User talk:Nemov/Archives/2022

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

What are you talking about? The pg you seem to cite says putting the year of birth is accceptable.Justanother2 (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY says "If the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." There needs to be a reliable source for inclusion. Nemov (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Flag of Florida into Flag of Alabama. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

They are doing some strange things on Commons regarding photos of copyrighted likenesses. We probably need a good US-based copyright lawyer to weigh in on it, but as of now those types of images are being removed. One work-around may be to upload the image directly as Fair Use Non-free media, and to note that the mascot is copyrighted but the photo is free. See File:Cessna 408 SkyCourier model.jpg for one example, though that may not have the correct tags. BilCat (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess if they delete it I'll just restore the other image. I guess I could upload it on Flickr as well. Weird. That's an IP account that never edited until today. Nemov (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Yup, it was definitely weird. No deletion rationale whatsoever, much less any proof the mascot is copyrighted i that way. Odd. BilCat (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I took your advice and uploaded it again. Hopefully that satisfies them. Nemov (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the

Byoungjr (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Flag of Alabama. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Toddy1, I understand all the edits are confusing, but I was updating the article and not simply reverting. If it went past 3 straight reverts it was by accident, but it's clear I was attempting to steer the conversation to TALK and attempting to improve the article instead of just simply reverting. Nemov (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The article Poker Face (TV series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence that production has started. See

WP:TVSERIES

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

When you reverted my edit on Star Wars: The Last Jedi with the explanation that you were rolling back GFE, I didn't understand what you meant. I tried looking it up and couldn't find anything. Please could you explain what you meant, thanks :D 92.0.35.8 (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@92.0.35.8 GFE means "Good Faith Edit." Nemov (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks very much. Please can I ask you how my good faith edit wasn't good enough? I genuinely don't understand :D 92.0.35.8 (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't an improvement. The change in wording wasn't necessary. Nemov (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how it wasn't necessary when I backed up my claim with critical sources 92.0.35.8 (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey I added a sentence about Kelly Marie Tran's oped in the harassment section of TLJ along with a citation to the article itself. But I fucked up the citation coding and I don't know how. I entered everything the way I thought I was supposed to and no problems were highlighted in red so idk how to fix it. Please could you mend what I did wrong? 92.10.13.209 (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You can review the discussion in TALK. I don't think there's support for that addition anyway. Nemov (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Blooper2022.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in

Hi, what park was that photo taken at? It would be good to include that in the file's image description and category. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

CoolToday Park if you want to add it. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

That's where I thought it might be, but it could have been at one of the other Spring Training parks too, though not likely. Do you have any other photos of that park that need to be categorized? BilCat (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I have a ton of photos from that park since I live nearby, but have only posted the 2 that are in the article. I think they're categorized, but I can't remember. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Done! Do you have any of the main outside entrance? That would be a good addition to what you uploaded already. BilCat (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Does this work?

Nemov (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I've created c:Category:CoolToday Park on Commons, added it to all the relevant photos, and linked it to the Wikidata page. I'm still learning how to do all that on Commons, but it's fairly easy most of the time. BilCat (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I also created c:Category:Blooper (mascot), and found 5 more photos of Blooper to add to it. Unfortunately, one of the photos, File:Blooper Braves mascot, Sept 18, 2018.jpg was tagged for deletion today. Would you be able to challenge that one? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, people are nominating all mascots for deletion. It should survive though. Nemov (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems extremely silly. BilCat (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.6.36.199 (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

		The U.S. Barnstar of National Merit
		For Nemov of Sarasota who is donating valuable time to keeping the DeSantis biography neutral and informative, thanks! Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm watching the Olivier RfC with interest, and found your comments sensible. About the ping: You pinged Ceoil twice, and don't have to ping Cassianto and SchroCat who claim they left Wikipedia but both commented under IP names. I wish they'd return and sign with recognizable names. - I took part in the 2015 discussion which you may want to consult as well, if only for background. I was taken to arbitration enforcement then, because of me questioning if really the editors who improve an article to FA status can remove a feature that has served readers for many years. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I just went back to 2017. The whole thing is pretty silly. To me it's a handful of editors watching the article who have been blocking the change for years. Basically their argument is they don't like it, there's no rule that it's mandatory, and it's a settled issue that should never be questioned. Some of the editors conduct towards other editors for bringing it up is appalling. I don't get it. Nemov (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

If you don't go back to 2015 for this article, and 2013 for the first arbcase (and I had no idea about arbitration ...), and 2005 for the beginning of the infobox wars, you will not get it. I want them to end no more no less. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I just went back to those who have commented since 2017 for the pings. I'm familiar with the long history, but consensus can change over time. Since this keeps coming up the RfC should close the book on it for awhile. Nemov (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Precious

braves

Thank you for quality articles such as Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop and name controversy and CoolToday Park, for taking care of articles including Ron DeSantis, for requesting sources, for determination and patience: "making information easier to consume is the only priority" - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no.

QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy note: Closure of discussion on Talk:Laurence Olivier

Hello. This is a courtesy note regarding your request for closure that you posted on Wikipedia:Closure requests. I have closed the discussion here. Happy editing! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review and close. Nemov (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

November songs

thank you for constructive comments there, - I referred to the RfC in my arbcand questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the discussion through the RfC notice and there's a similar one going on at

WP:BLP

, but I"m not sure there's support or interest in the idea. That makes sense to me since this simple navigation tool shouldn't be an issue.

So this presents a problem. That vocal minority is just going to stonewall infoboxes unless other editors go through a painstaking RfC process every time. I think I'm tapping out because it's not worth the effort and then when the infobox is ultimately approved the vocal minority will fight every single change to the infobox.

It's probably just easier to let it go and this will eventually work itself out as infoboxes become a standard part of most articles. Nemov (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I was frustrated over this back in 2016 (Pierre Boulez), but I think - see answers to my questions - that finally there may be a better solution than a new battle every article - which is what arbitration called for in 2013. I asked 12 candidates, and 11 had no better idea (the 12th never responded), but that can't be a good way to peace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I think biographies should have infoboxes, and think this should be standardized, because it’s exceedingly tedious having to argue against the same 4 users on the same 4 talk pages to get this done. Dronebogus (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it should be brought up at

WP:DROPTHESTICK. I'd expect this kind of opposition in articles involving religion or politics. I never thought I'd encounter such resistance to an infobox. Nemov (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It should be brought up there. Dronebogus (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You may want to try WT:Composers where the socalled 2010 consensus was found. I tried in 2016 (Pierre Boulez), but was frustrated enough to leave the field (check the archives). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for requesting a template, but that's already there, {{infobox classical composer}}. I never use it, because {{infobox person}} is broader, and most composers can't live on the money they make composing but are musicians, conductors, teachers, writers - whatever. Why Nikolaus Harnoncourt has a fine infobox, but Pierre Boulez none, although both conducted and were leaders of movements in music (and died at the same time), is one of the mysteries about the infoboxes conflict that has remained unresolved in the 10 years I have watched it. The key question to the project would be if the 2010 "consensus" is still valid, and in its consequence the placement of the hidden warning in composers' articles: "Before adding an infobox, please consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes and seek consensus on this article's talk page." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, they'll have to work that out. I'll see if there's any interest. Nemov (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Check user?

A part of me still thinks that the IP(s) might be someone pretending to be SchroCat. But, if it really is him? then, he's lost my support. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Based on the content he was discussing I have no reason to believe it's a different user. He's been super active on a few articles under discussion and it's been super confusing for users coming in who don't know who it is and then add the hostility angle and it's a huge headache. Nemov (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I remember Stanley Kubrick in 2015, when I was taken to AE (arbitration enforcement) because I dared to ask the question if [really] the principal editors should decide about infobox or not. I was told not to do it again. The whole discussion is worth reading, but for users with little time, the summary of the close should do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

All that stuff is over my head. This really isn't a content dispute situation it's an editor conduct problem. Nemov (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I asked the future arbitrators, and they saw (almost) nothing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree there isn't a war. I know it was heated in the past, but aside from a few editors with strong opinions progress is being made via RfCs. Maybe a few of the entrenched debaters will see thing writing on the wall. Nemov (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you see

a Sibelius composition that I illustrated hopes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)