggio di Sue Gardner, tenendo non tanto conto di tradurre alla lettera il testo inglese, ma ho pensato (visti i toni particolari) di tradurre in italiano quei toni. Per questo non risponde fedelmente all'originale, ma il succo è lo stesso, cambia la polpa. La traduzione è diventata secondo me più comprensibile ai probabili lettori. Il problema è che non sono sicuro di quanto sia stabile la versione (concordo con te su questo interrogativo) e, mi sembra dispendioso tradurre tutta la pagina senza sapere se rimarrà così o bisognerà cambiarla. Ammetto che è un onore tradurre Sue Gardner, ma preferirei, di non osservare prossimamente una nuova versione da tradurre e questa buttata via, quindi, ho tradotto le parti che a me sembrano le più stabili: Premessa e Titoli delle sezioni. Non so se la mia analisi è corretta!  Raoli  18:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: CentralNotice/Calendar[edit]

Hi Federico,
thank you for your message. It is in accordance with the agreement between the WMF and Wikimedia Poland not to geolocalise the banners to Poland only; as far as I know, we have had two possibilities: (1) to have the banners visible on top of all Polish Wikimedia projects and (2) to have them visible on top of all projects to users located in Poland.

However, because it is not possible to have both at the same time (and me and PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) did some tests), I decided to drop the second part and have the banners visible on PL projects only (and this does not include Wikiversity, Wikimedia Commons, Meta, Wikispecies and Test, as they are international projects). Thanks to that, we will be able to reach Polish taxpayers living outside the country — and so we hope that they might be willing to transfer their 1% of tax to WMPL.

Anyway, just like you said, it doesn't really make any difference as most probably 99% of our visitors are Poles (living in the country and outside of it). Hope it makes the situation a little bit clearer :) Thanks, odder (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Cancelling bugzilla:33617,[edit]


Many thanks for the bugzilla request 33617 for fi-wiki, and for a helpful hand, but I think now that this is redundant in a way. I am assured that we can manage with the present configuration on fi-wiki for now, as the discussion of the whole system is ongoing, as it should, during the testing period. The page stabilization feature was just a minor "preoccupazione". The main point is that as the Flagged Revisions really is such a complicated system in its entirety, we at fi-wiki have from the start decided to hide the feature from the general public (readers) during the testing period, which has been full of translations, problems with the localisation update, writing help pages to at least into a decent degree of helpfulness, and whatnot. Insomma, thanks for the help, and as far as I am concerned, the bugzilla request may as well be cancelled for now. --Pxos 02:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, closed. Thank you, Nemo 09:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Piccolo appunto[edit]

Traducendo l'aggiornamneto dello Staff della Wikimedia Foundation sorgono problemi relativi ai collegamenti del campo name. Infatti in alcune schede mi lascia le parentesi quadre come fosse n errore, ma nella versione su Wikimedia sono scritti così. Non capisco. Guarda per esempio i seguenti sorgenti: il primo funziona bene il secondo no.

{{staff member | name = {{{AaronS|[[mw:Aaron Schulz|Aaron Schulz]]}}} | username = Aschulz | position = {{{SDB|[[Job openings/Software_Developer_Backend|Sviluppatore software retrostante]]}}} | image = }}

{{staff member | name = {{{BennyS|[[mw:User:Bsitu|Benny Situ]]}}} | username = Bsitu | position = {{{SDBF|[[Job openings/Software_Developer_Backend|Sviluppatore software retrostante (funzionalità)]]}}} | image = }}

Focalizzandosi sul campo name, il primo risulta con la dicitura mw:Nome Utente mentre il secondo con mw:User:Nome Utente. Nella versione inglese sono usati indiscriminatamente. Qual'è quello giusto? Grazie  Raoli  00:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Inoltre, siccoem le ho aggiornate, ora puoi aggiornare il sito della Wikimedia Foundation con Translation requests/WMF/Staff/it e Translation requests/WMF/Home/it. Ciao  Raoli  01:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
FAtto, ho tolto tutti i collegamenti che danno errore, ma vi sono dei collegamenti segnalati in oggetto di modifica che non funzionano. Che casino! P.s. Il prima possibile potresti dare un giudizio sulla voce di Quote, Tito Livio, stiamo in dirittura di arrivo. Ciao e grazie  Raoli  13:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

This barnstar is given to you for your help with the 2011 fundraiser translation.

Hi! I just want to thank you and give you this barnstar for your help with the translation of the 2011 fundraiser! The fundraiser was the best we ever had, both in terms of the amount we collected and in terms of number of translations. We couldn't have done either one without the help we got from you and other translators. If you are interested, we made a report, which has some statistics about the translations.

And: I have one more request, and that is that you take this survey. You may have got an e-mail about it, and if you did, please ignore this. But if you didn't it would be great if you would take this survey too, so we can learn to improve the translation experience.

Again, thanks for your help with translations – you're awesome! Jon Harald Søby (WMF) 14:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

pagina principale meta[edit]

C'è un problema in pagina principale: Ho tradotto le ultime news dall'inglese ma non si visualizzano in italiano. strano. Ciao -- Raoli  19:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Riguardo alla pagina principale non lo sapevo. C'è da qualche parte una bozza? Riguardo alla pagina principale mi riferivo a Template:Main Page/WM News. Chiarito. -- Raoli  21:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, I was serious[edit]

Yes. I am deadly serious. We have a research committee for a reason. Suggest that you revert. Philippe (WMF) 22:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What reason? I know the RCom pretty well and I don't see how it's related. Nemo 22:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me for intruding, but Philippe was using his staff account, which means he is talking as a foundation employee. As he likely has a good reason as to why he feels that page needs to be blanked from his employment perspective, wouldn't it be wiser to revert back to his edit and then have the discussion? -- Avi 22:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I am, indeed, speaking in my official capacity here. Though this is not an office action (yet), it is a staff action. I'm asking you to please revert yourself. Philippe (WMF) 22:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it's better to discuss it on talk or at least explain the blanking (way) better. The edit didn't suggest any urgency nor gave any indication about being a staff action nor about its justification and actually I still don't see how such an edit could be done in official capacity. Nemo 22:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
<sigh> What about the capacity do you think needs to be further explained? It used the name of a Foundation staff member inappropriately, and was not cleared through the appropriate committee. As a Director in the department charged with overseeing issues of privacy and also the Foundation's brand and name, I'm more than empowered to do this. I think maybe you have a misunderstanding of the role of the Foundation in this incident. Philippe (WMF) 23:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
You didn't mention any such reason, and the reason you used was invalid. Thanks for explaining better, Nemo 00:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The RfC[edit]

RfC vote[edit]

I voted because I did not understand that it was closed. Sorry. Should I delete my vote? Malcolm Schosha 19:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion closure[edit]

Please revise your closure [6]. You claimed that the deletion proposal was "not within deletion policy". However, the Meta:Deletion policy clearly states, without further restrictions, that pages can be proposed for deletion if there is a concern that "it does not belong on the Meta-Wiki", and there were several good-faith delete votes that explicitly referenced a Meta policy page, MW:NOT, explaining why the page in question indeed did not belong on Meta. Your speedy closure, against the appearance of a strong emergent consensus to the contrary, therefore had no policy justification.

If you are not willing to reconsider, please advise how and where a formal request for a review of your closure should be lodged, or, alternatively, how and where one may propose a de-adminship for you, because I'll probably not be the only person to consider either. Fut.Perf. 20:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A process clash, RfD vs. RfC, is blatantly not the scope of RfD. If you wish to comment the RfC, use the RfC itself (or its talk); if you want to comment that kind of RfC, comment in the recent RfC about it. If you have time to waste, you can ask revision of my closure on WM:RFH. It doesn't make any sense yo ask desysop if nobody wants to revise my closure, but Meta:Administrators/Removal might be the place.
Anyway, that RfC is legitimate in itself but doesn't ask anything which can be obtained, so it's pointless to make all this fuss instead of calmly replying. It will probably be closed very soon (not before 7 days because of Meta:Snowball). Nemo 20:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
You are ignoring my argument. I never intended to comment on that RfC, and I also don't intend to comment on the new meta-RfC in the sense of a general regulation. My statement on the RfD was for the proposition that this particular RfC shouldn't exist. As such, the RfD was the right place for it. This was a good-faith vote, as were those of other people who advocated deletion. You have not answered my challenge why your personal opinion on the usefulness of the deletion discussion should override the clear emergent consensus that stood against you. Also, quoting Meta:Snowball about the RfC is rather ironic, when obviously you did just "snowball" the deletion debate. Yet another reason why your action was blatantly outside policy.
As for WM:RFH, I have to say my confidence in asking for "help" from the admin corps here has sunk to a low, seeing the overall disgraceful conduct of your colleagues on this Wiki.
By the way, calling this "nationalistic fuss" just goes to show you haven't even begun to grasp what the whole thing is about. Fut.Perf. 20:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Snowball closure is about consensus, my closure was about null and void requests. If you feel that the RfD contained useful discussion or even a consensus about the destiny of the RfC, paste it on the talk of the RfC and continue there (to ask a closure, I guess).
About RFH: it's ironic that you ask to delete an RfC in name of respect for ( local process while disregarding (Meta) local processes. Nemo 21:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't want to comment on the RfC, and I don't want it closed, I want it gone. And you have not substantiated your view that the RfD was "null and void". I just demonstrated to you, with policy quotes from this wiki's policy pages, why it wasn't. You are disregarding Meta processes, not I. Fut.Perf. 21:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also be interested to hear which part of WM:DP precludes the deletion of an RFC. CIreland 20:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

See above. Nemo 21:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I've re-read your responses and the policy a few times now and I still don't see it. Could you help me by linking to or quoting the relevant section of the deletion policy? CIreland 21:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Nemo appears to have made up this rule on the spot. Nemo, let the deletion discussion proceed. If I am wrong you have nothing to fear; the community will back your point of view. It is plain to me that you are biased, that you did not close the discussion as a neutral party,[7][8] and that you are abusing your sysop access. I'm pretty easy going. If you just back down and do the right thing I will not insist on you resigning. Jehochman 22:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, you won't insist on me resigning! So munificent. It's not the first time that you've called me an involved or non-neutral admin (which is just ridiculous) without even saying why: but because I don't make "involved" actions or requests, let's say I won't insist on you getting blocked, although I blocked Malcolm and someone told me that it looks like I unfairly favoured one side in your dispute with him. Ah, on "nothing to fear": I never have anything to fear for myself; what I fear is a Meta-Wiki destroyed by wide-spread drama for unknown purposes. Nemo 09:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Letter to the Foundation[edit]


The situation at Meta is extremely bad. There needs to be a Foundation level review to ensure that the site is not used as a soapbox by banned editors to attack our volunteers. See:

It is not acceptable for the foundation to host pages that serve no purpose other than to defame our volunteers. It is not acceptable for sysops on Meta to enable cross-wiki harassment by banned en-wiki editors. What steps will be taken to investigate these matters?

Sincerely, Jonathan Hochman

Posted here for the sake of transparency. Jehochman 22:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't understand if you understand that Jimmy is not the WMF, and whether this is a letter to the WMF as the title suggests or to Jimbo as the opening says. Nemo 22:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Trust me. He will forward it to the right people, or I will. The message will get through. He's the person there who I correspond with via email. Jehochman 22:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you've already forwarded your message to the right people, i.e. the Meta community. Let's see the reactions. Nemo 22:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
How can we see the reactions? You shut down the very discussion where we trying to resolve these issues. If you had just let the deletion discussion proceed in that one place it would prevent the discussion from spilling into so many different venues. Jehochman 22:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Two open RfC and their talks, WM:RFH, this talk etc. have not been protected or deleted, because we don't shoot discussions here on Meta as you ask, so I doubt you're right here. Nemo 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Astounding the amount of Wikilawyering, of multiple en-WP users, going on here. All over one RfC that does not even request sanctions. Its the sort of thing that on en-WP itself would be considered WP:DISRUPT. Malcolm Schosha 22:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As somebody who was banned from enwiki, I do not think you are a good person to judge others. Jehochman 22:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Jehochman, virtually every reply you have made to me has been both an ad hominem and a personal attack. I have asked you many times to say what I have done wrong on Meta to deserve those insults and challenged you many times to supply diffs. But you have not supplied a single diff. I do not understand why you have not been blocked here. Malcolm Schosha 22:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
You're right, that was a not very useful ad hominem remark. Still, his "wikilawyering" is legitimate, he only needs to do it in a proper way. He's still learning how Meta works, so I wouldn't call it a disrupting behaviour (and I'd like you not to use my talk for such remarks if possible). Nemo 22:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, Nemo. However Jehochman has made such remarks, as the ones above, about me personally on five or six Meta forums. It truly is disruptive because it makes rational discussion much more difficult to maintain. Malcolm Schosha 22:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please explain[edit]

Over at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise you said that you'd solved the drama problem, and on this page you said "we don't shoot discussions here on Meta". I am slightly confused, because those statements appear to be directly contradicted by these edits:

  • Closing a request for deletion with a nonsense reason: [9]
  • Another closure of a request for deletion with a nonsense reason: [10]
  • Repeated bogus closures didn't work, so let's "archive" an ongoing discussion instead! [11]
  • Closing a thread as "resolved", even though it clearly wasn't, whilst wildly misrepresenting other people's edits: [12]
  • Bad block by an involved admin which also removed talkpage access? Well, "The block may be excessive, but it doesn't make sense to discuss it without a request from the user", so mark it as resolved and stop any further dissent: [13]
  • No, you're not allowed to discuss deletion on the deletion page. If you want to discuss my stifling of discussion, take a ticket. [14]
  • Another closure to remove dissent, using a bogus claim that the content is "without any actionable proposal"[15]
  • Somebody disagreed with your bogus closure? Then redirect the page instead! [16]
  • And, of course, continuing the edit war to remove the RfD tag. [17]

...and so on. For simplicity, I am only sampling edits from the last few hours. All these edits ensure that the existing drama is visible for all to see, or they create new drama, or - most commonly - they suppress valid discussion (ie. anybody who actually wants to remove the drama), usually with spurious reasons. Could you clarify? I am finding it very difficult to reconcile your actions with the notion that you've resolved drama or the notion that you support open debate. Bobrayner 01:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hint: there's a difference between shooting discussion and moving it elsewhere in the wiki to prevent a ForestFire. Nemo 09:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


[18]. How are such edits like that not majorly problematic? It appears people from think they have the right to say or do whatever they want here without ramifications. And how was my note not neutral? I didn't characterize the action but pointed out there was no recent history. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Since when are people not allowed to respond in such discussions? Because they are removing my comments without any Meta policy based justification nor would it be tolerated on any project normally. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Indeed, I blocked him. Re neutrality: «he has little experience on Meta and appears to be singularly focused on this issuehe has little experience on Meta and appears to be singularly focused on this issue» and «appears to be only focused on removing this page [... no background in contradiction to many experienced users» is only your opinion. Not an attack, but still not very nice or helpful. Without this, I'd say the notes would have been legitimate, but readding them now would only increase drama. Nemo 15:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, definitely my opinion. I feel those reasons utterly invalidate his argument and that was why I feel it was necessary to elaborate. The others were merely not active but people were citing him and I felt that his actions were worse than merely coming over because you might (don't know for sure) have seen it on WP:AN. I honestly feel that he was a contributor to what I saw as canvassing. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


Ciao Nemo bis, alcune curiosità — che non vogliono essere larvate accuse, sia chiaro. Sto seguendo, pur senza intervenire, il bailamme che sta colpendo meta in queste ultime ore; io sono un amministratore su e tramite AN sono venuto a conoscenza dell'RFC intorno ad una collega amministratrice col contorno di gente che corre, urlando e dimenandosi, di qua e di là senza una meta precisa.

Posto che, a mio avviso, tutta la situazione è stata gestita in maniera imbarazzante dalla maggioranza degli intervenuti, eccoti le mie domande: meta ha delle regole sul coinvolgimento degli amministratori (perché vedo utenti bloccarne altri con cui andavano questionando poco prima) e sulle conseguenze della loro violazione (per esempio, rimozione dell'accesso per colpa e non solo per inattività)? Ma, soprattutto, davvero è possibile importare problemi totalmente interni ad un progetto qui su meta? Progetti ben organizzati come, dotati di un gran numero di amministratori (oltre millecinquecento, di cui a un dipresso la metà attivi) e di un comitato arbitrale, hanno molti strumenti idonei a risolvere le controversie che vi sorgano ed è difficile argomentare che un utente sia stato vittima di un complotto.

Come ti dicevo, queste non vogliono essere accuse, solo che quest'evitabile débâcle mi ha lasciato un po' d'amaro in bocca e volevo capire come potrebbe evitarsene la ripetizione in futuro. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

È molto semplice, basta lasciare che l'RfC segua il suo corso, non andare fuori di matto, rispondere con calma se chiamati in causa gentilmente. Non c'è nessun motivo per cui non si possano aprire RfC su né per temerle quando capitano. È estremamente raro che un amministratore di Meta debba essere rimosso a forza, l'ultimo caso che ricordi è del 2006. Nemo 20:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


Hello Nemo,

If I am to post my response to this to your talk, could you please transfer it to the talk page of the request? If so, here's my response: "This email was sent on September 13, 2011. There are more than 90% of new evidences in RFC I submitted." Nobody ever looked them." Thank you--Mbz1 11:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you may write so, it will be less off-topic than many other comments; but I don't see how it is useful, as the RfC is closed and no further review of your "evidences" will happen. Thanks, Nemo 11:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, it will be for the history, and also, if I am to submit rfc concerning arbcom conduct. So did you mean I could write it myself?--Mbz1 12:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about reversion[edit]

Hello, Nemo. May I ask why you reverted this edit? It doesn't seem to be any worse than many of the other edits, and if we believe that we have an open community here at Meta, one that allows discussion about other projects, certainly we should be open to comment and critique of ourselves, no? -- Avi 20:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course you can ask. The user himself didn't ask, and I didn't need to tell him, because the answer is in his own edit summary: «rhetorical question». No need to have an answer, no need to ask it. You may notice that I've also collapsed some other comments in the RfD (and I would have removed them if you hadn't replied). Nemo 20:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, why is Ottava's statement about Gwen Gale's "destructive actions" any less of a problem than an English translation of the the age-old warning: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"? -- Avi 20:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's less of a problem because it was a direct reply to the previous message, and that was meant as an example to show his point. I surely disagree with the tone and find the whole discussion useless (starting from where I denied the request), so I wouldn't mind if you closed it and/or removed the most offtopic parts. Nemo 20:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I empathize that this whole situation has gotten somewhat out of control, and I'm trying to do what I can, on both sides of the fence, to ease some of the inter-project friction. I think that one way to do so is to ensure we treat all people in this conversation equally fairly; especially in light of the fact that we at Meta are really here to serve all projects, and not show either favoritism or displeasure by virtue of size of project. -- Avi 20:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you asking me to block Jehochman after Mbz1? Such a trolling edit was probably worth it, I didn't because I might be considered involved. Nemo 20:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
See below about how rhetorical questions are actually part of a consensus-building discussion, at least usually. -- Avi 20:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, and that is all it is, Mbz accused those of disagreeing with here as abusive; Jehochman was engaging in w:rhetoric with Ottava as part of the consensus-building process, although it should be done more respectfully, but I am not going to put on my Meta admin hat and opine on who or whom should be blocked as of now, as I am an involved party myself :) -- Avi
Regarding the reversion, I understand. Then again, at least in English, w:Rhetorical questions are often meant to prove their point by virtue of their being asked, regardless of answer. It is not a question that does not need to be asked because an answer is not wanted, rather, when used in a conversation or a debate, the very fact that the question has been asked proves the point of the participant. As all our consensus discussions are a form of debate--hopefully polite and cordial, where the parties can come to a consensus through the give and take of well-reasoned arguments, of which rhetorical questions are but one form--perhaps the point could be restored? Or, am I missing something? Thank you. -- Avi 20:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I know what's the purpose of rhetorical questions, I just think that this particular rhetorical question was, in the context, just trolling. As I said, previous edits were borderline too, but that one crossed it IMHO. Nemo 20:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough; thank you for the reply. -- Avi 20:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Blanking of "amenities" (clarification)[edit]

While I certainly understand this, let it be noted (in objection):

  1. the notification of the editor of a mention of their name in a discussion (between an arb member and myself) on a meta RfC talk page was most certainly proper (and standard procedure).
  2. the reply by the talk page owner, providing a link to a current Wikipedia Signpost article, is within reason (although I agree the quoting from it was rhetorical -- but under the circumstances, understandable -- i.e, there should be some allowances for preserving personal honor in the face of procedure).
  3. The issue of different native languages on both en.wikipedia and meta is pertinent to the problems at hand. (English is not the native language of the owner of the talk page.)
  4. The addition of the (current events/Grammy Awards) mention of Taylor Swift's song, and then songs of other languages in the context of #3, is an acceptable level of amenity. While the quoting of some lyrics in reply might be considered unnecessarily rhetorical, but #3 is an ameliorating factor. As is the fact that there is a lot of "Mean" going around.

    (Note: I have refrained from flagging every rhetorically inappropriate exchange in recent events, but I did in one case to illustrate, e.g., I flagged this inappropriate remark with this rhetorical flag. (And to prevent misunderstanding, added this link to previous edit summary.) NOTE: That inappropriate remark should not be one that deserved a reply from you, nor should the insulting comment remain as the concluding remark in the exchange. It was appropriate for someone else to indicate the remark was improper. And since there did not appear to be a path to agreement, an opportunity to stop, at least at that point, a fruitless circular rebuttal).

  5. Blocking is to prevent actions that disrupt project activity. Blocking is not a punishment to be inflicted. Amenities on user talk pages are normal.
  6. re: "elsewhere" -- My only knowledge of Mbz1 is in the context of meta.

BIG PICTURE: It may not always be clear why I am doing what I am doing -- but if I am doing it, there is likely a good reason, and you can be sure that I have carefully weighed the appropriateness of the action. I never post any comment, or take any action, without great care. I understood that continuing to reply on that user talk page (beyond the appropriate giving of notice of mention) would be scrutinized heavily under the circumstances -- but since there was valuable information arising (all connected with Wikipedia other than the song: which was thematic related to events), I continued briefly. Again note: The highlighting of native language issue is important in the matters at hand.

Kindest regards, Proofreader77 18:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(FYI I did mention the above here as context of a general comment, not a complaint. (I tend to be rather thorough in matters of notification as courtesy.) -- Proofreader77 20:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

re "highly inappropriate"[edit]

Shame on you! ;-) -- Proofreader77 21:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notice of diff mention (re removal of comment)[edit]

FYI On John Vandenberg's talk I noted removal of comment. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Alch Bot/SE/Stats[edit]

Hello there, notes on that template now are kind of useless, the bot is prepared only to update the statisctics, notes will be filled just after the voting ending, so in the next bot edit there, they'll be removed :s Alchimista (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of request to restore removed comment to RfD[edit]

Note: After much contention (including my explanations on a user talk that the RfD talk page is not for specific cases, a topic on the closure of the RfD was opened. Since the page is being used to discuss that specific RfC, I have gone ahead and opened a topic to make the request to restore.

I understand it may not be clear why this is important, but I assure you I sincerely believe it to be. My apologies for needing to add another issue to the plate that is already quite full.

Kindest regards, Proofreader77 (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've refactored the pages a bit but I didn't dig into the history: if there's any comment which was removed and isn't visible anywhere but you feel it really should, readd it to a talk where it's relevant. Thanks, Nemo 11:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I now assert your actions are improper -- including hiding the discussion about the matter. I am reverting your improper actions, with notations for the record. Proofreader77 (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
(OK I see it's reclosed) -- We'll discuss this later.:-) Proofreader77 (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Reopen your involved close[edit]

You made several comments in the discussion disputing with other users, you are therefore involved, I ask that you reopen your involved close. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC) See, Meta:Requests for deletion#Requests for Comment Gwen Gale and the related Discussion page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've gone and reverted your close. Eraserhead1 (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I expect you to engage in discussion. I consider this to be an inappropriate use of rollback and I expect you to revert yourself within the next 24 hours.
If you don't do that I will ultimately write a formal letter of complaint to the board. Eraserhead1 (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind, write to the board. Good luck with that! If you had read the header of the page, or anything else around, you would have found the reversion self-explanatory. I have rollbacked you only because Trijnstel had already done so, and you didn't even wait for her reply to your request. Nemo 23:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I would have thought an expanatory edit summary would have been the most appropriate first step rather than a blind rollback. And Trijnstel still hasn't replied to my comment 24 hours later. Eraserhead1 (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, I've only asked clarifications to users, and of both "sides" (although not necessarily on that page). Nemo 23:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you have Diffs? And its that page where you clearly sided and made inappropriate comments in favor of one side Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I've even collapsed some comments of the "opponents" (probably removed some, can't remember), and later blocked them. Seems hard to call me one-sided. Nemo 00:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
No its not. I've read your comments on that page. And the fact that you refuse to provide diffs for your claims only shows how unsupported your claim of not being involved is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, you've only read the comments? You've not even looked at the history of that single page? And you think this is enough to have an informed opinion? I wish I could be as sure of myself and my judgement as you are. Nemo 00:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Again you refuse to provide diffs because I know the history of the page to and it will not exculpate you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
This is definitely starting to clearly look like a personal attack. Nemo 00:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't personally attack anyone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Considering that you made many arguments through that discussion that the RFD was inappropriate, including closing it early I can't see any way at all you can consider yourself an "uninvolved admin" for closing purposes. Please let someone else do it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The RfD was inappropriate because it spread drama further, no matter its result. This is why I didn't like it, and I believe this doesn't make me involved or my decision less neutral. Thanks, Nemo 19:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The main drama has been created by your inappropriate close. Eraserhead1 (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't look so, although I understand that's what touched you more. Nemo 22:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
With respect your closure has been challenged here by multiple users. Eraserhead1 (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Sure. Like everything else related to the case. Nemo 22:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

What's the problem with letting someone else close the request for deletion? Eraserhead1 (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I've answered this at length. Please see the RfD page and its talk to start with. Nemo 22:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


I have asked you a question on Babel. Please respond. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I'll have time this evening. Nemo 23:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I have answered your idiom question, at the Babel page, hopefully you an now answer mine. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

courtesy notice[edit]

I've opened a WM:RFH thread regarding your recent trolling of my talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's surely a good thing that you've removed your completely unheplful reply. (It's unbelievable what an offensive language you're accustomed to use.) Too bad you didn't get my point, it was really meant to be useful. Cheers, Nemo 19:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
More on this below: #Comment.


Hi, I came up with the solution that I believe should satisfy all good faith users. If you please allow me to replace the excising RFC with a new version, it will be great. Of course I will keep all the comments posted by others. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Requests_for_comment/Gwen_Gale#Deletion_request_made. Nemo 19:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Is RFD closed?[edit]

It is actually open. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


Hello Nemo,

The drama around this continues to spill over to dozens of pages here and on other wikis.

Would you mind reopening he RfD? I commented on that page as well. Your early close of it a week ago makes you less of an 'uninvolved' reviewer here than you would otherwise be. Since the whole case has been hurt by poor inter-wiki communication (and poor articulation of Meta process), an ideal closer here would be someone who has had nothing to do with the discussion and could address all issues raised in a deeply respectful and politic way.

If Barras or others have indicated he can review it soon, it should be fine to wait for that: there is no rush to close instantly. If you feel it is important to rush, we have many other admins who had little to do with the discussion to this point, but are good at mediation, and could be pinged and asked to close it. Matanya or Dungodung or even Anthere...

With thanks, SJ talk   00:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your messsage. Sorry if I reply quickly, I'm going to work now. I believe that RfD have a process that must be followed. I think that the RfD can't just go on after being closed. This was valid for previous closure (as well as for the reopening by billinghurst) and is valid for any closure which might pop up in that page by an administrator, as I made clear when closing. The request for "uninvolved" admins can't go so far as to prevent any outcome, in cases where practically all administrators interested in a case have participated in it somehow, and the others don't want to intervene because they'll be put on trial maybe on other wikis. I don't think I'm "involved" if this means that I'm not neutral (because I don't mind about the deletion, I've addressed comments by both "sides" equally and I've treated both "sides" faily, actually defending the supporters of deletion more), and I wouldn't have closed the RfD hadn't it been requested after the previous closure. Nemo 07:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
As being uninvolved is the "common sense" of the Community in these matters as Sj has made clear on the RfD page and related Discussion, and as other community members, including other administrators see you that way, you should consider that perhaps they're right, or if they are wrong there is NO harm in undoing the closure. You should also take seriously the observation by Sj concerning poor communication and poor articulation of process; if others don't see what you're seeing then better communication and better articulation of process is what is called for, to address those things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
A comment on when RfDs must be closed: they can certainly be open longer than a week; controversial ones (or just ignored ones) often are. They simply cannot be closed in less time than a week. I don't see any reason to rush closing this one. I understand why the previous closer asked for someone else to close, I do not understand why you felt you would not be seen as just as involved as he was. If Barras is to review the discussion later this week, there is no need for it to be closed in the interim. SJ talk   15:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Nemo, in this I agree with Sj and others that you could be viewed as an involved administrator, and that there does exist the appearance of impropriety in that you closed the RfD. I'm adding my name to the chorus of those respectfully asking that you revert your closure. It may be that an admin who was never involved would agree with your closure, it may be that he or she will disagree, but in the interests of fairness and impartiality, I think the RfD needs to be closed by someone without significant previous involvement. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Alanscottwalker, I am seriously considering all that, and I'm not completely sure to be right; I rarely am so.
Sj, you know, I'd really like to do what you ask, because you're one of the very few persons around who could be able to solve this whole nonsensical vs. Meta opposition (which is only the top of the iceberg and needs a lot of work). But I still think that it wouldn't be correct to do what you're now asking me.
I know that RfDs can last longer, but it's left to the administrators' judgement to see whether it's beneficial. In particular, this RfD has already had a lot of activity (way more than that sleepy page is used to!), the arguments on both sides and every variation of them have already been expressed and there wasn't a lot of new comments coming in, so it's not strange to close it. Another (very good!) administrator before me (micki) decided it was enough, and gave a result; he later withdrew the result in the clearest way per request, but I don't see why we should also reopen the discussion. Nobody says that more discussion is needed, there's only a request of another closure (there doesn't seem to be such a thing as a RfD limbo). I think that both the closure and the content of my closure are valid, and perfection is the enemy of good, so I don't see any reason to withdraw it. A decision can always be replaced with a better one, made by a super-neutral administrator who finds a better reasoning than the previous one, to respect both form and rationality; but until that moment the last decision has to be respected, otherwise our processes will just be left to chaos.
On a less procedural and more concrete tone, it's not a secret that many found that discussion unhelpful (including me, but also some users on, I've seen; we're not divided in parties by home wiki). I think we should just go on. If we'll have another closure of this RfD, more agreed upon, it will be a good thing, but not a very useful one; we might as well just forget it. On the contrary, as I've noted in my closure, there are some useful discussions going on, to calmy and reasonably address the general concerns, for those who have some: my personal opinion is that the contentious RfC didn't highlight any particular problem in itself and many users should just understand this; but there's also the very important GRC RFC and even the other RfC on RfCU (which I find instructions creep, but is open for discussion by popular demand and seems to be reasonably calm now). I'd like to be sure that we wouldn't be treating as a capricious kid who needs to be given the sweetie he asked (deletion) to calm down: is a serious project composed by intelligent users who are able to focus on the real issues; it would be much better if we managed to se this oppotunity to get some serious attention on such very important but overlooked discussions. Nemo 23:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
"..the last decision has to be respected, otherwise our processes will just be left to chaos." I'm still quite surprised that you cannot see that much of this drama is because a number of users view your actions as inappropriate. To wipe the slate clean, it would be far better if you reverse your decision, otherwise this won't simply go away, no matter how many policies or "very important but overlooked discussion" you quote. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I have to join the chorus of local admins calling for you to revert your close here. Involved admin isn't a codified policy here, but it is common sense, and given your prior attempt to close that discussion, the idea that you are uninvolved enough to make a controversial call rings very hollow. Whether the outcome was right or not is the most important thing, but in high drama cases it is nearly as important whether the process is conducted in a manner that holds up to scrutiny. The rationale for your close could. That you made it in this manner, sadly, does not. Courcelles (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I didn't see any actual indication that in the whole (completely unfounded) drama story this particular closure has made things worse: why do you think so? Also, there's no reason at all to believe that it has prevented another (different) closure with different impact on drama, as I've actually encouraged interested administrators with a fresh eye (if any exist!) to re-close the RfD, but none popped up so far; nor to believe that re-opening the RfD would reduce drama (we actually have clues of the contrary).
If other actions which "a number of users view [...] as inappropriate" are the point, rather than the closure in itself, and you feel the people need some form of public abjuration or self-flagellation because they believe I'm completely uncritical of myself (why should they, I don't know), please suggest a way to do so which doesn't trade the correctness of process and the real benefit of the project with a political need of the moment. Thank you, Nemo 00:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
(Concur with Nemo: Have been watching closely since this 11 Feb AN/I message created the extraordinary circumstances which meta admins have had to deal with. Nemo's statement above concludes with precision. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I said that your close COULD be correct. I actually believe it is completely and totally wrong, and that consensus was clearly on the delete side of that debate, and have to stretch and contort the word "consensus" to even understand how you made such a close. (And note I did not participate in, or even read, the debate until after the first involved close.) The process is important in controversial cases, and the process here was totally and utterly wrong. The fact that process is a good argument against your close does not imply agreement with the judgment of it. Courcelles (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nemo, you ask where "this particular closure has made things worse". Please see Meta:Babel#RfC on Nemo which indicates that your closure is viewed as suspect by a number of people. Also, please remember that all project members from any project are welcome on Meta, so long as they abide by Meta's written policies, as Meta exists to serve, in whatever capacity is needed, all the 770+ Wikimedia projects. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(Concur with Nemo) Avi, I strongly disagree. Given that response/activity here on meta since February 11 (that you point to) could all be described as the fruit of this poisonous tree(the latin, not legal sense), it should be corralled accordingly — not supported as if it is a normal situation. The continuing pressure on meta admins by some who should be staying out of it and letting the meta admins handle it — instead of supporting the bad behavior of those following the link from the most social-dynamically problematic areas of en.wikipeida into meta and making this into a dramatic illustration of rushing to erase documentation of diffs — howling "attack" and "defamation." And the usual bullshit. :-) Shall I shift to sonnet form? ;-)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No need to wax poetic, Proofreader Face-smile.svg. Although I note a number of Meta admins on this very page who concur with me. As a matter of fact, of the Meta admins who have posted an opinion, I believe more of them prefer Nemo to revert his closure than those who would prefer Nemo not do so, unless I am mistaken. I cannot speak for anyone else, but my opinions on the matter have nothing to do with Jehochman's post, nor with the "defend EnWiki at all costs" mentality evinced by many. My opinion about the RfC and its closure is based on Meta policy and guideline, and common sense that I feel should apply to all projects, as I hoped to have made clear. Just because someone may have done something that certainly seems to be inappropriate does not mean that those who want the same outcome are automatically wrong—just like Nemo's (in my opinion) inappropriate closure of the RfD does not make it ipso facto wrong to close it as no consensus. Personally, I think it demonstrates a consensus, but I can see another admin disagreeing. But for the disagreeing admin to be one who has clear ties to the position of the close, when the close is not clear cut is inappropriate. -- Avi (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Before I go write sonnets awhileFace-smile.svg, let me go back to a number you mentioned: 770 projects. Hmmm OK ... Let's talk numbers.
  • Q. How many people participate in ArbCom elections? (1,000 when I voted last, and falling last time I looked)
  • Q. How many people does Jimbo refer to as the number he thinks of as the community? (400-500, I think)
  • Q. How many people has Proofreader77 suggested is the number who tend to be doing something community related: 300.
  • Q. How many ... suggested is the actual number awake you must contest with: 100.
  • Q. (aside) How many people vote in RfAs. (And what is the shortfall predicted in number of admins in recent studies).
  • Q. How many people voted to "community ban" Mbz1 after someone summoned yet another AN/I "ad hoc firing squad"? (a term I read at Village Pump by an old-timer)
  • Q. How many people are really making a big deal about the close here? (Go count them.)
  • (In the number above, subtract those of us talking to the ones making a big deal, only because they are making a big deal.)
  • Q. (Subract the number of those who have retired from Wikipedia, perhaps under some vague semi-cloud, but have surprisingly ended up here for retirement to make proposals in the context of the extraordinary event.)
  • Q. (Subtract that one making a lot of noise who has in the past been previously desysopped for long term incivility.)
  • Q How many people do you have left?
  • NOW: Why are big guns using so much pressure on one meta admin after another about a close that is good enough (and right, by the way) for the extraordinary circumstances. (Stop nitpicking the rules. The meta admins have been pressured so badly, no one wants to touch this mess that was made by the AN/I link, and the following raid, that the admin volunteers had to deal with?)
  • SO: From those 770 projects .. contrasted with is a small handful (that may be an overstatement) fussing about the close. There has been outrageously rude behavior. Ridiculous bureaucratic proposals. EVERYONE who followed that link from AN/I should have been autoblocked by software automatically for a week before they could make this mess. (That's my rhetorical proposal.)
  • BOTTOM LINE: The story of the Almost Valentine's Day Interwiki Singularity is one that illustrates problems, and not with creators of perhaps fruitless RfCs, but rather with the small number of people who ARE causing externalities for the Wikimedia foundation which will have to be corrected. Better at meta, than outside it. One might think. NOW: Let that damn close be. (As I said, off to sonnetize while you get aout calculator :-)

    Nemo is right, about this, at least. And the numbers are not on the side of those who demand he undo what has been well/appropriately done ... under the extraordinary circumstances beginning 11 Feb 2012. As for the votes, subtract all those which are the result of the inflamatory (and defamatory) post an AN/I which unleashed the problematics of that (to be corrected area, hopefully before the public realm gets involved — noting that Taylor Swift got a standing ovation for winning two Grammies for her anti-bullying song "Mean.") Mean is not popular. And the full story, beyond the close of much ado, is about that. Selah-- Proofreader77 (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nemo, you write "I think that both the closure and the content of my closure are valid, and perfection is the enemy of good, so I don't see any reason to withdraw it. A decision can always be replaced with a better one, made by a super-neutral administrator who finds a better reasoning than the previous one, to respect both form and rationality; but until that moment the last decision has to be respected, otherwise our processes will just be left to chaos.". I disagree with some of your reasoning here.

  1. I understand that you believe that the closure and the content are valid, but with at least four Meta admins disagreeing with you, at least on the element that the closure was valid, shouldn't that make you rethink your actions?
  2. Perfection is the enemy of the good, but in this case there is a "bad", the fact that a Meta admin closed a contentious discussion in which there was a significant concern about the impartiality of that admin. Nemo, I am not claiming you intentionally abused your admin powers to effect a decision in which you believed against a clear community consensus. However, I, and a number of others as can be seen on this page, do believe that due to your previous statements and activities, your impartiality may be in question, and as such, common sense, decency, and fairness should preclude you from having closed the discussion. Actions which can cause Meta community members (and ALL Wikimedians are Meta community members) to lose faith in the justness and equity of Meta and its caretakers are not "good" for the project, but "bad", and whilst perfection is the enemy of the good, the bad is a worse enemy and should be avoided whenever possible.
  3. Regarding respecting the last decision, that is if the decision is made without flaw; here, the flaw is not necessarily in your reasoning, but in that you chose to act. Therefore, the respect that the project and its members as a whole deserve may require the reversal of that last decision, even if the final outcome of the discussion is the same as the one you have made. In a community, respect for the process is important, and with caretakers, such as we Meta admins, respect for the process is doubly important, for our actions may often have a greater effect on the community which we are entrusted to support, by virtue of the maintenance tools we are granted and the decisions with which we are entrusted.

In closing, I understand why you feel reversing your close is unpalatable, but not doing so may have worse ramifications for the trust that people have in us and in Meta as a whole, which is why I continue to respectfully request that you reopen the discussion and let someone above claims of partiality close it. Thank you for listening. -- Avi (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's getting harder and harder to add new points without repeating oneself, but let's try.
  1. Avi, I've not said that anyone here has a "defend EnWiki at all costs" approach, nor that this is the reason why you're asking me to reopen the RfD; I tried to say that I want to be sure not to fall victims of that approach, intentionally or not.
  2. Quite frankly, the fact that some Meta administrators so far have expressed disagreement with my closure in this section doesn't mean anything and can't convince me just with numbers. You say that I'm involved, but if I am you all are involved as well, in a way or another. (There's nothing bad in it. I hope you won't ask me to detail why I think so, as I think you know.) Also, if I measured the disagreement of the administrators' body by the actual strong demonstrations of disappointment (resignations) I wouldn't have any doubt on what Meta administrators agree or disagree with. This argument is a slippery slope.
  3. Any closure is bound to disappoint some users, in any case; and in this whole story every action in any direction, even the most obvious (and the most obvious more than the less obvious) has attracted a lot of criticism.
  4. On flaws: fair point, but I don't see any procedural flaw in my closure, as I've explained. Courcelles, you say that process was wrong. I could say the same, and protest against the pressure on micki to get him reopen the RfD (I didn't look at the archives, but this looks like an unprecedented action). As you said yourself, both opinions have their reasons. Nemo 09:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth I certainly am involved and would never have closed that RfD, that is selbsverstandlich. Well, for one thing, your closure has precipitated the need to formally codify an "involved administrators" rule on Meta, which is sad, because I would have thought that to be common sense. As for where we go from here, I reckon we'll have some more discussion about whether or not to formally discuss overturning your close (what is called "deletion review" on the Commons and other projects). Should one be opened, somebody will certainly let you know so that your arguments can get the fair hearing they deserve. -- Avi (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I want to make it clear that I don't think you actively abused any privileges, and that you acted in what you thought was a completely impartial manner, and if I came across to brusque, I apologize. I do feel that the appearance of the close, and of actions in any project as a whole--especially actions made by caretakers, should be made with an extra effort to prevent the appearance of favoritism, bias, or partiality. I also want to thank you for remaining polite, receptive, and responsive throughout this process; something which would certainly try anyone's patience! -- Avi (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear, no discussion about this close should appear on any wikimedia project OTHER than Meta, obviously. I was just bringing Commons or RuWiki as a reference that there exists the concept of the review of the closure of an RfD, and that Nemo shouldn't consider that he is the subject of a brand-new and special attack. Discussions about contentious closures and their viability happen all the time on all the projects, and Meta is no exception. No discussion has started yet, but see Meta:Babel#Where should "deletion review" discussions be held as to a discussion about the proper venue on Meta for said discussion. I apologize for any unintentional misrepresentation. -- Avi (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Avi, thanks for your words. Your comment about deletion review was clear enough, and I certainly didn't protest against review of my closure (I still have to look at Barras'), only against the request to withdraw a valid closure. I agree that the non-involvement requirement is common sense; I usually avoid closing myself RfD where I voted even if they're unanimous... Discussions to improve policies and guidelines, often too overlooked, are welcome if they're on topic, calm and not affected by recentism, and I hope we'll be able to bring such discussions to a sensible outcome, so perhaps this won't be something to be sorry of despite their sad origin. Nemo 07:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
First, I don't think it is fair or proper to claim that Micki caved to undue pressure, rather than acting magnanimously and forthrightly in undoing the close. Second, the remedy for such a thing, as we have seen, is not another close that many also view as involved. But yes, lets be forward looking and clarify what needs clarifying. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


I'd like to submit a new RFC concerning arbcom conduct. It is going to be more like a general RFC with only a handful of specific examples from my own experience. I'd be very civil and polite. So may I submit it here please? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt so. Such an RfC could only be, in practice, a reproduction of the already closed RfC. As such, it will be speedy deleted as it has happened in the past with duplicate RfCs. Thanks, Nemo 23:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
It will not be a reproduction of an old one at all, not even close. Gwen Gale will not be mentioned in it at all. OK, how about I submit it in my user space, and you'll take a look. Will this be OK? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
You didn't ask me - and Nemo should feel free to revert this - but I agree with him. I think any such attempt at escalation would be negatively looked upon by the community, and would reflect poorly on you, Mbz1. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
It is a question about the policy only.I wonder, if there is a policy that prevents me from filing this RFC.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


I find this comment to be regrettable. It seems to me that rather than attempting to defuse or de-escalate a situation, it was intended to enflame it. It had the response that it was intended to, if that's the case, but I really expected more from you. Though we don't always agree, I've respected your decisions as an admin, even if in the end I disagreed with them. I really wish you hadn't let that comment, though - what possible good outcome would you have expected from it? If there's something that I'm missing, I'd very much like to have you explain it to me, because I'm having a hard time figuring out how that comment could be left in good faith, or without the knowledge that it would escalate the situation. :( Philippe (WMF) (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As above, excuse me if I reply quickly now: thank you for your question, I believe in your sincere interest and I'll elaborate later if this is not enough. As I told him, that comment was indeed in good faith. It was surely a bit of a paradox, but not meant as an attack. First, I hoped he could realise in what weird situation he put himself, a respected user going on another wiki and suddenly revealing a Mr Hyde (did you see [19] [20] ?). Second, if he really cares about "involvement", as I think he wrote elsewhere, he should leave to someone else the complaints and the policy proposals to resolve an alleged abuse against himself: otherwise, he can't be very credible; and again, I hoped that using such a point, very common and understandable for any administrator on any wiki, could give him a déjà vu and give us back Dr Jekyll. Very sadly, it's obvious that rational and calm discussion is no longer on the agenda; so I tried another way. I've failed, but I don't think the situation got worse, as the user continued to act exactly as bad as before. Nemo 07:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your cogent and well-thought-out response. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment Comment As someone who has been carefully observing events since February 11 (and with some significant level of expertise in rhetorical analysis -- at least my private library has several shelves of rhetoric and rhetorical interaction-related academic tomes), I can attest to the normalization of improprieties at this time -- and affirm that straightforward courtesy and reason (as one would usually expect as the way to handle interactions) are often largely ineffective ... given the extraordinary circumstances (which began with a linking from wp:ani to meta on Feb 11 etc) ... and am not the least surprised that trying other rhetorical styles of response resulted. (Especially given the level of insulting provocations which were so casually displayed.)

Note: I intrude this comment here, with a larger aim of focusing attention on the importance of the morale of the meta administrative volunteers ... under conditions of these, yes, extraordinary circumstances since Feb 11. Heavy hands have sometimes reached in, too carelessly producing insults to honor which should be more scrupulously avoided. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Site notice for fellowships[edit]

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![edit]

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


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)


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 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 Nemo 13:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


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[edit]

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)


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![edit]

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)


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. Broccolitalk 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 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 22:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces are not invisible![edit]

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) template[edit]

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 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[edit]

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? Trijnsteltalk 12:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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

a question[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

Thanks for fixing the Help:Promoting users language tag. However I did find another issue. Please see <>. 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)


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[edit]

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. [21] We already state English admins.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I messed up your fuzzies[edit]

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[edit]

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 [22]). It mostly follows the current mapping we use ([23]). It can be tested by opening the edit form for any page on the Amharic Wikipedia. Elfalem (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I filed bugzilla:40282. --Nemo 15:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Narayam in all Bengali project[edit]

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

Hi bug 40366[24] (links from mw m w) bug submitted.--Jayantanth (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Translating the translation notification[edit]

Hello, Thank you again for the translation link. Now I noticed, that in this message it would be required to have PLURAL since in Finnish the "translator to" should have two forms, depending the number qty. Could you add that PLURAL thing to it? --Olli (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It's better to report such stuff on twn: moved to translatewiki:Thread:Support/About MediaWiki:Translationnotifications-email-body/en. I think Niklas will fix it quickly enough, I'm not really able to. --Nemo 23:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Travel Guide: Naming poll open[edit]

Hi there,

You are receiving this message because you voiced your opinion at the Request for Comment on the Wikimedia Travel Guide.

The proposed naming poll opened a few days ago and you can vote for as many of the proposed names as you wish, if you are eligible. Please see Travel Guide/Naming Process for full details on voting eligibility and how the final name will be selected. Voting will last for 14 days, and will terminate on 16 October at 06:59:59 UTC.

Thanks, Thehelpfulone 22:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Odd pages[edit]

I literally have no idea where those pages came from.... I have deleted them for now. Ill message the users and see if I can work out what happened. Thanks for flagging it up. Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Translation Notification Bot @[edit]

Hello. I would like to inform you (and other Meta sysops) that I granted bot flag to Translation Notification Bot.--Avocato (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled flag[edit]

Hello, Nemo bis. I appreciate the flag you gave me. Thank you for your trust. --RalgisWM-CR 15:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Bot EdwardsBot impazzito[edit]

(ti scrivo in italiano visto il babelbox sulla tua pagina utente)
Sembra che il bot EdwardsBot stia continuando ad aprire nuove sezioni nel Wikizionario in interlingua.--Luca Ghio (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

OK ho capito. Già che ci siamo, non ho ben capito se il post riguarda la possibilità di tradurre il testo nel logo ("a wiki-based Open Content Dictionary") oppure chiede (alle wiki che non l'hanno ancora fatto, ma interlingua vedo che c'è già) solamente di tradurre "Wiktionary" e "the free dictionary"?--Luca Ghio (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Localising Wiktionary in Esperanto[edit]

Please help us to localise the Esperanto Wiktionary, using File:Wiktionary-logo-eo.png.

Thanks, --Piet-c (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, so I guess "Wikivortaro – la libera vortaro", as currently stated on User:Cbrown1023/Logos#Wiktionary, is the correct translation? --Nemo 18:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, the correct translation is "Vikivortaro – la libera vortaro", as currently stated on User:Cbrown1023/Logos#Wiktionary. Thanks, --Piet-c (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, that's what I meant. Thanks for confirming, I'll try to get it done as soon as possible. --Nemo 20:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Would you be so kind helping us to implement our wiktionary-logo-eo.png? It is rendered here at the right:
logo to implement for Esperanto
.--Piet-c (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your reminder, but this is already "in the queue", it's not been forgotten. As there are dozens of Wiktionaries needing a logo change, I plan to request most such changes to the sysadmins at once to reduce their workload and the risk of the requests being delayed. Is this ok to you? I can try and request some of them immediately if you feel it's now more urgent. Thanks, Nemo 23:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, that is ok to me, we can wait a little bit longer. --Piet-c (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's now requested as part of bugzilla:43240. --Nemo 22:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Completely unhelpful attacking against other users, needs a PERMANENT pause.[edit]

Repeated insults against ARBCOM:

Thanks for linking me the last endeavours of Fut.Perf. but sorry, I'm not interested in such stuff. --Nemo 21:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


I've uploaded the localised Wiktionary logo to commons. Please advise as needed. @=={Lionslayer> 20:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks good to me. It has about 10 pixels more than the others in height, but I hope it's not too much. --Nemo 20:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Adjusted the resolution to match with other logos and updated the file. Thanks. @=={Lionslayer> 00:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! It's now part of bugzilla:43240. --Nemo 22:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


I noticed that the Pashto Wiktionary logo has been changed. Can you put this text under the loge:

Wiktionary = ويکيسيند

The Free Dictionary = يو وړيا سيند

thanks --Dewa (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming the required translation, it will be done as soon as possible. --Nemo 08:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
It's now part of bugzilla:43240. --Nemo 22:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The Family of Man[edit]

Let's make this happen. See my talk page. SJ talk  14:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for leaving message on talk:mainpage of gu.wikt. I noticed that there was already translated messages available at the link you had provided, however, there was a spelling mistake which I have corrected now. Also, we are currently discussing on the use of wiktionary, whether to use the transliteration of the word in Gujarati script (which is the case at the moment) or translate the word to Gujarati equivalent. If that happens, will need to request changing the logo once again (if its already been designed by then). Hope that will be OK with you. Will appreciate if you could leave message on my talk page here or on gu.wiktionary if you require any further clarification.--DhavalTalk 23:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(In case it's not clear.) Thank you very much for your helpful response, no more information is needed. Nemo 23:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
So we're proceeding as you told us here, with bugzilla:43240. --Nemo 22:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Unprotection of Requests for comment/Travel Guide[edit]

Hi Nemo, turn out you were wrong about mistaken edits! I would like to re-enable the protection of the page given that it's reasonably well linked and there's a chance people are still likely to edit it if they come across it, but do not wish to wheel war - do you agree? Thehelpfulone 15:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Before seeing this message, I noticed the edit and removed some useless warnings which hid the most important one. The real problem here is not that votes get added, but that users don't understand the status of the RfC; let's see how it goes. Thanks, Nemo 15:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Localising Wikipedia logo in Khowar[edit]

Please help us to localise the Khowar Wikipedia logo, using File:Khowar_Wikipedia-logo-khw.png.

Thanks, -- Rehmat Aziz Chitrali 09:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Forum[edit]

Why have you returned my change? On AV Wikipedia there that nobody administrator. --Kolega2357 (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not something which stewards usually do either, it's an unusual request and I'd suggest to just avoid it (there's no vandalism on your page anyway). The closest and most likely page to get help is probably SRSD. Thanks, Nemo 16:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not ask for speedy deletion but now the protection of the user page. --Kolega2357 (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


Essendo poco pratico di wikimedia mi sfugge il senso di [25] --Limonadis (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC) (rispondimi su wikt)

ehm, a questo punto credo di esser poco pratico di tutte e due, se ho capito bene dovrei dividere il messaggio in due giusto? --Limonadis (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
credo di aver risolto.--Limonadis (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


Hi. Thanks for notification. messages are already translated, and I have just deleted that one. From,, George Talk 08:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikikultur Translation process[edit]

Hello, I would like to know if you could provide me more pointers on translations topics. It would be great if we could also translate templates used in the Wikikultur page, do you have any clue how we should proceed. Thank you for your help. --Psychoslave (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


giusto ? :-) thanks --Lucas (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Translating board resolutions[edit]

Dear Nemo,

A happy 2013 to you! May it be joyful and enlightening.

I'd like to see all WMF Board resolutions translated. We could set up a schedule of posting them for translators to look at, and get outside support after a couple weeks in the rare cases where this is necessary [maybe for some very technical ones?]. Would you recommend using the translation requests process?

Regards, SJ talk  23:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sj, Thanks for the kind words. Happy new year to you too!
I'm very happy to hear that you intend to improve translations on WMFwiki. Are you interested only in resolutions or also other pages? Most WMF policies, and some important pages, are up for translation at TR or have translations anyway, but activity stagnates because the process is so awful.
With the Translate extension we might be able to get more translations on Meta, but this works only with the understanding that we'll publish them quickly; as volunteers, we're currently unable to promise we'll be able to manage a greater number of translations: we're actually unable to manage even the current close to zero number of manual translations, unless translators are very experienced and follow the process most correctly.
As you may know, current efforts are in integrating Translate with CentralNotice on the same wiki: this was already postponed since September and should be done within April, but I doubt we'll see any work on a push system from a wiki to another... In conclusion, I think this is feasible very soon (only) if you get the Translate extension enabled on WMFwiki.
I'm saying this assuming that your update means that (very) experienced translators can now get an account for translation activities (which currently should be limited to publishing of translations made publicly on Meta) and that we'll try to process all requests quickly, if necessary expanding the currently very limited number of log-active sysops (by the way, someone should give you +crat!). If this is true, you should perhaps ask Erik to ensure that there are no technical problems for Translate on WMFwiki, so that, with his green light, you can request to enable Translate on bugzilla without delays.
If Translate is enabled, I expect it will be a matter of days before all recent resolutions are in active translation; the old pages will probably require more time because one has to import old translations, but with a bit of time that's feasible too. --Nemo 07:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's start with resolutions, because they are short, finite in number, and noone but the Board is responsible for them. Then we can think about other pages, which have other authors and processes to consider. What objections might there be to turning on Translate for WMFwiki?
As for admins on the wmfwiki: whom do you have in mind? THO, you, perhaps Monomium... I proposed to philippe (on that wiki) that we add a section on wmf:Babel for admin suggestions. If we start improving these aspects of the wiki and there is bureaucracy to be done, I'll ask for a flag. Regards, SJ talk  05:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, starting with resolutions is very fine. I don't know what objections there could be, but you know hat bugzilla requests are sometimes stuck with small doubts nobody can answer, like "what will the fundraising team think", "how does it work with raw HTML" or whatever pops up in the mind of anyone, that's why it's safer to ask someone who has the resources to get all the answers beforehand.
I don't have anyone in mind for the adminship, just saying that there's the possibility that we might be slowed down for a few days in case of many requests by translators with few people looking at them: nothing tragic or that can't be fixed, as you said. --Nemo 11:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your ungrammatical reversion[edit]

Apart from re-introducing ugly and disruptive [square-bracketed] words at the start of each descriptor, you've re-introduced your own home-made noun–verb issues, such as "Global abuse filter access, and describes approval process (policy)."

The reason I made the change in the first place was because it's an ugly mess that is hard to read. You've made it ugly and hard to read again. Tony (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your report, but I'm unable to find the sentence you mention in the current revision: in fact, that's one of the errors I reverted.
As for ugliness, this page should be useful rather than pretty, and your inconsistent labeling made it extremely hard to read. Thanks, Nemo 07:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
You've made it ugly and unreadable. It's typically of someone who has spent too much time at Meta. Tony (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
But grammatical! Anyway, thank you for confirming the correctness of the current revision by your switching to ad hominem replies. Nemo 14:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
What just happened? I didn't like either version so I made a third. I assume this means that each of our versions looks hard to read to the other two. Feel free to rv if you feel compelled to, but I tried to include ideas from both of you. SJ talk  05:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

IW-link name[edit]

I tried to submit a bug on CLDR, but it was closed as "invalid". What do I do to fix this? Put it on Talk:Interwiki map? πr2 (tc) 20:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No, file a request on bugzilla, MediaWiki>Internationalisation, and ask for Names.php to be changed. Thanks, Nemo 20:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

New grants committee[edit]

Hi! We’re looking for volunteers to serve on a committee that helps select grantees for WMF’s new Individual Engagement Grants program. More info is on the committee's meta page. Siko (WMF) (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi Nemo, is it possible for you to write a brief Italian translation for Kiwix homepage? It's a pity that there is no help for Italian users. It would be good if you can do it in your free times. Thanks a lot Mehran Debate 17:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That's very nice. Thanks Mehran Debate 18:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Language Select bug[edit]

I'm not seeing anything wrong here. It is failing to get the language from my browser (due to the sublanguage) but that was already happening before. Platonides (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Where is the skin saga?[edit]

Hi Nemo! you mentioned here some skin saga that had happened recently? Is there any kind of discussion about the skins going on anywhere? We hate to work on skins, it's so time-consuming and annoying, and so much places to care... I'd love to participate in a discussion about improving the skin system, so please share a link! Katkov Yury (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mind ?[edit]

Discussion pages are for discussion, just because you alone don't like the topic, doesn't mean you should HIDE the discussion to prevent discussion. There are plenty of quite pages for you to read if you don't like discussion of LIFE AND DEATH matters that deserve attention. Penyulap (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


I've performed the rename. It'd be good if you could guide her in creating a global account with her new name if she wants to do that. Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


To answer your question, translation in the current logo is correct. We have to correct the size and include a transparent feature, then save it as svg and replace the png file. --Exec8 (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Changed the translation. Kindly assist in having an enhanced png image and an SVG file. --Exec8 (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Kindly assist in changing wiki.png of to File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-bcl.png and wiki.svg to File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-bcl.svg --Exec8 (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Odder has been so kind to create the logos today, tomorrow I'll request them to be enabled on the wikis. --Nemo 14:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirect templates for old Fellowship pages[edit]

Hi Nemo! With the switchover from Fellowships to Grants:IEG, I was wondering if you'd have any ideas about using a bot to add a template on top of all of the Fellowship pages (pages starting with ). This would be good so that if editors stumble upon old proposals, project ideas, or operations pages they are told that Fellowships are historical and so they know how to find the new and relevant IEG program. Cheers! Ocaasi (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Bug ?[edit]


I just received the usual notification mail saying « Meta page Language committee has been changed by Nemo bis ». But I can't see any changes, is it a bug or something ?

Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 16:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, I didn't know this bug. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for the help organizing the grants pages' translation group. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 18:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

So little. :) I hope you didn't receive too many email notifications, and I'm ashamed I didn't reply to #Redirect templates for old Fellowship pages yet. :-/ --Nemo 18:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki to wikitravel:[edit]

Obsolete as the content is now on wikivoyage:, a Wikimedia project. The links with this prefix in article space have been converted to wikivoyage: links or external links and the corresponding templates voted for deletion on various Wikipedias. Could you please run the toolserver report again to verify to talk:interwiki map that this has been done? K7L (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Note that I don't guarantee the correctness of these results, but there are at least a few hundreds links left. --Nemo 18:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Most of these appear to be from user: or discussion pages, not the encyclopaedic content. The only exceptions were a few templated references in lv: and sw: which are now corrected to use {{wikivoyage}}. Thanks. K7L (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Using Translate Extension with categories[edit]

About mw:Template_talk:Langcat - any news? Maybe you are create bugreport? --Kaganer (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(Bug filed. --Nemo 14:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

/zh vs /zh-hans[edit]

Identical texts:

Maybe merge these pages into /zh-hans (with deleting /zh version)? --Kaganer (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. There's little to do but deleting, merging histories is no longer possible. Is it good now (where "now" may mean "in a few hours" if job queue is long)? --Nemo 22:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Should be deleted (this was unused redirect prior Fuzzy bot's updates)[edit]

--Kaganer (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Nemo 14:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Editcounter by namespace[edit]

Hi Nemo, What would be a query to generate database report containing statistics of all users' edits in all namespaces, Thanks. محمد شعیب (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking, a rank by total editcount (all namespaces in this wiki)? And on toolserver or what else? I suppose you already know about stats:wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaMETA.htm#wikipedians? --Nemo 19:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I want to generate a database report containing statistics of edits of all users by namespace in my wiki, like this. this is fa wiki while my home wiki is ur wiki and I want to generate report for this wiki. محمد شعیب (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, that table is quite hard to understand for me, are those lines numbers or edits and those columns the different namespaces? I don't know a way to produce such specific reports, sorry: you should ask Reza1615, probably it will be easy enough to instruct the bot to publish the same report for too. You could also check the Wikistats csv, but probably it won't have it.[26] --Nemo 14:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


I also updated the User:Cbrown1023/Logos#Wikipedia translation for Pangasinan (PAG). We hope a new logo be created for PAG and CBK-ZAM Wikipedias --Exec8 (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Odder has been so kind to create the logos today, tomorrow I'll request them to be enabled on the wikis. --Nemo 14:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


Fuzzy bot was created /en versions in some cases. Why? See:

Maybe delete unneeded /en versions? --Kaganer (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The /en versions are not duplicates, they are the "clean" version in source language without all the translate tags and so. They are rarely of use (except for templates) but do not harm, and can't be deleted anyway. --Nemo 14:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
These pages are hardly compatible with the Template:Langcat: generates a links to the categories with /en postfix, and these categories clearly unnecessary. See links above. --Kaganer (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I know, but it's usually not considered a big deal. If we care about it, adding an #if to the template to catch this case is possible at any time, isn't it? --Nemo 15:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but this bad way. I'm for clean solutions. --Kaganer (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, the template is already hackish enough, I doubt this will make noticeably worse. --Nemo 17:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, template are hacked ;) --Kaganer (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


This recognize as wrong code. See Global sysops/zh-classical - maybe this duplicate of /zh-hant ?

Yes, IMHO. --Nemo 14:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Help:Unified login/zh-cn[edit]

No valuaable edit history (untranslated). Maybe delete his? --Kaganer (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Nemo 14:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The ideal Wikimedia board of trustees[edit]

Hi Nemo, just noticed and undid your edit on the above page - I'm wondering why you undid that helpful edit that removed some silly names from the list and adjusted the information to make it more informative, and less opinion based? Thehelpfulone 20:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I thought it was obvious, but I've now added a summary as justification. Thanks, Nemo 20:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Translation Aggregate Groups[edit]

Hello. Do you think there should be a translation group for the various user group pages? I see that the "Global sysops" page is already in the "Policies" group. May I add it to a hypothetical "User groups" translation group as well? πr2 (t • c) 03:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

For now I'm just adding them to the "policies" group, later a help&co. group should be more appropriate. --Nemo 13:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Small Wiki Monitoring Team[edit]

Hi! Please delete two bad tranlation pages (with incorrect lang. code):

Merging edit's history is not needed. --Kaganer (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

 ? --Kaganer (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I was not too sure, per below, but better to finish what was started: done. --Nemo 13:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


Duplicate of Wikidata/zh-hans. Should be deleted, in my opinion. Any way for block using of "zh-cn" and "zh-yue" codes in the Translate Extension? --Kaganer (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You should ask Liangent. I don't think it's possible before bugzilla:1495 is fixed, see also Help:CentralNotice/Translations. Actually I'm not even super-sure that we should really delete these pages, even if it makes sense because the existing translations can be reached via the language bar. --Nemo 19:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Meta:Proposal for a policy on involved administrators[edit]

I'm curious how you deemed that there was no consensus for this policy. It seems to me that the preponderance of respondents approved. -- Avi (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Nemo bis closed the discussion to his or her benefit:
Nemo bis isn't a stranger to censoring and blocking his or her opponents. He or she did it to Delicious carbuncle. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Simple, there are only a dozen or so supporters which is clearly not enough to change a policy on administrators. However, that was not the main reason used: the proposer had withdrawn the proposal (although now he may have changed opinion again). A proper closure would require an accurate consideration of the individual comments (which vary a lot), removal of meatpuppet votes etc. --Nemo 07:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, as long as there is a consensus of respondents, that is all that is required. One cannot extrapolate what non-respondents may have decided; certainly not to assume opposition. Regardless, it is reopened. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Meta:Proposal_for_a_policy_on_involved_administrators – Beeblebrox and I know the truth. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I hesitate to comment here when the immediate situation has been resolved, but the fact that Nemo thought that it was appropriate to close this himself seriously concerns me. Nemo, do you understand why people are objecting to you trying to close this discussion? Can you please give a substantive explanation for why you thought closing this discussion yourself was a good idea? And for clarity: I didn't come across this thread from reading Wikipediocracy. I have had this board watchlisted for more than a year. Kevin (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    Actually you'd better ask him directly, this page is for requests and we're making a big off-topic here. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    Agreed. Questions for Nemo should be asked to him directly. Let's focus on the proposal, and whether or not it has consensus (which, in my biased opinion, it does, with my adjustments). -- Avi (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    Moved from [27]. Kevin, I've already answered, it would be helpful if you could tell me what you don't understand in my answer.[28] Yes, I understand that B. thinks I was involved, but he never explained why. I don't care in the least if that proposal is approved (like most community members, who left it rotting), because it just tries to describe current practices and doesn't affect me at all. More than that, my closure obviously helped it getting some attention, too bad that my attempts at helping B. always get rejected and unappreciated (to the point of reverting my messages on his talk).
    It's also useful to remember that B. is the person with the most obvious and biggest conflict of interest here, because he thinks that this policy will help him prove that a block against him was abusive, and precisely that an administrator should not block a user who engaged in prohibited personal attacks, insults and bad language, if such administrator happens to be target of the abusive behaviour in question. I'm not the administrator who blocked B., and the text of the current proposal would not help B. prove what he hopes: nevertheless, as Meta has high standards, that block was not appreciated, especially because it made it harder for another uninvolved administrator to enact a block as obviously required by policies. However, B. seems to have another strategy: by insulting all active administrators on a wiki one by one, he hopes to be able to declare them all involved, and therefore unable to block him, so that he's free to engage in personal attacks as he wishes against any other editor? Of course, this is only the appearance, as Vito described it more concisely than I currently am doing: he is the one who should care about it, if only he followed his own suggestions, but there's no way to make him understand. This is very sad for him, however little importance his personal sad situation may have in the general economy of this wiki. --Nemo 11:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    "More than that, my closure obviously helped it getting some attention, too bad that my attempts at helping B. [...]" No one closes a discussion in order to jump-start it. There wasn't any guarantee that someone would undo your closure. You've done this before:
    How do we know whether or not you're merely protecting one of your bad habits? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Some template wizardry[edit]

By your request - template {{TNT}} was imported and used in the translatable pages. --Kaganer (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! The TNT shortcut is lollish, but maybe if this template is of general use it should be renamed? (Also on mw:.) --Nemo 18:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for desysop[edit]

Doesn't look like you've been notified of this, so I will do so. A user has opened a request for desysop against you, which you can find at Meta:Requests for adminship/Nemo bis (removal) should you wish to comment. Snowolf How can I help? 06:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's telling of their respect for process. ;-) --Nemo 09:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it's telling of my poor memory when I don't have scripts filling in the blanks for me. I apologize for not remembering to notify you at the time -- thanks, Snowolf. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok then, no problem. I hadn't looked at the request (and author) before saying. --Nemo 13:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed this thread for the first time. So, they didn't give it back. (Oh, I guess I should've put this link.) I think the most important thing pointed out was "Much of Nemo's good work can continue without admin tools" because I didn't even realize till now that you'd lost them; it's kinda like how people say in RfAs "I thought he was already an admin." Being desysopped really doesn't matter all that much in the big scheme of things; it's more of a symbolic slap in the face than anything, because the message is "We don't trust you to use these tools in a way that, on net, is either harmless or benign." The "we", however, is in many cases just an angry mob or a committee of fearful bureaucrats (not this kind, but this kind), to whom Jimbo Wales imprudently handed over the reins of power, rather than reserving it to a hierarchy of chosen henchmen. Of course, those would be bureaucrats too, but ultimately accountable to the head honcho rather than to a "community" whose decisions are subject to all sorts of public choice problems, most notably rational ignorance.
I think that I have only desysopped two users in my life, one of them for using mw:Extension:Nuke to delete every page on the wiki. The other one kept misusing his tools to protect his preferred versions of pages, even when the page wasn't under attack, and he ignored warnings. I had to desysop him or lose all the other users. I later restored him to being a sysop but he'd already left in a huff, probably to preserve his dignity.
Now, several years later, he has showed up on another wiki I created, under a new identity, seemingly older and a bit calmer and more restrained (kinda like me). I happened to mention in passing that some of his interests and opinions reminded me of that user's, but I figure he's more likely to stay around if I don't explicitly point out the obvious fact (given that both users demonstrate some quirks I've never seen in any other user, such as using HTML tags instead of wiki markup) that he is indeed the same guy (plus there's always a small chance I'm mistaken). I promoted him to sysop right off the bat, because it's a two-user wiki and he can't really cause much harm there. Mostly that was geared toward encouraging him to continue contributing lots of content to the project.
It's kinda like how when I worked in fast food, the manager used to make almost everyone with a few years' tenure an assistant manager; it was designed to keep people there by telling them, "You're not a loser just because you work fast food; you get to wear this cool uniform and tell people you have this impressive title, which sounds like you're pursuing an actual career™ rather than going nowhere with your life. People you tell about your promotion won't realize that more than half the employees in this store at any given moment are of the same or higher rank as you." That satisfied people's desire for power, success, and accomplishment (which as Neil Strauss noted is one of a young man's primary drives, and which can often be helpful in one's efforts to find ladies who will be willing to satisfy the second drive; however, women too probably prefer to have status when it's offered, since having respect in society never hurt anyone, except perhaps those who were victimized by the envious) and then they felt content working long shifts for slave wages.
Anyway, from skimming that thread, you seem to have handled yourself pretty reasonably, but I think that a reverse-halo effect may have taken hold with some users, much as I currently have a certain halo effect that causes me to interpret your actions/words in a positive light. Once people decide a person is bad or good, their confirmation bias tends to influence subsequent interpretations of what the person says and does. There was a lot of ambiguity in the situation (e.g. hostile comments on IRC being alleged without evidence), and loaded terminology (e.g. "threat" vs. "warning", "censored" vs. "reverted", etc.)
I think Billinghurst's comments were worthy of, if not the Socratic barnstar, perhaps the Solomonic barnstar. I regret I wasn't there to vote "Keep". However, I am an inclusionist about users and sysops as well as articles. I liked Diego Grez too; he had personality, spunk and ambition, which eventually led to his getting involved at I would have let him run the Spanish Inclupedia, at least for awhile. He wanted so very much to be a sysop. I wish I could find him; I would give him my standard pitch offering to collaborate on Inclupedia development together, in exchange for money and power. Leucosticte (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this "philosophize" piece but I don't think the matter is worth it. The story is simpler than that and in my life I've always had more powers/responsibilities than I desired. Thanks for remembering me there's still such ancient stuff in this page, I'll archive the year now. --Nemo 18:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Bug 2085[edit]

I did not understand what it is about? Using {{int:Lang}} - is precisely the "hacky way". But I was just ready to use it. This widely used in the Commons and Wikidata now. Maybe just create all needed subpages for MediaWiki:Lang (by copying from Commons, as example; or create based on {{languages}} content)? --Kaganer (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I already imported Lang subpages from Commons, don't they work? How do you want to use them? LangSwitch and LanguageSelect are not suitable for translation/translatable pages, which vary title depending on the language.
Translating system messages is not hacky, what's hacky is using the int trick to transclude/show translated versions of a template (or other page). --Nemo 12:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


This page should be deleted (unrealistic to expect the translation; this was undeleted redirect to /sv). --Kaganer (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Nemo 13:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Also please to delete Global bans/no - incorrect code, no valuable old translations. --Kaganer (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look on this comment Thanks. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

localized wikipedia logo updated manually on mg.wikipedia[edit]

Hello and thanks for notifying us about the existence of a new Wikipedia logo. To inform you, I have manually updated the new logo of Wikipedia on the Malagasy Wikipedia. Best regards, Jagwar grrr... 15:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


in effetti ci voleva un benvenuto. grazie nemo! --Iopensa (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


Hello Nemo. I have closed the RfDA and, in line with the opinion of the commenting Meta bureaucrats, I have removed your admin rights. I'm not pleased to do it nor this amuses at all; because I think Meta looses a hard worker after all. I thank you for your hard work here and I look forward working as admin with you again when you feel prepared to do it again. With best regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Now I'll be busy removing a ton of process pages from my watchlist! --Nemo 16:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Bad news. Thank you for all the work you are doing here all these years! I really hope you get administrator privileges here again soon. --Kaganer (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
+1 to all of the above, thanks for your work on every corner of the project. SJ talk  23:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your good works and your passion for the goals of our movement. I'm sorry to see the results of sticking your head above the parapet enacted. I am only too keenly aware that if this happens too often, everything interesting will happen out of sight, which would be a sad outcome for our shared values of openness. -- (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Your removal[edit]

Heya Nemo. I just saw your removal vote. I am speechless. I had no idea this happened so quickly, or that it could happen, I would have had a lot to say, if I knew this vote was going on. I have no idea what those people are talking about, I have known your work on Meta for years, and there's nothing but good hard work there. You are respected by other admins, and your oversight of Centralnotice was always helpful. It's sad to see this, and I'm sorry I didn't see this earlier. I really don't know what to say, Thanks for all your work and don't let this get you down man. Stroopwafels! Theo10011 (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not your fault if you didn't see it, the vote was very quick... obviously I didn't bother advertising it. And if Meta doesn't need my help, all gained for me. ;-) Thank you, Nemo 09:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

CentralNotice for Contribution month in Canada[edit]

Bonjour Nemo! Ça va?

I just saw you live in Milano! Funny, because I'll be at the Chapter conference April 16th to 22nd... hope to see you around!

Just want to take a minute to talk about Canada's banner request because our campaign start in 5 days. I checked in the calendar, and there's no overlapping and I add our campaign in the table.

I agree with you, 5 weeks is way too long, so let do this from March 31st to April 10th. The phrases are ready in Fr & En, and I'd like to have the messages in this template. Let me know if you need something else.

Looking foward to see you in Milano. Best regards, Benoit Rochon (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi Nemo, logo of urdu wikipedia has been updated, but current logo has incorrect transliteration. Please remove it as soon as possible. Thanks Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. This is a correct logo. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Now the logo has correct transliteration, but text size is smaller than logo and text font is wrong. Urdu text font is Nastaleeq such as Jameel Noori Nastaleeq, Alavi Nastaleeq etc. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I follow this. ویکیپیڈیا is written in a bigger font than آزاد دائرۃ المعارف for a reason — that's how Wikipedia logos are constructed, and I merely followed this scheme. Arabic characters are especially troublesome (at least for me, a native speaker of a language that uses the Latin alphabet) since their height varies — so I would appreciate any guidance here. As for the font, I used Pak Type Tehreer, which is released under a free licence; can you confirm that this is the case with the Nastaleeq fonts, too? I would rather not use a proprietary font for a logo of a free content project like Wikipedia. odder (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Al-Qalam Taj Nastaleeq font released under free license from here you can download this font, Please you must use it. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I've read the license and it's definitely not a free license, it has all sorts of restrictions. You can see a list of open source licenses at OSI. The rules prevent us from using an unfree license for Wikipedia logos, are you sure a freely-licensed Nastaleeq font doesn't exist? There is Nastaliq Navees although it's an imperfect one. --Nemo 13:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
No, there is no any nastaleeq font which is released as open source, although you may use Nastaliq Navees. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Are you able to create the logo with Nastaliq Navees? We suspect it's not possible to use that font on Linux, which odder uses, and he's on holiday for a few days anyway. --Nemo 16:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Its very difficult for me, because I am not familiar with photography. Sorry. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


Dear friend, in questo momento specifico della mia vita wikimediana, ho tutte le ragioni per credere che le mie capacità, oltre che non volerle, il mondo wikimediano non se le merita. Cmq era uscita una posizione interessante a dicembre presso la wmf, peccato che SF non sia dietro l'angolo. Elitre (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

era quella, che ha molto senso (non c'è altro verso per farsi capire se non parlandogli nel loro ufficio), ma io la volevo fare x aiutare la comunità a farsi sentire, non per aiutare wmf a dettar legge... vabbe', nella prossima vita. O anche no, che ne basta una di ingratitudini! Elitre (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


HI Nemo bis, I reverted the changes you made at IEG. Not because I'm against all of the ideas, but because of interconnecting things and some changes that we already have planned. If there are things you want to see would you consider discussing them on the talk page? (If you have and I missed it, apologies). Thanks! And thanks for trying to make things more useful, heather walls (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Grazie, Nemo: ma allora scorrazzi e rispondi nella posta dei Tuoi soci? ;-)[edit]

Ti avevo già parlato che ci vuole qualche gratificazione (seppur magra) se Ti metti a fare del volontariato (nella vita-reale hai il riscontro nei compagni di volontariato..) anche solo come traduttore; qui se non sei proprio un programmatore e quindi dialoghi di software e sistemi da impostare coi tuoi compagni, solo la routine del traduttore ti scava le guance se non trovi una soddisfazione personale che Ti conforti: avere ritrovato quella pagina di indici lì - sarà patologico? - a me mi basta.... Sì, è senz'altro patologico! 'Notte, --Gloria sah (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Grantmaking Barnstar[edit]

IEG barnstar 2.png Individual Engagement Grant Barnstar
Thanks for participating in IEG proposal discussions and for other wiki-fixes - I hope you've seen some value from this pilot and that we'll have your ideas and input again in round 2! Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


Sorry, but I cannot (and would not if I could) translate stuff into Xhosa for you. My Xhosa is very limited and certainly not sufficient for that. Besides: I have argued years ago that xh.wikipedia should be mothballed. It has been standing idle for years now and none of the 6 mio or so mother tongue speakers has come to change that. I think it is illogical and incorrect to keep that site open. How many years does it have to stand there empty before people realize the speakers of this language simply do not want to put in the effort? Jcwf (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see: Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Xhosa Wikipedia (again). I also hope you will come up with the MONEY to get your stuff translated. Then you may have a chance. A good choice would be Zoliswa Mali at Fort Hare U. (Sometimes in Massachussets I think). Jcwf (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


You have new messages
Hello, Nemo bis. You have new messages at Kevin Gorman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


What is the difference between Category:Best practices documentation and Category:Best practices? πr2 (t • c) 12:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between the German original and the English text[edit]

Starting from "16. Can a third party commercial usage benefit the author?" the text of Free knowledge based on Creative Commons licenses is different from the German original. Where does the English translation come from? --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

CNBanner translation[edit]

How do you enable the Translate extension on a banner? πr2 (t • c) 12:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


Anchors should be before headings, not be after. It's not that? See Terms_of_use#1 - section title is hidden.--Kaganer (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi Nemo. Changed the link to wm2013:Special:MyLanguage/Submissions. --Simon Shek (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

ULS: bugzilla:47220--Simon Shek (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Africa timeline[edit]

ciao nemo, volevo chiederti aiuto per una tabella. o magari sai a chi posso chiedere. Sto facendo una timeline per l'Africa Africa Portal/Timeline sulla falsariga di Wikipedia timeline. Il problema è che il template della wikipedia timeline non mi va bene perché

  1. vorrei aggiungere alcune colonne
  2. vorrei che si possano ordinare gli items delle colonne.

ho creato un template Template:Timeline Africa solo che non so farlo funzionare. sai di qualcuno che mi può aiutare? grazie mille, --Iopensa (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

New option on interproject links[edit]

Hi, thanks for participating in the RFC for interproject links. There is a new option that might be interesting to explore. Please check Dropdown next to title 1 and Dropdown next to title 2. They are part of Option 5.--Micru (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ciao, Nemo, mi spiegheresti se c'ho un virus nel computer o viceversa..[edit]

Sai, Nemo, dopo anche avere chiesto al'amico Prq17, ma ridirettatami qui, che dopo un po' che digito e vago per la Wikimedia, a un certo punto, compare qualche micro-parola insignificante di 3 o max 4 lettere (tipo 'che' o 'cui' ecc.) che sarebbero cliccabili, stranamente, e se avvicino il mouse, anche senza cliccare, mi compare un riquadro pubblicitario, che sparisce se allontano il mouse di 3 o 4 cm. Dopo un altro po' la stessa parolina non è più cliccabile.. Uso un antivirus che aggiorno ogni circa 2 mesi, ma a me mi assomiglia tanto a un tipo di intrusione virale.. Te come la vedi? Mi puoi aiutare? Grazie, --Gloria sah (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to reply? PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[edit]

Article started. As my first edit on Betawiki is dated May 2006, I'm fully aware of importance of this project, for MediaWiki, Wikimedia and open source community. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[edit]

The Vietnamese version of is available. Ragards.--Cheers! (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


I added <translate>s to it, but I probably overused tvar. That's a huge page to translate, and most of it is kinda irrelevant to most users. Can we split off the FAQ to another page, for example? PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Changing a language name[edit]

See Wikimedia_Forum#.22Colognian.22. Can we report this on Bugzilla or is it stored in a CLDR locale? PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal account rename notification[edit]

Hi, Nemo. You asked to translate that notification at, but it's already translated. Don't forget, that is written in be-tarask, and the notification was translated right after it was requested at translators-l. Wizardist (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I just wanted to make sure our users get the translated notification. :) Sorry for bothering you too! Wizardist (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Forced user renames coming soon for SUL[edit]

Fully available. Just let me know the specific task to be executed on the affected account and I'll do it. --Andyrom75 (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Same here. ValJor (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
AsValJor said, I ask the same too! Eusbarbosa (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
We don't yet have lists of affected accounts, but the WMF should provide them soon enough, so keep watching. In the meanwhile, I see that it and pt translations are complete, but Rename practices doesn't say anything on Portuguese projects. --Nemo 19:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Nemo. I read the page Rename practices. There is nothing special that we do in ne.wikipedia. Few requests for renaming users were made in the past. We renamed those users after verifying that they were legitimate requests and that they didn't conflict with other users in other wiki. That's it.
Regarding the translations, they were disabled while trying to translate at [29]
Thanks. --RajeshPandey (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I did it for Ladino, but I can't see it listed. BTW, Why is Ladino listed as a Latin American Language? It should be listed either as European or Middle Eastern. Also, when I was editing it crashed three times, sending an exception message and adding "this should not happen" or something like that. --Maor X (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; translation pages may take a bit to update. Where did you see the errors exactly?
"Ladino" for me is the language spoken on the Italian Alps, so I never managed to understand what Ladin is; you can however file a bug in bugzilla against mw:Extension:UniversalLanguageSelector to get it moved to another group in the selector, if that's what you're talking about. --Nemo 21:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Bot triple and double warning people.[edit]

Your bot is triple and double warning people about the renames. I think it is giving a warning for every flag they have. Your bot should check to see if they have multiple flags. -Djsasso (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's due to the fact that Nemo restarted the bot several times. I don't think it's counting flags, because the GMD spam page is set to read from this distribution list of pages. Believe me, this problem has been noticed. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Djsasso, thanks for the report. Today the bot had an exceptionally unlucky day, it was interrupted and boycotted several times by European servers outages and it (still) didn't manage to complete its run, although there were (as far as I saw) no mistakes in the input. I had to restart it several times, but it's supposed not to send a a message with the same ID two times on the same page... I don't know what happened: sometimes it's not even due to a restart on my end, rather it sent the message twice (or five times even!) in the same minute, as if it didn't acknowledge the previous edit went through. There were also some other unlucky coincidences that sometimes generated further problems, I'll see what can be done. Sorry for the mess. --Nemo 18:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I got the same, and was warned once on a project and twice on an other. I'm not sure it's needed to ask people to review translation on english-speaking projects, such as meta. But thanks for the info and have a good day :) -- Quentinv57 (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, we also had accusations of "power grab" by stewards/Metawikians and similar stuff, so more eyeballs on notifications, instructions and policies don't harm. :p I hope the incidents didn't defeat the purpose. --Nemo 19:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Serbian translation[edit]

Hi, hope this is what you looking for. I am not sure where this has to be posted, can you do it (Vikinews on Serbian). Thanks--Laslovarga (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, copied to Single_User_Login_finalisation_announcement/Personal_announcement/sr. Next time, you can follow the tutorial. --Nemo 21:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I did it same minute ago. Anyway thanks--Laslovarga (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Macedonian translation[edit]

Hello, Federico. The Macedonian translation was done some days ago, but I did go to it again now and updated it to reflect some changes. Now it is all up-to-date and ready for the announcement (although I've already placed one at the top of our Main page). I marked it as 'ready to be published' and not 'published' as I am not quite sure that I can really do that simply via that option, or someone needs to publish it and then mark it as such. As for the users concerned, I think I am myself among their number, as well as a few admins or very active users, and probably very few (if any) others. I therefore do not think it necessary to raise issues as yet, given that the aforementioned users are quite capable of understanding the process. If others come to me and inquire with some issue, I will use the page to present them. Thanks a lot for the assistance! --B. Jankuloski (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the translations. Yes, the ready/published states make little sense in this case.
Not all the involved users are very active, we're talking of millions of unattached accounts in total; but from what you see you and your wiki are completely ready. :) --Nemo 07:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Message on Forced user rename[edit]

Please see your message at s:ml:ഉപയോക്താവിന്റെ സംവാദം:Peringz bureaucrat. There is no such user at ml.wikisource. This may be an error in your script. --Vssun (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right, thank you. :) --Nemo 07:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Frisian translation SUL[edit]

Hello Nemo,

Please find the Frisian translation (fy) of the SUl here. Kind regards --Kening Aldgilles (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Nemo 19:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[edit]

Hi Nemo, Just to let you know, I have now translated you article about to Danish as you asked a few days ago. Regards, Byrial (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

co.wikimedia[edit] is the wiki for the Colombian chapter, and the primary language is Spanish. The Spanish language translation seems pretty okay to me.

Thank you in advance.

Chlewey (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I also hope that your wiki, being recent enough, won't have too many problems with renames. :) --Nemo 19:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Forced user renames coming soon for SUL[edit]

Hi, I have tried to translate the message but I always get the message "Translations to this language in this group have been disabled" and even though I select Ladino, it does not do anything. Could you please help? Thanks (-: --Maor X (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Force FuzzyBot to update translations[edit]

Is there a way to force FuzzyBot to update translations, like FDC portal/Proposals/CentralNotice2012/be-tarask, which should have been updated, other than null editing the translation units? PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Translation pages an? Or is there some lost translation here? It's weird because all the other languages had their translation pages updated, is this a problem happening with all languages with "weird" codes? --Nemo 22:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, but it's flooding the first page of Special:UncategorizedPages. The only other "weird" language code I see listed there is "de-ch". I have no idea how to fix the /en one - I can't null-edit it... PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Una pagina pressochè incaricabile[edit]

I'd appreciate it if you would ask Niklas about this. Maybe do it by 50 translators at a time, or by language? PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The proud result of YOUR work on ptwiki...[edit] now available here. You can ask the same person that translated for you our long lived consensus to turn "on" the emergency mode on our CAPTCHA configs a while back (what a piece of work that was) or you can ask someone reliable to do it for you (shockingly, no increase in "new editors" + a huge increase in IP reverts + a huge increase in "hyperactive" rollbackers/sysops's ammount of work). If you take into consideration this comment (made by one of our few users who actually cares to know about bots and stuff) about the increasing downtime in our only TWO anti-vandalism bots (Salebot and Alephbot), mostly due to problems in Toolserver and in the "new platform" that allegedly will replace it someday (and where Salebot is suposed to be running), the whole team of THIRTY SEVEN sysops (to watch for 750 000 articles) is now overburdened beyond reasonable limits. So, while we vote to turn everything on again (and I hope you have to code it), I'm proud to announce you the establishment of the "Nemo bis Award" in ptwiki, a "Darwin Awards-like award" given to people who, in thought or in action, actually help vandals in their work! Thank you, Nemo! José Luiz talk 01:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. I see that the reverts were measured with the old unreliable system of checking edit summaries rather than revision hashes: that's quite useless. Can you also tell me where you see data showing there are no new editors/productive edits? For both aspects, it's too soon to speak anyway: for instance, in the first days there was a rampage of blocks but in a couple weeks everything went back to normal situation. --Nemo 06:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah... Stupid brazilians, right? I've just spent my last 3 hours on Huggle and I've never seen anything like so far.... But you're probably right: everything's gonna be ok.... José Luiz talk 02:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi José. Looking at pt:Usuário(a):HAndrade (WMF)/Pesquisa Vandalismo, it says that the CAPTCHA was removed on April 9, 2013. The collected data seems to only cover through April 2013. What conclusions do you think can be drawn from the available data? It seems to be much too early to draw any reasonable conclusions. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Being one of the "superativos" ("hyperactive"), I'm more than angry 'bout this. The role of such users there is a very unique characteristic of ptwiki: there are only a handful of people willing to devote themselves to such work in portuguese speaking communities and, frankly, I don't know why. To add insult to injury, there are less than a handful of users who care to know anything about bots and scripts down here... What's clear for us now is that something must be done, otherwise we will be overrun by vandalisms.... Compare our ratios (active admins or rollbackers per active users or # of articles, for instance) to any other major wiki, please, and it'll be clear to you the challenge we're facing. José Luiz talk 02:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Frieda col mattarello.png[edit]

You are listed as the uploader. See WM:RFD#File:Frieda col mattarello.png. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Changing coordinates system in eu:wp[edit]

Hello Nemo! I have replaced the template Koord in order to have the system you said with module:coordinates. It's working properly. But... if I check the system with Special:Nearby, it seems that it takes the location map image as a real image for the article, and it doesn't appear the "add image" symbol. Is it possible to make some images not to appear in the mobile device? -Theklan (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Updating page in Hebrew wiki[edit]

this page Was not updated for several years. The request For updating was submitted about six months ago, here it is. I was told that you can expedite the process. I would love if the page will be updated as soon as possible. Thank you.--אדג (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, you must be telepathic, or the wikignomes' vibes are vibrating in the whole world: just yesterday I got green light after many months for a solution to this, after many months I proposed it. --Nemo 05:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
We Jews, we call it "השגחה פרטית"... thanks!--אדג (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Logo Wikipedia EML[edit]


Ciao, puoi caricare questo logo sulla Wikipedia EML?

L’enciclopedéia lébra
L’enciclopedéia lébra
fonts: 'Linux Libertine'
line-height: normal
font-weight (1st line): bold
font-stretch (1st line): normal
font-size1 (1st line): 100%
font-style (2nd line): normal
font-size (2nd line): 55%

Grazie, ciao.--Mirandolese (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Here you are :-) odder (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Translation extension[edit]

Ciao, non ci arrivo. Come faccio in una traduzione a eliminare un paio di sezioni che contengono info accorpate altrove, o almeno a segnalare in qualche modo che non le ritengo utili? Ho tradotto l'unica parte di FAQ su che è realmente aggiornata, e non mi piace che sembri che non l'ho completata: di fatto non c'è altro da fare su quella pagina (a parte eventuali migliorie stilistiche sempre possibili, ma quello è un altro discorso). Grazie, --Elitre (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Provo a rispiegarmi. Di quella pagina è aggiornata, e va tradotta, solo la sezione Editing, per ora. Cosa che ho fatto. Ma non riesco a editare la versione in italiano per rimuovere, commentare o fare qualsiasi cosa sui due paragrafi che non mi interessano (magari agli altri traduttori servono/stanno bene, a me no). Col VE non si riesce perché dà errore (the irony!), e con il vecchio editor non si può perché è "lockato". Per cui venivo a chiedere se magari conoscevi un workaround, sennò segnalo la cosa e basta :) Su it. ovviamente non ho avuto problemi perché ho copincollato il codice e rimosso in secondo momento le parti inutili. --Elitre (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
No, ma mi sembra assurda questa rigidità! Cercherò di abituarmici, o di trovare soluzioni alternative. Grazie grazie. --Elitre (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Apparentemente, se fingo di tradurre inserendo solo testo commentato poi quelle parti non saltano fuori, e in più l'iconcina in alto diventa verde, che è meglio di niente :) --Elitre (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

call to tools[edit]

Hello, nemo. some users are pissed off with me because they believe we (you and me and others) are involved in a secret plot to remove captcha so, anything we do to reduce vandalism, even if works, won't fix that. I'm quite upset with everything so by now I'm not motivated proceed with this invitation for rollbackers. I hope you can find someone else to help you.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


Ehilà, ho visto che sei attivo in Non è che per caso ti occupi personalmente delle traduzioni da "straniero" all'italiano?

Perchè avrei bisogno di qualcuno che se ne possa occupare su it:voy per sistemare i contenuti di diverse pagine. Anche se conosci qualcuno che possa essere interessato, te ne sarei altrettanto grato. --Andyrom75 (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Search gadget[edit]

See here. Best regards, -- Bene* (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Translation request[edit]

Hi Nemo! I am responding to your translation request. Here it is, Patrolling. Best regards, Argenti (talk)

Malayalam loves wikimedia[edit]

Nemo, the project page is here (in malayalam). This is not a chapter or a wmf event. It is purely Malayalam wiki community's event. For the past 2 years community is running this event. The logo is created by one community member only. --Shijualex (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me discuss the issue of logo with the community and come back to you.--Shijualex (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually Logo is updated long back. The new logo is here --Shijualex (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

System administrators list[edit]

I am interested in why you added the list to the page. Now it needs to be marked for translation whenever the list is edited. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

InterWiki hs / lp[edit]

Buongiorno Federico!

User:Bawolff suggested I would ping you on this topic. I proposed a couple of additions to the InterWiki map 7 months ago. Since then, both wikis grew in (real) users and contents and seem to attract further contributions (especially the latter, LibrePlanet). Could you have an eye on it? We can have a talk on IRC if you like. Hellekin (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm no longer sysop here so I can't help. Try and solicit an answer at WM:RFH. --Nemo 11:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor, ULS & input method[edit]

Ciao, ho visto che su MW hai scritto più di una volta, rispondendo a chi aveva dubbi, sulla pagina di discussione dell'Universal Language Selector, e dato che c'è una cosa che vorrei sapere su quell'estensione chiedo direttamente a te che magari la sai. In questo mese anche per le wiki "minori" ci sarà il passaggio a VisualEditor e ci sarà quindi il problema dell'impossibilità di scrivere certi caratteri non presenti sulle normali tastiere (caratteri che erano disponibili sul vecchio editor tra i "Caratteri speciali"). Questi caratteri però sono fondamentali per scrivere in determinate lingue: mi riferisco in particolare a quelle delle wiki coinvolte in questo progetto. La miglior soluzione al problema, IMHO, è l'estensione ULS, peccato però che le lingue in questione manchino di un metodo di input... Ora, come si fa ad aggiungere un nuovo metodo di input? Si va su bugzilla o su GitHub? Sulla mia homewiki (vec) abbiamo già discusso e preparato il codice prendendo spunto da quello dell'esperanto, vedi qui (discussione e codice) però ora non sappiamo come fare (diciamo che quest'ultima parte della procedura non è spiegata nelle pagine apposite su MW)... PS: Chiedo info non solo per la mia homewiki ma anche per conto delle altre wiki "minori" italiche (sto dando una mano ad Elitre a tenerle informate su VisualEditor e so che, almeno alcune, sono interessate a questa questione dei caratteri speciali).--GatoSelvadego (talk) 09:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Mi accodo alla richiesta di GatoSelvadego, per la wiki tarantina --Joetaras (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Ciao GatoSelvadego e Joetaras, scusate la lentezza nella risposta. Sí, è sicuramente possibile e neanche troppo difficile. L'unica cosa che bisogna fare è scrivere un elenco ("mappa") di combinazioni di caratteri e dei corrispondenti caratteri speciali da produrre, piú qualche parola di esempio con la sequenza di tasti da digitare e la grafia che ne deve risultare. Il formato non è difficile,[30] per averlo in ULS basta che lo alleghiate a una nuova richiesta in Bugzilla oppure per velocizzare ulteriormente le cose potete inviare direttamente una patch in GitHub, ma non è indispensabile. --Nemo 13:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Grazie per la risposta. Il codice per l'abbiamo già scritto, vedi qua (parte cassettata), le parole d'esempio dove vanno messe? Mi basta scriverle sulla richiesta su Bugzilla?--GatoSelvadego (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Grazie anche da me per la risposta. Provvederò quanto prima a realizzare il file. Buona giornata --Joetaras (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


hello nemo

why when i try to run that bot there are an error happen:

No title found - skipping a page
Start or end marker not found

what is the reason of this? thanks.--ASammour (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Re-run link correction[edit]

Hello, Nemo_bis.

No problem, I am already on it. The code is available here. I will not convert links with an external link format to interwiki format for reducing some possible controversial edits. If you want to contact me, I am on IRC channels with the nick Invadinado.

Regards, and thanks for remembering this task. --invadinado (TALK - SUL) 14:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. --invadinado (TALK - SUL) 21:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Global ban for Ottava Rima[edit]

Hi Nemo,

I am going to respectfully request you to withdraw it. It is unlikely to pass. For every 5 opposes of a global ban, there is 0-1 support. I am leaving it up to you, albeit it would be wise to withdraw. Thanks. WorldTraveller101 (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, it's not something I own, just something I brought up because I thought it was something we needed to discuss. I can't withdraw it. I don't see why the result of the discussion should affect how fruitful it is, if there is a consensus. --Nemo 05:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
My point was that it was beyond unwise and fairly thoughtless to file it in the first place. Ottava Rima is only blocked on English Wikipedia and Commons, which is 2 out of dozens of WMF projects. If he was blocked on every one he touches, then I'd understand the filing of this, but he hasn't. This was a really unwise and thoughtless Request for Comment. Clearly, the consensus is going against a global ban. You may want to put more thought into it next time. I see where you might be coming from, but this just isn't the case to file a global ban attempt. Happy editing. WorldTraveller101 (talkcontribs) 15:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Your opinion. You are entitled to it. --Nemo 15:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: AFTv5 on dewiki[edit]

Hi Nemo, as I don't know if you watch dewiki closely, I'm leaving a notice for you that I replied at de:WD:AFT. Greetings --Se4598 (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Your "comment" at Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat[edit]

Hello Nemo bis. While I am not a fluent Italian speaker, I don't think that this comment adds anything productive to the thread. Might I kindly ask that you revert yourself? Thanks, Tiptoety talk 18:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it does or I wouldn't have added it in the first place. Feel free to remove it. --Nemo 18:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


Ciao, potresti condividere da qualche parte la lista dei 500 comuni con la PEC rotta? Li si può contattare in altro modo segnalandoglielo e magari, visto che così si ottiene la loro attenzione, è più facile veicolare il messaggio del contest. Ciao :) --Elitre (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sì, hai fatto bene come hai fatto. Quello a cui pensavo è il solito sforzo condiviso (io mi faccio quelli della mia regione, tu quelli della tua, cose del genere). Comunque dò un'occhiata, se faccio qualcosa e/o ottengo risultati ti faccio sapere. Grazie, --Elitre (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Ho visto solo ora infatti, speravo fosse semplicemente una lista di indirizzi, tipo in un foglio di calcolo. In quel modo purtroppo non saprei cosa farci, a malapena riesco ad aprirlo :/ Come non detto. Grazie, --Elitre (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
No assolutamente, metti che poi sono per metà comuni calabresi, non ne esco più. Grazie lo stesso, --Elitre (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Ti voglio bene, ma non era necessario! --Elitre (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Mi pare che i calabresi siano solo 8. Posso sharare con altri? (Me ne sono fatta una copia). Ultima cosa, mi mandi la mail con cui li avevi contattati? Non voglio riscrivermela da capo :p --Elitre (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, grazie. Ma non dovevano essere 500? Io ne vedo 390. --Elitre (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

erwin85 contribs etc. etc.[edit]

Hi Nemo, somewhere I have read that you would like to do something for the tools of erwin85, just like contribs, that are extremely important. Do you have some news on this topics? I have this page on the watch list. Regards -jkb- 00:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. No, I have no news. Erwin still pops up every now and then, but I doubt he will have time to port his tools: if you know someone, it's probably time to ask them to offer some help. Tool Labs is still very much in the works and some things don't quite work: I'm sure some of erwin's tools would bump into bugzilla:53987 like pathoschild's etc. However, it would be nice to get work started on the simpler ones... --Nemo 06:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Such tools are not my deat at all. And unfortunately I do not know aqnybody. But my upset about such problems is not new. We periodically have troubles with important tools just because everybody can start them and then leaves wikipedia. Some time ago, I guess even some years ago, there was a discussion here about this with some very good proposals. 1. Everybody who make a tool for the community must guarantee the continuity by giving the code and the maintenance manual to a permanent group of users who take care of it; 2. this group of users should be fixed as responible for the main tools; and, 3. what I do not understand: the WMF has obviously thousand and thusand dollar for different expert assesments of different things, but it obviously cannot supply the community with with such service like the most important tools - or translations of new proposals etc. This is the reason I'm upset. The erwin85/contribs is no toy for user who have nothing to do, but a important tool for admins searching for vandals and socks. But nearly nothing happens, see the previous difficulties with soxred and others. OK, regards for you, thanks for answer, kindly -jkb- 09:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. Saying that people like erwin "must guarantee" something may sound a bit ungrateful to them: it's still beyond me why the Wikimedia Foundation decided to kill the Toolserver and therefore trash the work of so many tool authors.
As for Erwin, I see he did all he "had" to: he set GPL default license (setting one is mandatory since 2010[31]) and all his code is accessible in his home. So everyone can reuse its code; the problem is the abandonment/destruction of the infrastructure. --Nemo 10:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

No no no, I am very grateful that users like erwin help the community with such tools, in their free time, undoubtely. My upset is directet against WMF that is not able to arrange good conditions in this area and not able to help users liek erwin with some good conditions for the continuity ot the tools. User liek erwin aqre very important for us, sure. -jkb- 10:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
P. S. By the way, as far as I can remember, somewhere there was a poll or something like that might be a year ago, askin the user, which tools they recognize as the most important. Nice, but I never saw some conclusions from it. Do you remember the poll? Regards -jkb- 10:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't remember this poll. However we have a list at mw:Wikimedia Labs/Tool Labs/List of Toolserver Tools: it's still very incomplete but it's good to know that only a minuscule fraction of the tools has been ported so far. You should add all the tools you care about to the list with all details possible; if you find that poll, it would be another source of useful information to add to the list. --Nemo 10:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarify protected edit request[edit]

Hello. Could you please clarify your request on Talk:Privacy policy/2008/Call for input (2013)? I do not understand what you would like to be moved. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Participation Support Program survey[edit]

Hello, the Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback on the Participation Support Program! We have created a brief survey to help us better understand your experience participating in the program and how we can improve for the future. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you submitted or commented on Participation Support requests in the past.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback! And we hope to see you in the Participation Support Program again soon.

Happy editing,

Siko and Haitham, Grantmaking, Wikimedia Foundation.

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 21:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


What do you think? PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Translating IEG pages[edit]

Hi Nemo!

The Grants:IEG program pages are finally stable enough that it seems worth getting them into the translation system now. We've got a lot of templates within templates for the IEG pages, though, (for good reasons, so we'd like to not impact the design via translation) and I know this is going to make the initial setup for translation pretty complicated - I feel a little overwhelmed whenever I think about starting, and so then I walk away from it again, to be honest :). Tilman tells me there is now a template that might help with this issue though.

What do you think? Got any expert advice or help for me about how to get this translation project started? Cheers, Siko (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy this month with WLM and other initiatives, but I'll give a look later. Sorry, Nemo 14:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Forced user renames coming soon for SUL[edit]

Hello, I have been reading your message abour renaming. I'm very late. Is it fixed. Can I still help ?

  • I was bureaucrat on Breton wiki but I've not been around for a long time because of some mess --Kadwalan (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Tool_Labs[edit]

I (finally) responded to your comment at User_talk:Erwin#Tool_Labs. Regards, Erwin (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Help test better mass message delivery[edit]

Hi. You're being contacted as you've previously used global message delivery (or its English Wikipedia counterpart). It doesn't feel so great to be spammed, does it? ;-)

For the past few months, Legoktm has built a replacement to the current message delivery system called MassMessage. MassMessage uses a proper user interface form (no more editing a /Spam subpage), works faster (it can complete a large delivery in minutes), and no longer requires being on an access list (any local administrator can use it). In addition, many tiny annoyances with the old system have been addressed. It's a real improvement! :-)

You can test out MassMessage here: testwiki:Special:MassMessage. The biggest difference you'll likely notice is that any input list must use a new {{#target:}} parser function. For example, {{#target:User talk:Jimbo Wales}} or {{#target:User talk:Jimbo Wales|}}. For detailed instructions, check out mw:Help:Extension:MassMessage.

If you find any bugs, have suggestions for additional features, or have any other feedback, drop a note at m:Talk:MassMessage. Thanks for spamming! --MZMcBride (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


Hello. I noticed you added this page to Category:Wikidata. I understand that this namespace had a different meaning before Wikidata was launched. Do you think this page still belongs there? PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

PiRSquared17, "Wikidata" is a rather generic term, though now mainly known for the wiki running Wikibase for Wikimedia projects. The proposal is also still valid (e.g. for Commons files' metadata). So yes, the category in itself is still correct; of course one can narrow its definition and create a parent category where to move such metadata stuff. --Nemo 23:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

planet news and bugs[edit]

Hi Nemo, fyi some news regarding

  • a) I have created #wikimedia-planet on IRC that should output the feeds via Wm-bot [32].
  • b) I have added a list of all languages [33]
  • c) I have added some comment on the outdated docs on Planet Wikimedia/New language -> [34]. Want to help fixing the whole page?
  • d) I have updated the list of warnings and errors that happen on planet runs to current. [35]. Feel like helping to fix those too?

Best regards, Mutante (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

All titles[edit]

Hi Nemo, thanks for your help with the XML dumps. I haven't checked them out in detail yet, but I have some projects for which they could end up being very helpful, once I take care of some preliminary matters. By the way, I was wondering what's the date and time that enwiki-latest-all-titles represents a snapshot of? Is it announced anywhere? I created mw:Extension:InterwikiExistence, whose next versions will import that file and then poll the Wikipedia API to keep the local list of Wikipedia's pages up to date. But it helps if it knows what timestamp to start its polling at. (I haven't yet figured out a good way to program the extension to infer from the results of the API polls at what point the snapshot was done.) Thanks, Leucosticte (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikimedia LGBT sorting[edit]

Nemo, I am still having difficulty understanding how to sort these pages properly. Right now the category "Wikimedia LGBT" looks so messy because some pages are sorted by language, as opposed to by subpage title and then language. If there is any way you might be willing to assist with this, your help would be much appreciated. Even if I am shown a few examples, I can work on other pages. Thanks for your consideration. --Another Believer (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried this, but it just added another redlinked category so that must not be right. I am sorry, but I still do not understand. Might you be able to show me a diff done correctly so that I can replicate on other pages? --Another Believer (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Alright, well I still do not really understand what to do, so I will just leave it alone for now. Thanks. --Another Believer (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, so the purpose is to create subcategories for every page? I am really just trying to understand why some pages here are sorted properly and other are not. The "Collaborations" pages are fine, as are the "Wikimania 2014" pages. The same cannot be said for the "Activities" pages, which are scattered and sorted by language rather than subpage (Activities). Is there a solution so that pages are sorted by subpage title rather than language? --Another Believer (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


"I'm also trying to dramatically increase my ability to forget and ignore the bad things in life and history one can't do anything about: there's just too much of them, and they easily fill a human mind." Aren't those bad things still useful to keep in mind as parameters within which we have to operate, or as lessons learned? Note, however, that I seem to have a pessimistic temperament, which makes me inclined by nature to focus on the weeds rather than the flowers. The optimists can tend the flowers and say how great an idea the garden is because of the flowers, while I pull the weeds and question whether the garden even makes sense, given the weeds' persistent presence.

Which is actually kinda ironic, given our recent discussion about spammers, which are the weeds of the wikisphere. However, I'm also a contrarian, so if everyone else is saying "true" I have a natural inclination to want to explore the arguments for "false". There always has to be a vocal devil's advocate, or we can inadvertently end up at Abilene or other undesirable destinations. Leucosticte (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

AnankeBot functions and requests[edit]

I'd like some information:

Where is AnankeBot hosted?
Where is the list of things AnankeBot can do?
Where are requests for actions to be posted?
Where did the request come from to perform this list of 226 image uploads to Commons? The images were all uploaded with useless, uninformative names, and fixing them on Commons is a very tedious process. The few informative names you now see in that list of edits are due solely to my {{rename}} requests. Should that bot action really have been done, or shouldn't it have waited until the filenames on Flickr were improved?

Help? --Lexein (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. home and elsewhere,
  2. its user pages + things as needed,
  3. user talk,
  4. the request came from me and waiting for imaginary future renames on Flickr is not an option; the category provided all the information which was really needed in that case and the tools existing at the time didn't allow to do more, however (despite not being a coder) I submitted some patches and now allows more informative titles.
--Nemo 07:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. Not at WMF or toolserver? The last permission I saw granting it temporary permission to run was in 2011.
  2. I've found no descriptions of capabilities. Can't you just link to them here or some "home" place? Is "it.*" it's true home?
  3. Where? Please be helpful. You're making large numbers of changes, and are not providing much accountability.
  4. "provided all the information that was needed" by whom? Not me, nor per Commons:File naming or Commons:File renaming.
I can only ask that you be more helpful about the bot. But thanks for the link to --Lexein (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. Sometimes, yes.
  2. User:AnankeBot etc. Not sure what you mean by "home".
  3. I'm very helpful. Any talk page is fine, what do you want more?
  4. Nope, I think the files met the policy. Surely they didn't meet my expectations, which is why I've now fixed the tools for me and everyone else.
--Nemo 14:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Flickrripper has kind of a nice ring to it. It reminds me of the tagline for Bounty. Also, if there ever is a serial killer who stalks people he meets via online photo-sharing sites, maybe they will call him "The Flickr Ripper". Leucosticte (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki usage[edit]

Hello. How did you generate the interwiki usage files? Can you do one for the "wiki:" prefix? PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Beginning of MassMessage, end of EdwardsBot[edit]

Hi. You're being contacted as you're listed as an EdwardsBot user.

MassMessage has been deployed to all Wikimedia wikis. For help using the new tool, please check out its help page or drop a note on Meta-Wiki.

With over 400,000 edits to Wikimedia wikis, EdwardsBot has served us well; however EdwardsBot will no longer perform local or global message delivery after December 31, 2013.

A huge thanks to Legoktm, Reedy, Aaron Schulz and everyone else who helped to get MassMessage deployed. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Funzionalità Beta + varie ed eventuali[edit]

Ciao Nemo, ho visto la discussione sulle traduzioni delle funzionalità sperimentali e ho lasciato il mio commento (sia su pedia sia su tranlatewiki). E già che ci sono ti disturbo per un altro paio di cosette: in MediaWiki:Sisterprojects/it non sarebbe meglio tradurre con "Altri progetti" (come su pedia, quote e come fanno anche francesi e spagnoli, ad esempio)? Ho inoltre fatto una richiesta in Template talk:InterProject, mi farebbe piacere avere un tuo parere.

Ma soprattutto - è da un po' che ci sto lavorando, ma non ne vengo a capo (tu mi saprai aiutare o per lo meno dirmi a chi rivolgermi): nei wiki italiani (pedia, quote...) il comando #babel:xx-5 non funziona (non crea la categorizzazione xx-5, ma solo la categorizzazione xx; inoltre invece di inserire il link alla categoria inserisce solo il testo in grassetto); ho provato a ricontrollare in translatewiki e le traduzioni mi sembrano corrette, credo sia un errore di codice ma non saprei come intervenire. Un altro suggerimento che potrebbe esserti utile per capire dove sta l'errore: su funziona, anche se uso l'interfaccia in italiano; su invece non funziona, anche se uso l'interfaccia inglese! Boh?!!! Grazie in aanticipo e buona notte/buon giorno (a seconda dei punti di vista). --FRacco (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: META-WIKI Italian Translations[edit]

Grazie a te Nemo bis :-) è un piacere contribuire al progetto e incontrare amministratori come te.-- --Fabrizio Terzi (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


Sorry, Nemo, I have been confused by this definition in the Glossary: MediaZilla - Archaic name for Bugzilla. --Paxt (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikimedia projects[edit]

Hi. Isn't this category for pages like Wikipedia and Wiktionary? It says it is only for main descriptions of projects. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


Do you think it would be premature to request WikiApiary: be added to the interwiki table? As you know, it has a lot of useful info on extensions, wikis, etc. there. mw:Template:Extension links to it, as you are aware (since you made the edit). Wikipedia's articles on various wikis should also probably have links to WikiApiary's pages; e.g. Conservapedia could cite . Of course, my hands are tied from making those changes, but they seem logical. Leucosticte (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


You have new messages
Hello, Nemo bis. You have new messages at User talk:Programs:Evaluation_portal/Parlor/Questions.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

VE in[edit]

Ho l'impressione che qualcuno ha rinominato da poco il gruppo di messaggi dell'interfaccia di VE (da group=ext-visualeditor a group=ext-visualeditor-ve-mw, se non sbaglio). Riusciresti a rintracciarmi chi, e perché? Grazie, --Elitre (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Elitre, ha già chiesto James: translatewiki:Thread:Talk:Main_Wikimedia_extensions/VisualEditor_link. Probabilmente ha già pingato Siebrand, ma chiarisco là la risposta alla tua domanda. --Nemo 08:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

English/Italian translations[edit]

Dear Nemo bis, I am contacting you to introduce myself. My name is Jessica Robell and I have recently joined the Wikimedia Foundation as a part of the fundraising team. My work will be focused to a large extent around translations. I am very interested in finding engaged Wikipedians, such as yourself, who would be interested in contributing with their time to translate shorter text from English to Italian. We have for example recently put up a 'Thank you letter' from the Wikimedia Foundation's ED Sue Gardner for translation, using the translation extension. You can find the letter here: I would be most grateful to get your help to translate/proofread this letter in order to develop a quality translation in Italian.

Furthermore, in addition to using the translation extension, my aim is to develop a few personal contacts to whom I can reach out with potential questions regarding a particular word choice etc. As an engaged Wikipedia translator, I would be very interested in hearing your view on this.

Thank you very much for your support. I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Jessica Robell Global Fundraising Coordinator Wikimedia Foundation

Jrobell (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)jrobell