Scratch that, I apparently misread the timestamps. I did have a 504 earlier today, then it work later but it doesn't seem to be working now.
Fri, Feb 14
Guessing that someone did something because I've used it in the last couple hours
Sat, Feb 8
I just used it successfully as part of the Dr Blofeld CCI - thanks
Nov 8 2019
For what it's worth, I just performed an RD1:
May 27 2019
Sounds great. For what it's worth, I let the individual who originally contacted us know that multiple people were working on resolving this and they seemed impressed that we were jumping on it so diligently.
May 25 2019
I would have guessed that "nazi" on the list would pick up "nazis" but the attached screenshot suggests otherwise (if that works, i'never uploaded an image here before)
Per this discussion:
Mar 26 2019
Looking good so far, thanks.
Mar 25 2019
I do see a new addition, good sign.
Just a quick comment to emphasize that addressing copyright issues is far easier when looking at them close to contemporaneously. They become more difficult as they get older. I'll explain if this isn't obvious.
Aug 24 2018
And I feel bad, that I haven't even thanked whomever is responsible for a timely solution. Thanks, it will make the process better.
I see this is marked as resolved.
Aug 20 2018
Oct 6 2017
Jul 18 2017
Thanks, my limited test now works.
Jul 17 2017
If I may make one more related point - when I copy and paste an article title to use in some way, I often copy it from the top of the article, but sometimes. I copy it from the url.
Thanks for the incredibly timely response (maybe we could use you at OTRS).
Aug 23 2016
I've thought a little bit more about the privacy concern. I can appreciate the decision not to publish a database of search queries because of the realization that people occasionally, either deliberately or accidentally, included personal information in the search query. However, I think that case can be distinguished from this case in two ways.
Aug 22 2016
I do get that there could be some issues with the search string. Certainly not a problem in most circumstances but there can be a situation where it could be problematic. I don't see such an issue with page number although I recognize that having to convert the string to remove the search and leave in the page number may be tricky.
This is potentially important. I had begun using this feature to convert their Google books URLs but I abandon it after getting complaints that the converted URLs did not identify the page. I had originally requested that the conversion automatically leave up the page parameter so it would be easy to fill in, but it seems like it would be better if the URL took you directly to the page. I don't know the history that led to the decision to switch to the base URL and perhaps it's not something that can be easily undone because they may be other problems of which I am unaware, but as constituted the reference conversion option is useless to me.
Jun 29 2016
My next test failed. I'll put together something a bit more formal.
I see this is marked as resolved, but I just tried it but did not seem to work the way I had expected.
May 9 2016
This change would be enormously helpful for editors trying to improve references. Many editors leave a bare url plus a page number (or range of pages). Converting a pure bare url to a proper reference is often trivial (just click on Convert), but the existence of page numbers makes it a tedious task. Automatically including the page and pages field would make this much easier.
Jul 6 2015
A reader reported the same error with a single article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Olympians