User talk:Nemov

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

Pending changes reviewer granted[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Hey man im josh (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for Vivaldi accessibility of his works! I reverted its revert. Would you seek clarification on WP:COMPOSERS? Rossini has the same situation. There seems to be a misunderstanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt I posted at MOS:INFOBOXES since MOS:FORCELINK was cited. Nemov (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen the positive repsponse, what do think of reviving the Rossini discussion, and perhaps try a general clarification at WP:COMPOSERS that the typical format for classical composers which has been used for Bach, Beethoven and Mozart can safely be used? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My experience with that project is that there's not enough participation to pursue it. They could refine their own infobox template, but there appears to be little interest when I've asked in the past. Rossini doesn't have an infobox right now and the regular actors will come out if the topic is pushed further which is also a time sink. Anyway, it doesn't appear this FORCELINK argument will stand up to any type of independent scrutiny. Nemov (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Vivaldi - and Rossini "who" doesn't have an infobox because of that same reasoning that I fail to understand - I believe that we need to invest some time to make common sense prevail. If there really was a guideline against a link from a composer to their work it should be abolished or amended. But it isn't, - it's only misunderstood. {{infobox classical composer}} was drafted in 2008, and moved to mainspace in 2010, and has worked well for many composers for a long time. I don't know what we can do in order not to have two parallel discussions. The most constructive comment I've seen was by Michael Bednarek, but that was in the MOS discussion that SchroCat said to unwatch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a narrow interpretation so I'm not sure it's worth the effort, but let's wait to see the consensus of the discussion. Nemov (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for someone to revert to the status quo, - I did it twice already, so don't think I should, although I am sure that it is the better version: helping to the works. I begin to wonder if we need arbitration clarification. Remembering how I was taken to enforcement, I promised myself that I would never do that to a colleague, but clarification is a different story. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about it. There's very little support for their interpretation of policy. The editor's actions are transparent. So based on previous history they'll just drag out this process as long as possible. Heck, they're probably even reading this (thanks for stopping by). It's all so very predictable... the dramatic "unwatch" followed by the prompt return several hours later. I attempted to give them an opportunity to work towards consensus, but it's clear they're not interested. Nemov (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thinking of the birthday of a friend who showed me art such as this, and of Vami --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rossini's Petite messe solennelle was premiered on 14 March 1864, - when I listen to the desolate Agnus Dei I think of Vami. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded vacation pics (from back home), at least the first day, - and remember Aribert Reimann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Next day, around Porto da Cruz, on Bach's birthday. A bit of history: on this day in 2013, I suggested an infobox for him, a version that still listed some prominent names. Later we found the better solution: a link to the list of compositions which is more neutral and less prone to some editor's preferences. It has served Bach and Beethoven well since 2015. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some days later, a calf in the mist and chocolate cake, and a story of collaboration --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I[edit]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

  • Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
  • Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
  • Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
  • Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
  • Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
  • Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
  • Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
  • Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
  • Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
  • Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
  • Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
  • Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
  • Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
  • Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
  • Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
  • Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
  • Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Former names of venues (and its logos) must be included for history.[edit]

Former names of stadiums (and its logos) must be included for history. Even if the venue has a name change, former logos should be kept. Abhiramakella (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned you about edit warring. Please find support for your changes. You don't get decide what "must be included." Nemov (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False claim[edit]

Don't template the regulars, and my edit to replace "science fiction" with "Star Wars" was a distinct edit from switching Headland with Star Wars. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the lead when it's currently under discussion. It's not a false claim and someone as experienced as you should know better. Nemov (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]