User talk:Nemoschool

Community GAR for Ina Kaplan
Hi Nemoschool, I see you have added a tag for the article Ina Kaplan to be reassessed for GA classing. Usually when someone does this it's due to a long standing conversation regarding the quality of the article, or it is significantly tagged for improvement. Neither of these effect the article in question.

Have you got thoughts on why this would need to be reassessed? The edit summary didn't really give any information as to why the tag was placed. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out! I was just checking this GA of the day, and it (although extremely well-sourced) struck me as missing a photo and a list/table for stats and awards. It was not my intention to delist this GA. (That's why I used Template:GAR request instead of Template:GAR.) Maybe I was too strict... I'll elaborate on the article talk page, but feel free to take down the tag yourself (after all that's how the system is supposed to work). --Nemoschool (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, as nominator and almost sole contributor, I am not really allowed to remove the tag. Images for WP:BLPs work a bit different, as you would have to have a completely free image for which none is currently available. NFCC doesn't apply to living people, as "no free alternative" isn't true - someone could take a picture of them tomorrow. I have a number of GAs (I think 7 or 8) without images, it's not really a sticking point in this way. I'd suggest the best way to deal with mundane issues (or even big ones) would be to start up a topic before starting a discussion on being demoted as they are usually quick fixes, or someone might be happy to work on the article to retain its status. Please do type up any comments on the talk, however. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA review of Francesco Zirano
Let me see if I completely understand how you conducted this GA review. The article has been waiting for a review since March 2019. At 6:10 today, you added a organize section tag to the "life" section because you felt it was too long, then about an hour later you quickfailed the GA nomination because the article contains cleanup tags, the sole tag in the article is the one that you yourself added an hour and twenty minutes before? Do you realize how bad your review is? I've looked at your contribution history and see you're very new here, so I'd like to propose that you voluntarily refrain from conducting any further reviews until you become more familiar with how things work around here. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - as above, I saw this due to something similar with an article I previously nominated. I would recommend just re-nominating. A speedy fail for something like this is a bit ridiculous. There are quite a few issues with the article on a quick scan, but not any that should fail it. The life section should probably have subsections, but it's hardly a copyright claim, or contentious information without a source. If you get really stuck without a reviewer, I'll take a look, but it might take me a while to get around to it. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 18:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, my friend, I don't think my review is bad--maybe a little abrupt, but certainly done in good faith and with great caution. WP:GAFAIL: "3. It has, or needs cleanup banners..." is sufficient for quick-failing. If I hadn't placed the tag myself, I would've certainly consider the section needing it.
 * Also, may I just say that it was not a review per se, just a few lines I wrote to justify the quick-fail. I'd love to do a full review for your resubmitted article (or any other GA nominee), with a or  for each of the six GA criteria. But the article as it is currently written, in my humble opinion and after comparing with other B-class articles of the similar topic, does not have a realistic chance of making GA and thus does not deserve of a six-pronged review (especially considering all the GA nominations backlog).
 * I did not just tag and quick-fail your article and ran away... In the hour after I tagged it, I have been researching how other Roman Catholic saints' pages are organized and searching for free-license pictures. Quick-failing the article, as I stated, was done with caution and brought me no joy. My eventual goal, as is any Wikipedian's, is to get your article eventually to GA! If somehow my intentions seemed malicious or destructive, or I have offended or upset you in anyway, I truly apologize.
 * And yes, I am a (relative) newbie; which, by the way, does not suggest one way or the other about my grasp in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. But I do concede that this is the very first time I've been WP:BOLD enough to quick-fail anyone for anything, so I will take your kind advice and be extra extra cautious on similar actions in the near future. --Nemoschool (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Logo removal
Hi there, may I ask why you are removing the logos from KF Vëllaznimi and KF Llapi articles? Those are high quality vector logos that you replaced with the previous poorer quality png ones? What is the reason you did that? Kj1595 (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching out. I replaced the svg files with bot-created low-resolution png files per WP:NFCC (minimal use). The low-res logos are more than enough for identification/commentary within the context of their articles.
 * It's true that plenty of other articles use non-free svg logos, but not all of them have low-res png equivalents already in the File: namespace. --Nemoschool (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, WP:LOGO: "Logos uploaded to Wikipedia must be low-resolution and no larger than necessary." --Nemoschool (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I can reduce the size of the svg file. That isn't a problem. Kj1595 (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Great! Make sure to tag them with SVG-Logo when you are finished!
 * Just FYI, I have always been opposed to non-free svg logos on Wikipedia (WP:NFCC). In my experience, despite the SVG-Logo warning tag, many people download and reuse them (for fan posters, T-shirts, etc.) in violation the team/company’s copyright. But there’s really no consensus on this, so I guess I’m on the minority here... —Nemoschool (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Mustafizur Rahman
Hi. I see you are editing quite sporadically lately, but thought I would try and reach you. Talk:Mustafizur Rahman/GA2 is still open. As an individual reassessment we expect the openiner to close it when they feel it is back up to standard or enough time has passed to get it up to standard. If it is still open in a few weeks I will close it for you. AIRcorn (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Cite Unseen update
Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. The script recently received a significant update, detailed below. If you have any feedback, requested features, or domains to add/remove, don't hesitate to bring it up on the script's talk page. Thank you! ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 23:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can now toggle which icons you do or don't want to see. See the configuration section for details. All icons are enabled by default except for the new Yes Check Circle.svg generally reliable icon (described below).
 * New categorizations/icons:
 * Font Awesome 5 solid bullhorn.svg Advocacy: Organizations that are engaged in advocacy (anything from political to civil rights to lobbying). Note that an advocacy group can be reliable; this indicator simply serves to note when a source's primary purpose is to advocate for certain positions or policies, which is important to keep in mind when consuming a source.
 * Hand-33988.svg Editable: Sites that are editable by the public, such as wikis (Wikipedia, Fandom) or some databases (IMDb, Discogs).
 * Book X red.svg Predatory journals: These sites charge publication fees to authors without checking articles for quality and legitimacy.
 * Perennial source categories: Cite Unseen will mark sources as Yes Check Circle.svg generally reliable, Achtung-orange.svg marginally reliable, Argentina - NO symbol.svg generally unreliable, Stop hand.svg deprecated, and X-circle.svg blacklisted. This is based on Wikipedia's perennial sources list, which reflects community consensus on frequently discussed sources. Sources that have multiple categorizations are marked as Question Circle.svg varied reliability. Note that Yes Check Circle.svg generally reliable icons are disabled by default to reduce clutter, but you can enable them through your custom config. A special thanks to, whose new Sourceror API provides the perennial sources list in a clean, structured format.
 * With the addition of the new categorizations, the Scale icon unbalanced.svg biased source icon has been removed. This category was very broad, and repetitive to the new advocacy and perennial sources categorizations that are more informative.

You are receiving this message as a user of Cite Unseen. If you no longer wish to receive very occasional updates, you may remove yourself from the mailing list.

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Afrochella/Afrochella


A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Afrochella/Afrochella, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be advertising which only promotes or publicises someone or something. Promotional editing of any kind is not permitted, whether it be promotion of a person, company, product, group, service, belief, or anything else. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Vaticidalprophet 22:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

"WMDC-CSSA20" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect WMDC-CSSA20 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Diana Chang.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Diana Chang.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)