I imported several and importing Module:Wd/aliasesP caused the removal of the error message. Thanks matej_suchanek!

Problem on Wikidata started at or before 22:01, 27 March 2019. When did the 1.33.0-wmf.23 deployment begin?

Just FYI, Wikiversity user:Billinghurst upped the Mediawiki site id by one on Wikiversity and very old site notice disappeared at least for now.

Thanks! That does work to put the WikiData qid number on the page. It would be great to have it under Page information per user:matej_suchanek's code listed above on Aug 14 2018, 2:26 AM. Consensus is not required.

The Opinions and apparent consensus has now been archived by bot to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/2018/08#Opinions_and_an_apparent_consensus.

Just to be clear, the statements I quoted contain the exact literal meaning as written by each user and nothing presented "looks like [or is] a gross misinterpretation". By USA convention, anyone who disagrees with their own exact literal meaning as I've stated it must in turn state so. Those who agree need do nothing. This is not about "looks like" nor "interpretation", but is about exact literal meaning.

The email I received also went to all or nearly all of those on the lists that I used to arrive at an apparent consensus. I'm happy to wait for them to clarify!

Well, it's been 8-9 days and consensus is still at 84 %. Can you implement the change per user:matej_suchanek?

Thanks for reminding me about the sources. The first 17 are from [[d:Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2014/05#What_do_do_with_Wikipedia:Draft_articles]], https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2014/05#What_do_do_with_Wikipedia:Draft_articles. I have added each source after the next eight. Now all exact sources are available in the section https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Opinions_and_an_apparent_consensus, [[d:Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Opinions_and_an_apparent_consensus]]. It's only been posted for about two days.

Add opinion of IP 61.170.244.181 on 23:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC) on [[d:Wikidata talk:Notability#Google search comparisons]] or https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Notability#Google_search_comparisons for 10/14 = 0.71. So please enact matej_suchanek change!

Please keep in mind all I'm asking is for those WikiData items that exist to display that WikiData item number in Wikiversity. For example, [[v:Draft:Abstract concept generator]] has WikiData item number Q50011734. Here's the opinions from https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2014/05#What_do_do_with_Wikipedia:Draft_articles:

1. neutral - "I'm not sure either way.What do you think?" Filceolaire (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
2. support - "Is there a way we could have Draft items on wikidata - say regular Qitems with 'Draft:' at the start of their names in every language?" Filceolaire (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
3. oppose -"IMO drafts and articles less than 2 weeks only shouldnt be included in Wikidata, let alone imported into Wikidata." John Vandenberg (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
4. oppose - "+1 to wait before creating the item."--Micru (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
5. support - "We could say that draft articles are allowed to be connected to items here, but that a link to only a draft article is not enough to be notable. This way draft articles can use the data on Wikidata and we don't end up with dozens of empty items." Multichill (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
6. support - "Draft articles may be connected to an item which already has sitelinks to another language of the same project family." John Vandenberg (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC), see 1. oppose above.
7. support -"+1 to Multichill." --Ricordisamoa 23:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
8. support - "To make a good draft, they might need information from Wikidata available. In that case, shouldn't they create an item as soon as possible add add information here?" --- Jura 04:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
9. support - "The presence of one Wikidata item is sufficient to create an item, but an item does not need a Wikipedia article." TomT0m (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
10. Oppose - "Draft articles are excluded from search engines for good reason. Consider wikidata as a search engine as well, and you will bring up additional unwanted links to all search engines that use wikidata as a source. It is early enough to link it to wikidata as soon as it is in main namespace, you also don´t need to monitor if an article has moved to a different namespace."--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
11. Oppose - "As a schematic batch of information we already have Wikidata itself. We don't need linking proto-articles. I don't see the need for hurrying, if the draft doesn't go wrong it'll be linked to Wikidata once it's finished." Totemkin (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
12. support - "I see no problem having a Q item here, while the article is being developed in en.wikipedia or whatsoever, but clearly (to me, at least) it's not neccesary having them related." Totemkin (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
13. Oppose - "Draft namespace has been created for articles who may or may not adhere to notabilty rules on en.wiki - which are IMHO already far too permissive, considering the it.wp (or de.wp) ones. I don't think we need that." --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
14. Oppose - "per above. Unfinished articles have no place here." Mushroom (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
15. Oppose - "draft articles are not part of the encyclopedia (yet)" --CutOffTies (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
16. Oppose - "per above." --AmaryllisGardener talk 12:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
17. Oppose - "Drafts are articles in development and are little different to user subpages. Once they are mainspace articles they can be added." Green Giant (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia use "Draft ns is excluded since 2015 after the discussion at Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2014/05#What_do_do_with_Wikipedia:Draft_articles" on https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Changes_to_Wikidata_items [[d:Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Changes to Wikidata items]].

I've made on entry on [[d:Wikidata_talk:Notability#Changes_to_Wikidata_items]] or https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Notability#Changes_to_Wikidata_items.

No! I'm not asking for a rule alteration! As it is literally written, the rule is fine.

"Is this task means that you think that this restriction should be cancelled?" No! The links referred to are links in Wikiversity to resource pages, for example, 96 % of conscripted Draft: ns items contain valid links! And meet criterion 1: "It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikispecies, Wikiversity, or Wikimedia Commons." source WD:N.

Here's an example [[v:Agronomy]] or https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Agronomy under Page information or https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Agronomy&action=info. It occurs just below "Number of subpages of this page" in the table.

@Aklapper: Assignee? Oops! No! Although I would like to learn how! Here's an example link: WikiData mineral (Q7946) for en:Wikiversity [[v:Draft:Minerals]] or https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Draft:Minerals, where Page information or https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Minerals&action=info does not show WikiData item. Here's another though different WikiData Ammonoidea (Q228002) or https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q228002 for en:Wikiversity [[v:Ammonoids]] or https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ammonoids, but [[v:Ammonoids]] moved to [[v:Draft:Ammonoids]], where Page information or https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ammonoids&action=info does not show Wikidata item. If you need more of either, let me know. I'll put a list together.

Problem on en:Wikiversity gotten around by changing "cite web" to "cite book" or by changing "|month=July |year=2016" to "|date=July 2016", e.g.

I agree to closing!

Sending email is now working! Many thanks!!

I've made several efforts to well above about 6kB and all have worked!!!

Just FYI:
Changes smaller than about 6kB will be saved but larger ones trip the error message every time.

I was able to save geophysics quiz (Q27826294)‎; at 00:15 on wikidata.

Another user was able to save "Evidence based assessment/Instruments/Navbox" at 01:35, 11 November 2016 on Wikiversity.

There have been some improvements:

1. I've received emails from Wikiversity!
2. Another user I've sent an email to received an alert, but not the email!
3. My email address has remained confirmed.

In looking back at mail I've received from Wikiversity. The last occurred at 11/29/15 from another Wikiversity user.

Sorry, wrong time. It should be 23:23 UTC.

@Reedy: I received your email at 22:23 UTC 1 October 2016 on rocketmail.com.

@Aklapper:Actually, the situation has worsened. I went to Wikipedia to send a test message and found the "email this user" application on the left menu missing. When I went to my user page under "preferences" I read that my email address was unconfirmed. I clicked on "Confirm email address" at 19:26 UTC, 1 October 2016. Then the message "A confirmation code has already been emailed to you; if you recently created your account, you may wish to wait a few minutes for it to arrive before trying to request a new code.". As of 20:20 no email had been received. I clicked on the button "Mail a confirmation code" at 20:21. As of 22:09 no email has been received. My correct email is listed under my preferences.

Thank you for your question and interest! I've just learned recently that Curator tools are activated for a particular user by checking the appropriate box under User rights management.

I've looked at several of our Custodian pages but the only one that currently lists all of our Curators is our User list for Curators which even as a Custodian I cannot edit. So, since our Curators are listed, nominated and approved on url=https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Candidates_for_Custodianship either checking done on this page activates these additional tools or another page does.

For allocating Curator tools or removing such tools, what resource or Custodian page should be accessed?

Actually, the words and text supplied by WMF-Legal adequately addressed both concerns. Based on their comments, I was about to ask that this task be closed as complete. The task is not invalid.

I've added a community request to see if others are having a similar problem even with the same files as well as others, at url=https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Colloquium#Apparent_Bug_with_Delete_and_Undelete.2FRestore.

We appear to have a template, here's the url=https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_media_rationale, that allows us to place a fair use rationale on the file page. While one of us has stated this is official Wikiversity policy, I can find no community review of this until now nor any voting or consensus agreement that this is our community agreed-upon policy. I may have missed where this has been archived.

I've put an announcement on our colloquium about this matter at url=https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Colloquium#Rationales_for_Fair_use_images so I'd like to keep this task open for additional questions should there be any.

Thank you for your kind comments and help with these matters!

Keeping in mind the limitations you've indicated, here's a possible general all-in-one rationale that will likely fit nearly all current fair use images at Wikiversity: To serve the noncommercial different purposes of education, teaching and research, the copied image, at least the "heart" of the image as needed, is for factual presentation only. What do you think?

Here's an ongoing example of debate about an apparent public domain image, url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Rcw86_420.jpg. The image was initially uploaded as PD because it is on a NASA site that does not indicate a copyright other than the usual NASA PD. One of the reviewers at Commons noticed that a portion of the image is from the ESA (European Space Agency) X-ray telescope XMM-Newton. I am using the image on Wikiversity. To prevent loss from an educational and research resource, I uploaded a copy to Wikiversity and labeled it Fair use, url=https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/File:Rcw86_420-1.jpg. NASA posts images as PD after checking with all parties involved. But commons operates under the precautionary principle. If someone from ESA doesn't contact a Commons OTRS volunteer to confirm their portion is PD then Commons deletes the image. If the whole image, including the portion from ESA really is PD then Fair use is unneeded. But, without some confirmation of this Commons will delete the image. The problem with the Fair use rationale is what to say. When I have checked with individual scientists such as Jacco Vink, they have always confirmed by email that their image is PD, but they usually have no idea how to get this information to an OTRS volunteer at commons, so their images get deleted anyway. If I upload the image to Wikiversity as PD which it likely is, it gets transferred to Commons and they delete it again. To prevent its loss and continue to have it for my resources here on Wikiversity I designate it as Fair use. I hope this helps with "I’m not sure I understand the questions about public domain designations and how they relate to the EDP issues. Could you perhaps provide some examples and further explanation?".

Just FYI, but all of the cases of "not Fair use" on [http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/ Stanford University Libraries] and the [https://www.teachingcopyright.org/handout/fair-use-faq EFF] are for commercial uses, not, education, teaching, and research. On the second site, for (1) "Commercial uses can still be fair uses, but courts are more likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes." such as Wikiversity, for (2) "A particular use is more likely to be considered fair when the copied work is factual rather than creative." such as Wikiversity, for (3) "Copying nearly all of the original work, or copying its "heart," may weigh against fair use. But "how much is too much" depends on the purpose of the second use." again see (1), for (4) "Uses of copyrighted material that serve a different audience or purpose are more likely to be considered fair. " again see (1). I hope this helps.

One situation that has arisen concerns uploads by an author or creator of many images. The author has designated most as Public Domain (PD), uploaded them to Commons, but did not do so for one or a small number, less than 50 %. I believe it would be inappropriate for me or anyone other than the author to designate those he/she apparently forgot, as PD, but I believe it is legally okay to designate them as Fair use, attributed to the author/uploader, with the author's title or description, thereby complying with (1) and (2). Deleting these images are more than likely going to lower any potential market value. What do you think?

Part of the reason I'm asking for help with the Wikiversity rationale is that we may be able to use a bot to add something WMF believes is critical so that perhaps hundreds or thousands of images which are legally okay under Fair use do not get needlessly deleted. For example, a bot could add "This image is a portion of the original." This coupled with (1) and (2) should out weigh (4) under all circumstances even those hypothetical. What do you think?

Thank you for your comments!

All of the other WMF projects do not use words like "education", "teaching", or "research" on their Main Pages. This means they must provide a Fair use rationale, or Non-free media rationale, for images so that re-users are aware how the images are fair use.

I tried to import the File:Krishna.jpg which was deleted from Commons by Magog the Ogre on or about 13 April 2014‎. The import failed because the file could not be found.

I checked our Special:Import page at url=https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Import and commons now appears on the list.

https://git.wikimedia.org/blob/mediawiki%2Fextensions%2FMath/d24748769f273716dbb3047c5d4a7c2f5e5fb37e/math%2Ftexutil.ml does contain for example \usepackage{amsmath} suggesting that texutil.ml's function render_tex is using its function 'find' because the program calls "\usepackage{amsmath}", i.e., AMS-LaTex, or something very similar. If this is close to correct, then what's needed to have 'texutil.ml' white-list all amsmath or AMS-Latex functions on Wikiversity?

https://git.wikimedia.org/blob/mediawiki%2Fextensions%2FMath/d24748769f273716dbb3047c5d4a7c2f5e5fb37e/math%2Ftexutil.ml does contain for example \begin{"^t^"} and \end{"^t^"} suggesting that \begin{Definition} text \end{Definition} should work on PlanetPhysics but it does not.

For example, our url=https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Upload called "Upload file" asks the user to "Choose File". Can "Upload file" have an option to "Choose File", meaning an image at Commons? A possible image is url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Aert_van_der_Neer-village.jpg. Usually I would drag the image to a file on my computer, then upload the file using "Upload file" to Wikiversity. The option to "Choose File" directly of the image at Commons would be better. Our "Upload file" already asks for licensing.

Is there another tool that allows bringing/downloading the image from Commons to Wikiversity?

What we would like to do is bring the image on the file page, and its history to Wikiversity, even when the visibility has been changed by deletion, as Fair Use, which we will license the image as. On Wikiversity only Custodians can import.

When you differentiate the file from the file page are you stating that the image contained on the file page would not be imported?

The url for the discussion is url=https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Colloquium#Importing_from_Commons.

Here's the url for the current discussion: Ongoing discussion

Just FYI, we already have a consensus policy in effect for full custodianship. What we are looking at are levels below full custodian and tasks that each level can perform. Current discussion about levels is at [[v:Wikiversity:User access levels|Wikiversity:User access levels]] and its talk page.

I've looked briefly at the code in question per the url. At present there is nothing in texvc that appears to exclude tex commands individually. The impression I have is that we do not have AMS-LaTex but only LaTex.

Let me add by reducing problems, I'm referring not just to below preponderance but to below reasonable doubt; i.e., less than 2% chance of problems for WMF. Three custodians for four to eight hours a day, up to almost 24/7 coverage. Add in eight active stewards and two bureaucrats and six to eight more custodians and you're well below 2% chance of problems. The one problem that did occur was because no one could remove the probie from an assistant group because we didn't have an assistant group such as we are asking for.

The discussion that we've had so far, the consensus, encompasses all of your concerns. All custodians who voted, all who voted but one noncustodian, are already aware of each of the risks you've mentioned. This proposal allows all active custodians on any given day, usually between 3 and a dozen, to supervise each assistant. This actually reduces problems for WMF including legal ones.

We have a discussion ongoing about the PlanetPhysics commands and a consensus so far to turn on the LaTex or perhaps AMS-LaTex commands currently off or not available. The discussion/consensus is at https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Colloquium#PlanetPhysics_functions.

@Physikerwelt I am an admin on the english Wikiversity and will happily submit helpful changes to our Math extension for community review and hopeful consensus that allow these various functions to operate.

I am an admin on the english Wikiversity and will happily submit helpful changes to our Math extension for community review and hopeful consensus.

Commands such as \begin, \label, \D, \vcenter, \xymatrix, \ar, and \end are not supported by our current Math or WikiTex. I'm willing to carefully insert the necessary software but I need to know where to put it and that necessary precautions are in place before saving and running the program.

We recently added a 2011 version of PlanetPhysics which uses more LaTex commands than our current Math or WikiTex supports.