Jump to content

User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 23

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

New Prep 2 hooks

[edit]

Nikkimaria, could you please take a very quick look at the two hooks I just moved from P3 to P2 to be sure there aren't any problems with them? (First and last hooks in the set.) Since they could be shoved into Queue 6 and picked up in about six minutes by the bot, it would probably be a good idea... Sorry I didn't pick up on the problems with the Linda hook: I should know not to trust a claim of copyvio check. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, both look fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Of course, we're now overdue ... and Crisco's doing something weird... BlueMoonset (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Linda is Template:Did you know nominations/Linda Braidwood. I did run the copyvio tool on the article, but Nikkimaria, I'm curious how you found the close paraphrasing—do you compare the text with the source manually or what is your technique? Thanks czar ♔ 14:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I default to manual checking (details), because the tools available are so limited in their capabilities - the Copyvio Checker in particular is rarely helpful at DYK. In this case we get significant results with Duplication Detector [1][2][3], but that doesn't always happen. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lambeosaurus and the Dinosaur Wiki-Project

[edit]

Just so you know, the Dinosaur WikiProject generally requires you to source statements to reliable sources, of which you did not do for the following statement, "The crest of the lesser-known species L. paucidens is not currently known.", making it seem as a fact. Here is a list of what we at WikiProject Dinosaurs use as sources and references. Just thought I'd leave a note here out of courtesy. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your courtesy is misplaced: I didn't add that statement. This is the only edit I've made to that article, which dealt only with phrasing and linking and did not address that sentence at all. The sentence you are concerned about has been in the article since June 2012, and the information since 2007, so I'm not sure why this note is here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Morgenthau wikipage making some possible progress out of start class.

[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria: At last I was able to re-do the artwork and add several dozen citations to the Hans Morgenthau page. This may be enough to get it out of the start class for others to get involved in the editing. Let me know what you think and if there is anything you might like to see happen to the page before or after assessing some type of page rating. LittleIPEditor (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LittleIP, I've updated it to C-class. It's quite close to being B-class, actually, but could use a few more citations (and page numbers for book citations, where possible), and some work on neutral phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nikkimaria: Thanks for the quick assessment. If you think that the page might be close enough to B-class that a half-dozen or dozen edits might meet the task, then i could offer to do them over this coming week-end if you could insert the templates for "cite-needed" and "NPOV|neutral" as needed directly into the text. Since i have all the research materials in hand right now it would be straightforward for me to do this, as opposed to someone else needing to retrieve all the books at some time in the future before being able to do this. Otherwise, at least the article is out of Start class! LittleIPEditor (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LittleIP, I'd be happy to do that if/when you're unblocked and able to work on it - just let me know. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nikkimaria: During the last week i was unable to research this account block. Apparently a User:bink has made a falsified/misrepresented report about sockpuppetry which was applied by an unsuspecting Administrator. Socks involve opening several accounts for the purpose of deceptively manipulating outcomes on edits, which was never done on the Hans Morgenthau page since i am the only one who has ever done editing there over the last three months. After filing the flasified sock report, User:bink then defaced the Morgenthau page by deleting much of the artwork and captions along with researched text to suit his own purposes, all unresearched, right after you had just moved it out of start class. User:bink has had several ANI reports filed against him in the last month and managed to dodge them as well. This present report to you is submitted from an innocent by-stander ip since i have not done any editing on the Morgenthau page since the account block following the falsified sockpuppet report. Can you look at this, there is no one else to look after the Morgenthau page. ip for LittleIPEditor. 146.203.126.246 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check a nom in prep?

[edit]

Nikkimaria, can you please take a look at the John Davis Pierce article, currently in Prep 2? There seemed to be quite a bit sourced to the Encyclopedia Brittanica source, and while what I could see of it looked like it had been paraphrased, I wasn't sure whether it was paraphrased enough, or far enough from the EB structure. I know you'll have a better sense of that then I. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BlueMoonset, sorry I was late and will be unhelpful here - I don't have access to that source, so while what I do see looks fine, I can't evaluate the structure effectively. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About this edit

[edit]

Hi,

I am wondering if this was done inadvertently? Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was deliberate. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to elaborate a little bit? I mean what part of it did you find inappropriate or against Wiki policies.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In (rough) order: WP:MOSHEAD; WP:'; WP:RS/WP:USERG/etc; WP:BQ; WP:PAIC; WP:LONGQUOTE/WP:IINFO]/etc. So, short answer: every change was because the original was against Wikipedia policies/guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I believe, you owe the Wiki editors some detail on why you find the sources unreliable and self-published. Meantime, feel free to edit punctuation and/or grammatical errors you find in that article. Cheers!--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I think people who want to be Wiki editors should read up on Wiki policies. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid the aloofness in your comments is not constructive in creating an encyclopedia. You left me no choice but to complain about you in here.--Kazemita1 (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your comments here and elsewhere have not been at all conducive to a more collaborative environment. Your initial, rather odd, question was whether my edit was deliberate or inadvertent; I told you it was deliberate. Two weeks later you asked for clarification, which I provided as best I could; however, since you referred to a multi-part edit without explaining which portion of the edit you thought might have been inadvertent or questionable, specific discussion was impossible. Nevertheless, you then restored the content, apparently without even understanding what my objection was, and rather unnecessarily took the issue to an admin noticeboard without discussing your changes at article talk (despite directing me there). I apologize for letting my annoyance at your tone and your actions here show, but the material in question doesn't belong in the article as-is and you've done nothing to suggest that it does. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capgras Delusion

[edit]

Hello,

I am new here, so please let me know if this is a silly question. I had edited the "In Popular Culture" of the [Delusion] page, and see now that the section is gone. Can I ask why the section was removed (version history here). If I made an error please let me know - I'm still learning the rules and norms here! Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammccarthy (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ammccarthy. That section did not have any reliable secondary sources indicating the significance of the references listed, so I removed it. You can read more about recommendations for dealing with In Popular Culture sections here. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/United Nations Security Council Resolution 2118

[edit]

Nikkimaria, when you get the chance, could you please take a look at this article for close paraphrasing. As you'll see, I found an instance of very close paraphrasing indeed, and although it has been rewritten, I'd like someone who's good at checking this sort of thing to take a look at the whole article, including the place that was problematic before the rewording. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you work hard: can i add to your list?

[edit]

Hi Nikki, I'm planning on taking Florence Fuller to FAC soon, but the referencing is bothering me. If you have a moment to look at it, you will see a large number of cites of newspaper articles that follow a particular format. It is an automatically generated citation, specifically crafted for wikipedia by the National Library of Australia for newspaper materials re-published by them. I'm concerned about the large number of locational details, their variation, and the use of state acronyms etc in these, but not when i have done monograph etc refs myself in, eg, the cite book template (where, eg, I have just put "Melbourne", not "Melbourne, Vic."). Would you be prepared to provide some comments on what you think would be the best way forward with these? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this at FAC now, but have tried to adopt a standard approach of including abbreviations for Australian states in all refs. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed commenting here; I'll take a look at the FAC shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for visiting so promptly. I have responded to your queries, and in one case wasn't sure of the issue. Re the NLA bibliographic template, we could possibly start a discussion somewhere about that cite template, invite Moondyne and I could drop into the NLA and ask if anyone there wanted to participate, and we could see if the community would prefer a different approach. But I wonder if it pops out in the way it does because the template is limited to using the library's metadata in whatever form it comes (eg. it isn't possible to get newspaper names without the paper year ranges, because that is how they have their title metadata)? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Responded to the one case there. As to the NLA citations, yes, it's probably partially a problem of how they've got their data set up: if you look at a page like this, the record gives the title correctly, but the page title includes the odd date range. So they're basing the citation on the page title rather than the publication title, and causing problems with the citation template in the process; there are also some linking issues for which I can't understand the rationale (like this resulting in a piped link that redirects to the apparent title). I really think that pending a broader discussion about these citations we should modify the outputted template (which is really just a prefilled {{cite news}}) to conform with our MOS. That's what is usually done for automatically completed citations in other styles - for example, the APA citation that NLA gives isn't consistent with the APA style guide either, and it would need to be amended to suit a publication using that guide. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

[edit]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James L. Conway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 7th Heaven (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: Samuel Merrill Woodbridge now an FA

[edit]

I just wanted to express my appreciation and thank you for your time and efforts in helping me get Samuel Merrill Woodbridge to featured article status with your insightful comments and focused critique during the FA process.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Sara Chapman Bull redux

[edit]

Nikkimaria, can you see whether the prose issues (and others) have been addressed here? I finally got impatient enough to fix "Brattel" myself, but I'm leaving the determination to you. Thanks, and welcome back! Hope you enjoyed your days away. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lest we forget

[edit]

"The Unnatural" and "Home" FANs

[edit]

I have addressed and/or fixed the concerns you brought up on both the these articles' FAN pages. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request for clarification

[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is considering a request for clarification which involves you.[4] Please act accordingly.—John Cline (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Hallucinogenic fish

[edit]

Nikkimaria, could you take a look to see whether the added material is sufficient to make this qualify again? If not, then please specify what's necessary; that way, someone else can check after the next expansion without us having to ask you to do the check yourself. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been mentioned

[edit]

Talk:Ventura_Freeway#Popular_culture Trackinfo (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing?

[edit]

Hi there. I have reviewed a DYK-nom, which there was some close paraphrasing, but it seems to be good now. Before I give it a "good-to-go", would you check if there was anything I've missed? The nomination can be found here: Template:Did you know nominations/Jamari Lattimore. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JoeWIki

[edit]

Hello. While I realize that you think the template {{JoeWiki}} should be deleted, the discussion about the template was closed with "no consensus". Since there was no consensus to delete it, why have you been removing it from all G.I. Joe articles anyway, citing WP:ELNO? Fortdj33 (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because, regardless of whether the template exists or not, the inclusion of the link on those articles is inappropriate per WP:ELNO. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, that defeats the purpose of the deletion discussion. It feels to me like you are editing Wikipedia to make a point, since the discussion did not end in your favor. If the template was chosen to remain, then it should remain on all the articles that use that template. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shouldn't - the fact that the template exists doesn't mean it's appropriately used in articles. If the template had never been nominated for deletion, these removals would still be appropriate. Given that, it would be the re-addition of the link that would be pointy. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not biting the newbies

[edit]

Yes, you're quite right. Your addition to EmmaGothGal's talk page is a model of kindly correction and a gentle hand on the tiller. I shall follow suit as best I can. Incidentally, I am in awe of your technical expertise in grammar: I had no idea that we were talking of a preposed appositive, and I am grateful to have learned something. Many thanks! Tim riley (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's a term invented quite recently, and not a term (or a practice, for that matter) all are fond of...and although I must reject your "technical expertise in grammar" descriptor, I thank you for your praise nevertheless. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

[edit]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Synergistic catalysis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Substrate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Word cut and paste

[edit]

You helped me before with cutting and pasting a word document to Wikipedia. My second word document also lost formatting. I have tried to re-past the document in sections but this did not work. Can you check my Nov 11th document and help me get the formatting back? Thank you so much, Gretel30 (Gretel30 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hey Gretchen, is this what you're trying to do? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thank you for answering my query. I am new to Wikipedia and tried several attempts to cut and paste my 2nd word document to Wikipedia, but like the first assignment (which you fixed for me) the format disappeared. Yes, I would like the format to be like my first document. My second document is dated November 11th and is Wikipedia Assignment #2. Can you help me? Thank you so very much. (Gretel30 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hey Gretchen, Section Two here is your second assignment, correct? That was the only edit you made on 11 November. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! You have fixed the Word doc format for my Assignment #2. I appreciate your help! (Gretel30 (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Holloway FAR

[edit]

Nice idea! But. You took out inappropriate stuff from Arsten in his post at 06:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC), but left KWW's requote of that same text at 17:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC). [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis infoboxes

[edit]

Hello -- it strikes me that convention in tennis infoboxes is to use the function that wp affords us -- even though some areas do not embrace it -- to reflect the flag of the country of the person, as in  United States. I noticed you change this to US. Please look at the GA articles Roger Federer and Juan Martín del Potro and Laura Robson and whomever else comes to mind -- this is certainly standard across tennis bios. Might I trouble you to reconsider, and consider a self-revert? If you want to reply, you can do so here.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Epeefleche, I don't think I will - WP:INFOBOXFLAG is quite clear that these icons should be avoided in sportspeople infoboxes, so it would make more sense to remove them from the GAs than to re-add them to this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will you have a problem if I revert? We do at times look at the consensus treatment of a matter such as this, though I agree that as a general rule Project-wide guidelines trump individual views. I'll also see if others have views. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before I say yea or nay, can you explain why you want to? Is there a reason for the convention beyond it being a convention? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A main reason for wp:MOS is uniformity of presentation. Consistency in style and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion. Here, we have a consistency in the tennis articles, even at the GA level, that appear to be well-accepted by the community. I've not been a party in any meaningful way to that convention being developed -- I recognize that at times individual editors go against MOS, and then say: "look; we have a convention", and in those cases I'm very suspicious of the depth of the consensus of the community. I've seen that most dramatically with two or three editors who don't abide by MOS on year range XXXX-yy presentation. This as far as I know is different. But I've dropped word for the tennis types (none of which I expect I know well) on a couple of group talkpages, and asked if they have views if they might share them here. Perhaps they will have further views. The wikiproject approach appears to have been codified here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get that it's a consistent style, I'm just wondering whether there is any reason for this consistent (but inconsistent with MOS) style to exist. Perhaps someone will know why this convention developed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One reason may be that in tennis tournaments, and with the ATP and WTA -- the official sites -- it is common to see such a flag. For example here. And here. For author bios, for example ... perhaps not so much. Also, tennis is a sport that has high-level international country vs. country competitions ... Davis Cup ... again, when it comes to author bios ... not so much.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You also have to remember that MOS changes through the years. I wasn't there when the original decisions were made on this, but consensus since then has been firmly in favor of the icons. Tennis is very international.. as is Olympics, and World Cup soccer. If I recall you cannot play Wimbledon (or other tennis events) without a backing nation. And like Epee mentioned, the ATP/ITF/Olympics/ etc, use those flags regularly. Since these players are regularly listed in most sports press lists with nationalities right up front, and with numbers of wins per country, and country droughts when you don't win... it only seems fitting to make the "playing nationality" stand out from the massive amounts of stats in an infobox. We never use it for locations or birth places... just playing nationality. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

[edit]

Please stop stalking me. =//= Johnny Squeaky 03:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "stalking" you, simply telling you that your behaviour is inappropriate. Please stop restoring unsourced WP:BLP info to articles and resuming the disruptive activities that led to your previous block. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Laura Seddon Greeting Card Collection

[edit]

Nikkimaria, could you please take a look at this one for close paraphrasing. I'm afraid I'm not at 100%; I was hoping to build enough of a set that you could grab one of the hooks for Queue 5, since all the preps were empty when you had to remove that hook from it. It's been slow going—I only trust myself to promote ones that very clearly appear to be fine, and I've already run into one that wasn't even minimum length—and when I got to this one, I knew I couldn't promote it unless it was checked by someone trustworthy. Thanks for your help. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Swatton DYK

[edit]

I've responded to your concerns at Template:Did you know nominations/Tony Swatton. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few more changes. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you gone through all of the material, as I suggested? I don't want to look again only to find that you've again fixed only the specific example raised. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been through it and changed a few other sentences. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you re-review it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, I missed one part (which I've now changed) and it's automatically a X? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After finding two obvious examples, I asked you to thoroughly check the remaining material, and asked again here whether you had done so. You said you had. When I find that you had not, then yes, the X is warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On one thing that slipped through the net? This has now been changed so it should be OK, I don't see the reason for putting an X there for something that is not intrinsically unfixable and can be sorted out. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you suggest that the article now avoids all close paraphrasing while still being supported by the sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, I have removed the close paraphrasing. This hasn't been easy since I usually work with articles I have mostly written from scratch at DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm going to suggest then is that you need to rewrite this article from scratch, if you really want it to be featured at DYK. The problem that has developed with each successive edit here is that in your effort to eliminate paraphrasing, you've actually introduced material that does not agree with what the sources say - so now you fundamentally have both problems. To give you an example, you say that "When Swatton was 7, he would refer to himself as..." when the source shows no indication that the 7yo used the terms, only that Swatton now does. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well short of deleting it and recreating it, how would that work within the DYK rules? Are you fine to hold it until I can rewrite it, which might be some time tomorrow given the England game on tonight. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I left the X: "article...requires considerable work before becoming eligible". As I said, if you really want this to be at DYK, you're going to need to put significant effort into it. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that. That's why I asked if it could be held for a while because I can't do it tonight but I can tomorrow. If the X is left there, it might get closed prematurely is my concern because that X usually means it's straight out ineligible when it isn't. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten it now. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

....and again. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Citizen Program

[edit]

There is no claim to notability to the article...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A national million-dollar NGO? Well, it's at AFD, so perhaps it'll be deleted nevertheless. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin

[edit]

Hi - I think the protection on this article could now be usefully lifted as there seems to be consensus amongst all (apart from the guy who got a block) that Chopin was indeed Polish. Also, some editors show signs of wishing to do some constructive editing - which would be great if it happens. Best, --Smerus (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dena Epstein

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Re:Ventura Freeway

[edit]

Just letting you know that I'm fine with the last edit you made to this article and had no intent to revert it before the protection. You are correct that the source regarding Michael Jackson doesn't match the content.--Oakshade (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Editor's Barnstar
Great new article at Dena Epstein. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Sendel

[edit]

I want to create a page for Sergio Sendel, a popular Mexican actor. He has had a page before which you deleted in 2010. Sendel is as well known as many of the Mexican actors who have pages here. I would like to create the page but am to ask you first if it is okay? Tortaguero (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tortaguero, I will say yes if you can show me any reliable sources that you can use to cite the content of the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will write it up directly. There are plenty of sources. Thanks!Tortaguero (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have written the page at my Sandbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tortaguero/sandbox#Movies. Thanks for looking at it.Tortaguero (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tortaguero, do you really mean to say in your opening sentence that he was born in 2013? Also, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and neither is cinemagia - see WP:USERG. Your link for your third footnote is broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I corrected my mistakes and added several new citations. Please take another look. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tortaguero/sandboxTortaguero (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better. The only other issue is the image - we aren't allowed to use non-free images to show living people on bio articles. If there aren't any free images of Sendel, you'll need to not have any image at all, unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The photos were removed, and I have published the page. Thank you very much for all your help.Tortaguero (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request re redacting

[edit]

Would you please redact Sandy's claim of edit warring? That seems gratuitous, and any such accusations should be made in the proper forum or not at all. Also, you redacted her statement that you would be redacting, for the sake of transparency that needs to be left in. I do not agree with your reductions of my text, but will not argue with you over them at this time.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring is directly relevant to 1e, wehwalt-- is there some wording that I can change to that would make you more comfortable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest striking the language entirely, sandy. It's gratuitous as your point is neither strengthened nor weakened by the omission. And there was no edit warring that I am aware of, and as you did not choose to file anything on a noticeboard that might subject you to WP:BOOMERANG, that should be left as the end of it. Certainly, if you go file an edit warring complaint at the appropriate noticeboard, and if it is upheld, then you may properly refer to it as such. As it is, it's just accusing people of misconduct while evading review of what you said on NYB's talk page and how accurate that was.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this to Nikkimaria-- sorry, I thought I'd be able to help with a wording change, but I see that isn't likely to be possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you have the ability to edit, Sandy, I do not see why it is not likely to be possible. You went to Brad's page and left a gratuitous and off topic post. Busy arb that he is, he seems to have done little checking before he acted, and of course Kww reverted him. Now, if I had done that, you would be mumbling things about "canvassing" and "meatpuppetry".--Wehwalt (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've redacted the "edit warring" verbiage in the interests of keeping the peace here (Sandy, you can simply say something along the lines of "there was some instability then", if that would work); I removed the statement about redaction because of your "Let's let the coordinator decide what should and should not be redacted without big hints", and am inclined to leave it out - I made the redaction independent of her comment about redacting - but am open to being persuaded otherwise, if you feel strongly about it. I will say I'm no more interested in hosting an interpersonal dispute here than at the review. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and understood. Thank you for your time.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redactions

[edit]

I understand what you are trying to do, but please bear in mind that Sandy is intentionally making false statements in multiple places. If you choose to redact my admonition (as you did in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Natalee_Holloway/archive2&diff=582636597&oldid=582631835), please also redact her intentional falsehoods. I'm really tired of seeing that particular piece of nonsense repeated over and over as if repeating it will somehow make it true.—Kww(talk) 13:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be out today for a family friend funeral, so have not been able to keep up, but pls check your AGF-ometer there, KWW. It appears that we have different versions of "truth". And if you want to claim that I am "intentionally ... blah, blah, blah", the place for that is my talk, not Nikki's. By the way, I am unlikely to revisit that FAR soon-- I have laid out only a small sampling of the issues (there are many more in terms of what is left out that results in POV), because sheesh, someone had to give the poor delegates something based on WIAFA-- now I leave you all to fight amongst yourselves. As long as you don't reinstate the off-topic discussions of Natalee's mother, I am done there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Truth is truth, Sandy, and you exhausted my good faith on this matter many repetitions of this same untruth ago. Nikki is the one that took it upon herself to edit my comments, and pointing out that she did so without editing out your repetition of the same falsehood does belong on her talk page.—Kww(talk) 16:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for crying out loud. I removed and will continue to remove unneeded personal commentary from the review. Your statement that her statement is false remains as a rebuttal, if you need one; I don't know who's telling the truth, and since the material in question has been removed from the article it's not directly relevant to the review anyways, so there's little point in continuing to argue over it. Please, everyone, refrain from continuing your personal disputes or dragging up no-longer-relevant issues either here or at the review. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, if you are removing material on article pages (and where in policy is your authority to do this, by the way?? It would be better if you just struck it), be sure you are removing EVERYONE's commentary, as you are not picking up on the between-the-lines snark that Sandy is putting forth quite freely, as well as her assorted exaggerated accusations. (If you are harping on both sides equally, I may not be happy, but I can live with it if it's truly neutral, so be sure it is) As far as personal disputes being over here, given that Sandy and I have mutually banned each other from our respective talk pages, we have no where else to deal with disagreements between us other than other people's talk or the dramaboards. I am sick of her behavior and tired of her accusations. I have never understood what the heck I ever did to her to earn her initial vitriol, but now that I apparently have, and then (horrors!) dared to defend myself rather than tell her how great she is, (how dare I?) we are off to the races. I WILL NOT back down when I am attacked, and I WILL defend colleagues I respect when I believe they are correct. Personally, I would be a whole lot happier if she'd just leave me alone EVERYWHERE, including bashing me by her comments and with links at places like User talk:Neutralhomer. I am so tired of this crap, particularly in an article where I simply popped over to review the work of a colleague whom I respect, and was initially neutral at the outset. Montanabw(talk) 18:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've not removed any material from article pages relevant to this FAR. If you have particular comments by others that you feel should be removed from the review page, feel free to point them out; I've been trying to remove personal comments from both sides equally, but when such comments are couched in critiques or defenses of the article content, that becomes a bit harder to justify.
I realize that several of those involved (not just you) are becoming frustrated with the comments of others. I don't really know where you can pursue the interpersonal issues, other than WP:DR; I'm trying my best to keep it out of the review page so we can focus there on improving the article, but that doesn't mean I want to host it here either. I suppose you could try requesting an iban at a dramaboard, though I don't know how that would turn out (and it would certainly make a review in which you are both participating more difficult to conduct). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, you have removed material, based solely on your assumption that it is "Not relevant," but in doing so, you remove context and nuance. You may intend the best, but you are better off not doing this at all; we're still going to look at edit history, compare diffs and respond accordingly. At most, strike what you don't like but leave it. As for the dramaboards, when you have two editors around as long as SG and myself, it's fruitless. In an IB, with tens of thousands of edits each, going back years, how could either of us know if the other touched some article 4-5 years ago, thousands of edits back? Not doable. And doomed to failure. I know that world well enough to know that it would immediately become a two-month "drahmah" that would bring in dozens of partisans on both sides. I have a 100% clean block record, whatever Sandy accuses me of. I'm quite tired of her unwarranted accusations and exaggerations, particularly when she is fully supportive of other editors who engage in far more aggressive and snarky behavior than myself. Montanabw(talk) 21:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed material from the review page, yes, but not from articles as you mention above. As I understand things, only the editor him- or herself may strike his or her own comments, whereas removals or redactions (so long as they are noted) are broader in their application. As to the personal disputes, understood, but please keep them off the review page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In either case, show me with a link the precise place in WP's policies and guidelines that allow you to do this. I think Wehwalt is giving Overagainst some excellent advicd that you just deleted. I'm quite sincere in saying that I don't think you have the authority to do this but if you can point me to where it says you can, then please do so. Or else stop removing comments. Montanabw(talk) 02:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what? I just removed part of a post by Overagainst, not by Wehwalt. What advice from Wehwalt are you referring to?
In terms of authority, in addition to the usual provisions of WP:TPO, I am a coordinator at FAR and am charged with managing the review process. In that role, I have and will continue to remove personal commentary, in the hopes of keeping some semblance of focus on content policies and the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I don't see specific authority for removing other people's stuff in TPO, but given that you are doing it to everyone, I'll drop the stick. Frankly, I'm tired of the whole drama, I was originally over there as something of a neutral source. Sigh... Montanabw(talk) 18:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute not yet resolved

[edit]

Nikkimaria, I noticed that you removed protection for the Wells Cathedral article but the dispute has not yet been resolved. Please see Talk:Wells_Cathedral#Restrictive_which. Thanks, Inglok (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Inglok. If you really feel the issue is unresolved, I would suggest you open an RfC on the matter or solicit a third opinion. Protection is meant to stop edit-warring, and hopefully, given the comments at AN3 and elsewhere, it's stopped. (And not that you would, but for completeness: please don't take the lack of protection as a reason to re-start it). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

[edit]
Many thanks for taking the time to do the source review at the Spanish conquest of Petén FAC, and for picking up all those details I wouldn't have noticed - the article was recently promoted. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natalee Holloway FAR

[edit]

Just to let you know that although I am going to take a back seat in the FAR to others with more understanding of the procedure. I don't support closing it.Overagainst (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting closing it outright, but I think it's pretty clear to all involved that what's happening right now just isn't helping anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree with you that far.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I'm caught up. Nikki, per the ping at Wehwalt's talk page, I don't think you need my "approval", feedback or concurrence for whatever you decide: you're the delegate, and it's not even "my" FAR. I see some unusual conditions requested on Wehwalt's talk page, which are not within your (or anyone's) domain to grant and as far as I know would never be granted to anyone for any article (FA or not). Other than that, I understand that Overagainst may be disappointed, but Overagainst, Nikki is not saying it's closed-- the FAR is only on hold for a specific amount of time, meaning only that discussion of these issues will occur elsewhere-- and it would stay at FAR for that three months at this rate anyway, so not much changes. Is that everything? I guess the only thing I would do differently, Nikki, is to have held this discussion on the FAR so that the conversation is "centralized". Perhaps you want to place permadiffs to the two discussions (here and at Wehwalt's talk) on the FAR talk? That way, when the FAR is "enshrined" in articlehistory, the record will be on FAR talk. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with that. As for the condition, they are more a proposal than anything else but I don't' think it will work. All we can do is see what happens, I guess. Sandy, I appreciate the things you've said in all of this. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I wasn't caught up. MastCell's post to the FAR is deleted, and not placed anywhere. In other words, the FAR is out of kilter; did you intend to place that on the FAR talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about Mastcell's thread, I thought I had done that but apparently not. Now fixed, and a link to the thread on Wehwalt's talk added. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/United Nations Security Council Resolution 2118 redux

[edit]

Nikkimaria, I'm afraid I lost track of this one. Could you please check again and see whether the close paraphrasing issues are finally solved? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The UN article now has a copy acknowledgement in a recent edit summary, and my separate issues have been dealt with. Please revisit when you can to see whether Lihaas has taken care of all the issues that were present. Thank you so much. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAR restart

[edit]

Nikki, I realize you may have never done a restart before, but when you restarted the Holloway FAR, you didn't leave the initial nomination statement. Neither the date nor the initial nominator show on the FAR. As this FAR might be involved in further dispute resolution, will you please put back the initial statement with it's date? That's how I did restarts at FAC (leaving the date, and then leaving a permalink to the removed text). Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive2 Most people coming to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway/archive2 and not familiar with FAC or FAR pages may have no idea who started the FAR, when, and where to find the rest of the FAR. There was also no link on the talk page of Holloway, so I put one there; newcomers to the talk page would not know there is an active FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sandy, I've added a link, but the removal of the nom statement was deliberate - it can of course be found via the link, but details about nominator are less crucial at FAR than at FAC, and I wanted a complete clean start and a new timeline (although clearly that didn't work...). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yea ... didn't last long, did it. Between that, and the education program, I feel that my inner Pollyanna has once again betrayed me. I had high hopes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

[edit]

AN thread

[edit]

Started without you being notified: WP:AN#Complaint about User:Nikkimaria. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recasting Hammonton

[edit]

Your recent edit to the article for Hammonton, New Jersey recasted large chunks of sourced material out of the article. Are you planning to cast it back in? If not, I think that much of the deleted content can be cast back into the article by rearranging it into new and existing sections. Let me know either way. Alansohn (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not; if you want to reorganize it so it fits somewhere, go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oxbow (horse), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Times Union (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

talkpage stalker swoops in to say... the above message was posted here at 17:10, 26 November 2013‎ by User:Fortdj33. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, 74. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

quick DYK request

[edit]

hey so a couple of really old DYK nominations that I have looked at are, I believe, ready to go and I was wondering if you could check them one last time because I have proposed alt hooks on them and so I can't approve them. They are Template:Did you know nominations/2013 Grand Prix of Baltimore (you looked at this one too) and Template:Did you know nominations/Baltimore mayoral election, 1999. In both cases as far as I can see there is nothing wrong with them and they just need an independent reviewer to check the alt hooks. Thanks. Thingg⊕⊗ 23:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Thingg⊕⊗ 22:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Beaty Biodiversity Museum

[edit]

Harrias talk 15:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some changes at Florence Fuller...

[edit]

...so I wondered whether you might give it another going over on the refs, including my comment at the FAC talk page. Any help gratefully received. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Siege: The Attack on the Taj

[edit]

The DYK nomination problem you had raised on Template:Did you know nominations/The Siege: The Attack on the Taj has been fixed by me. Please check and promote if possible :) Thanking you, EhthicallyYours! 16:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey EY, I can take a look once you've dealt with Gatoclass's point. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Holloway

[edit]

i do not appreciate you deleting my info boxes. Who the hell do you think you are? 195.212.0.141 (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP, welcome to Wikipedia. While you can make bold edits to articles, "any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited". I suggest you review WP:CAREFUL and, where your edits are reverted, make your case on the talk page instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I agree with Nikkimaria about the infobox. Moreover, please use civil language when discussing matters on Wikipedia. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Seddon Greeting Card Collection

[edit]

Laura Seddon Greeting Card Collection is at DYK and you rightly picked it up for cut/pasting/close para phrasing. As we are short of xmas noms I have re-cut it to hopefully remove its errors. However no other reviewers have come forward. If you get a minute then you might re-check your evaluation as I thought I'd caught the problem. cheers Victuallers (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cameron Thor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | birth_date = March 17, 1960 (age 53

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anton Myrer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | death_place = [[Saugerties]], [[New York]],[United States

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Alex B. Novikoff

[edit]

Nikkimaria, have the changes made to the article satisfied your concerns with it? Please post to this one when you get a chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Old Fortress, Corfu

[edit]

Nikkimaria, could you please take a look at this hook and article in Queue 6, if you haven't already? I was wondering whether the reuse of the five-word phrase "one of the greatest catastrophes" from FN2 in the article and hook (unquoted) is an issue—the source continues "in its history" and the hook and article diverge slightly (if identically): "in the history of Corfu". Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled the hook because of a more egregious instance of close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at it and taking action. But should that "greatest catastrophes" phrase be quoted in the hook (and the article), or is that acceptable reuse not requiring quote marks? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it probably should be quoted, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this conversation. These are pretty standard expressions, "greatest catastrophe in some place's history", which cannot easily be altered without changing the meaning intended by the source. I was aware of that but I left it because it was not a lengthy expression and I did not want to alter the meaning conveyed by the source. In any case I do not mind if it were in quotes. A request for Nikkimaria: Could you please check my reply at the nomination subpage and let me know if any other action is needed? Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we don't want to alter the meaning of the source, which is why quotes are a good idea. It also IMO better conveys that this is someone's opinion. Will check the nom momentarily. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nikkimaria. It is fine with me. This is why I also provided the exact quote in the reference so that anyone verifying the hook would be aware of the exact phrasing provided by the source. I just thought that phrases of the kind: "Greatest event in someone's history" etc. were pretty cliché and did not need quote marks. But I won't argue the point further. Thanks again. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question about Daphne, Alabama

[edit]

I noticed you removed a wikilink from within the infobox of the Daphne, Alabama article. I'm trying to get that article to GA status which would be my first. I can use all the advice I can get. So, I wonder why you dropped the wikilink to United States but left the others intact? Is there something I am missing? Any other thoughts you might have would be welcomed too. JodyB talk 18:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JodyB, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline - it excludes the US link in the infobox (and for that matter the "country" link too). Both would fall under WP:OVERLINK.
Taking a quick look at the rest of the article, you might want to consider further expanding the lead to cover economics and culture, and possibly infrastructure and government as well. Take a look also at sourcing in Demographics: you name the 2010 census as a source in the first sentence, but the first footnote is from 2008, and there's no indication of which information is from which census; you'd probably also need full citations to the 2010 census, as many GA reviewers look for a minimum of a citation per paragraph. Similarly, in the Economy section you'll want to specify in the text when "now" is and what year that $305 million budget is for (although the footnote does clarify); it would help too to expand that last paragraph a bit, and if possible comment on what has happened in the past year. Finally, you'll want to add more citations to the Transportation and Notable people sections. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I had already noted the census needs. Some of it comes from two different census periods so its needs to be standardized. I'll work on those things. Anytime you see something please either fix it or let me know. JodyB talk 19:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's noticeboard

[edit]

This is to inform you that I opened a case on WP:AN.--Kazemita1 (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

[edit]

FL

[edit]

Hi. I need help. I've got serious doubts about this "list". However, no agreement seems to be near. Can you give me any advice? I've got lot of experience in es: -several GA and FA-, but no here since my english is not so good. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ganímedes, it looks like so far the author is engaging with your concerns on the talk page, even if he's disagreeing with some of your points. So long as that continues, even if slowly, you should try to work with him as best you can. If you reach an impasse and still have serious concerns about the list, you could either open a removal nomination or pursue dispute resolution. Does that answer your question? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks more user is denial and disagree in almost everything. He see no problem at all and it really looks like he is not going to make any change. If this situation continues probably i'll take the FLRC. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maple syrup

[edit]

What is the rationale for the wp:overlink of one country and not the other in the infobox? If the history clearly has a single region or ogination then there should only be one, but since it is of a generalized northern North American origin shouldn't both countries be there? The entire lead section discusses Quebec and Vermont, so both countries should be equally represented.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 17:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Both countries are there. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You unwikified United States, but left Canada, then reverted my correction.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 19:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The link to US is overlinking; Canada is borderline in terms of linking because of the additional emblematic connection discussed in the Cultural significance section. I won't object if you want to delink it, but I do object to relinking US. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)

[edit]
Books & Bytes

Sign up for monthly delivery

Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.

Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...

Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...

Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...

Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...
Read Books & Bytes

The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural References

[edit]

Good Morning. Would you be comfortable if I included those quotes (paraphrased) in a section titled as "cultural references" in Husayn ibn Ali article?--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a better idea of what text you propose to include, keeping in mind the guidance at WP:IPC? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read the guideline and it sort of encouraged the listing format. It also said, one may use primary sources (?). Nevertheless, this is what I have in mind. Feel free to comment.Thanks in advance.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In culture

[edit]

Historian Edward Gibbon was touched by Husayn, describing the events at Karbala as "a tragedy".[1][2] Mahatma Gandhi attributes the historical progress of Islam, to the "sacrifices of Muslim saints like Husayn" rather than military force.[3]

I don't see anything at IPC encouraging either listing or primary sources? It says that "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment...Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources" and "Bulleted list format should be avoided when practical in favor of normal prose". So your proposed insertion is problematic in both respects. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. See above.--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but could use some more explanation per WP:IINFO. Also, do we know in what context Dickens made that statement? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please, take another look see how it sounds.--Kazemita1 (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Made some changes above, see what you think. I'd still like to know if possible what the original context of that Dickens quote was. Also, what would you think about reworking the "Shia view of Husayn" into a "Views of Husayn" section incorporating both its present content and this material? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with the section name change. As for Dickens, I will see what I find out there.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not able to find a primary source with the quote attributed to Dickens. I am therefore taking it off the text. I remember I had tried it before as well.Kazemita1 (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. If you're okay with my suggestion about incorporating this into a "Views" section, I think we can go ahead and do that. I would suggest though copying or linking this conversation at article talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Please describe your position regarding the external links that you removed for DeDe Lind and for Angela Dorian in the list of Playmates for 1967.

These are Playboy Playmates, and the links for Playboy Wiki constitute Playboy's central online directory for all of its online content for Playmates and other Playboy models. Please note that NeilN long ago inquired about the standing of Playboy Wiki as an "official" site and was satisfied by the evidence provided. You may review that exchange of notes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikilister. Or you can check for yourself on the homepage of the Playboy Wiki: http://www.playboywiki.com (sidebar © notice and domain registration info down under "Credits". The Playboy Wiki links supersede and expand on the former links to "Playboy.com" which no-one ever questioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilister (talk • contribs) 23:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Playboy Wiki was created by, and is maintained by, fans" - so not written by any recognized authority, even if "authorized". While the number of editors might satisfy the ordinary provisions of WP:ELNO, WP:BLPEL has more stringent requirements. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your concern with "officialness" and "recognized authority" regarding Playboy links is very much appreciated. However, if (1) the © notice in the sidebar of the Playboy Wiki, and (2) the "Whois" registration info linked under "Credits" on its homepage are not sufficient for you, then you might check (3) www.playboywiki.com/wiki/about where its "Organizer and Creator" (pb_paul aka Paul Thomas) was the "Director - Online Community and Social Platforms" at Playboy Enterprises, Inc. The second listed Organizer (Playboy_Official aka Daniel Richard) is the current "Playboy.com Product Manager - Playboy Plus Entertainment" - yes, the person in charge of the Playboy.com site that you seem to accept as a "recognized authority".
Since Playboy's online sites have been "outsourced", and even before that, Playboy administrators have realized that their persistent knowledge base resides in longtime dedicated fans rather than in relatively new staffers. Being on their payroll does not magically confer knowledge and familiarity, nor "recognized authority" in the eyes of those who know. It was for just such reasons that a Playboy administrator (the aforementioned Paul Thomas) initiated the Playboy Wiki on behalf of a select group of longtime fans and Playboy Forum members who could do what his own downsized staff no longer could. All edits are either done by, or are reviewed for accuracy by, one or more of the Playboy Wiki's "Organizers". The main editors of the Playboy Wiki are at least on par with the founders of the earlier Playboy Mailing List—who are also behind the "wekinglypigs.com" site so often cited as a reference by contributors to Wikipedia's Playboy lists. Except that, unlike the PML, the Playboy Wiki does have a formal link with PEI and Playboy.com. You might also consider the long acceptance of Playboy Wiki by other Wikipedia editors or administrators (e.g. Dismas, NeilN) who have long experience in the Playboy lists section. Dismas had made a template for linking Playmates to Playboy.com links, but he has long welcomed their replacement by the much more comprehensive links provided by Playboy Wiki. Playboy.com is just one of the Playboy sites covered by the Wiki.
Playboy Wiki not only includes the Playboy.com links, but better describes what is available within those links, and shows a heck of a lot more in various Playboy sites beyond Playboy.com. External links at Wikipedia are supposed to be few, so if you are to have the single most comprehensive "official" link for Playboy, that would be the Playboy Wiki. For at least the past 18 months, Playboy Wiki links have been supplanting the more limited and often broken Playboy.com links in the various Wikipedia Playmate lists. And so far, it has been with the appreciation of all concerned.
I hope that we're on the same side; you just seemed to misconstrue what the Playboy Wiki is about. I hope you will now better appreciate its role for Playboy and for Wikipedia's visitors to the Playboy lists. Wikilister (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide links to the "long acceptance of Playboy Wiki", other than the conversation on your talk page? My concern is that under our Biographies of Living Persons wikis and fansites are typically excluded even if an authority is involved. Your arguments about Whois or fans as knowledge base are unconvincing in that respect, as are citations to other potentially questionable sites. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I too wonder about this. The wiki provides access to material which is normally behind a paywall at Playboy.com. Where at http://www.playboy.com does it explicitly state that this wiki is accepted and authorized by them? If we don't have this, then we're linking to a website which publishes copyrighted material. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a thread at RS/N here: RS/N:Playboy Wiki. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I'm not sure I can satisfy you with "links to the 'long acceptance'" as it is usually more a case of editors accepting the introduction of a PB Wiki link and resisting the rare attempts to remove one. But here is one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2013&diff=prev&oldid=579509018 As for the exclusion you cite regarding "wikis and fansites", there is a specific exception made in the case of "a link to an official page of the article's subject": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNO I will participate in the RS/N thread that Brangifer started. Will you be satisfied to take this discussion there?
Brangifer, thanks for starting that discussion and drawing my attention to it. I'll provide the evidence you requested to "document the official relationship between the wiki and Playboy.com" in that discussion. Wikilister (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no, that exception does not apply. First, official links are used specifically to "see what the subject says about itself"; even if it were true that Playboy has complete control over the site, the subjects in this case are the individual women whose pages are being listed; they emphatically are not saying about themselves what is said at that site. Second, "Fansites, ...even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites" (my emphasis). Third, as already mentioned above, WP:BLPEL requires a stricter application than ELNO, meaning that even though these links may potentially be acceptable in other circumstances, they shouldn't be used to give information about living people. WP:BLPN or WP:ELN would probably be more appropriate venues for the discussion, but since it's already begun at RSN I guess we'll see what happens - so far, it would appear that the site is being resoundingly rejected. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop removing the links while the question is being debated. Especially since you are selectively targeting Playboy Wiki links while leaving links like IMDb which would presumably also fail your test. Most egregiously, you are leaving links to Playboy Blog which I know to be a mere affiliate site, not initiated by Playboy administrators as was the PB Wiki. I have not added any more links in the mean time. Wikilister (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, WP:BLP and WP:ELBURDEN both support removal/exclusion by default pending discussion. I would tend to agree with you about IMDb, but previous discussions have found otherwise, so I leave it alone. If you see other links that should be removed, feel free to either do so yourself or point them out. Please note, though, that canvassing is inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Create

[edit]

Victor Bruns: define "create", I transformed a machine translation to an article, DYK.

Symphony No. 3 (Mahler): how should I interpret your edit summary and talk page discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Q1 has already been answered for you. For Q2, not seeing any relevant talk-page discussion, I will refer you to WP:G for the edit summary. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Q2: I miss a talk page discussion in the case of an unexplained content revert by someone who never edited the article before (if I read the history right), on a "level of professionalism", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Q1: be assured I will not do it again. (I was tired when he appeared on my watchlist, remembered well the work on the article, didn't check the history, wonder if that can be forgiven.) Consider to remove your remark from the article talk. Sometimes I wonder what our readers may think, reading how we treat each other ;) - Quote from my talk: "Thank you for your cogent arguments on infoboxes for all biographies, so the "look and feel" of Wikipedia extends to all people." - Bruns is a bassoonist, the guideline of project composer doesn't even apply to that part of his work, compare Philip Glass, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Little help

[edit]

Recently I have recently uploaded many old military maps from Yugoslavia, like this one. Those maps are in the public domain because of two reasons:

  1. the maps were created by the institution which do public function (see PD-YugoslaviaGov and PD-SerbiaGov);
  2. also, the copyrights have expired (see PD-Serbia);

I have combined those two licences (PD-YugoslaviaGov for public works and PD-Serbia for expired). User:Peacemaker told me to ask you, as an expirience user, just to check if everything is correct. Thanks in advance! --Mladifilozof (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mladifilozof. If you're going to be uploading images to Commons, you need to be able to show that they are public domain in both their country of origin and the US. Looking at the example you link above, you're almost doing the first, but need to clarify: PD-Serbia requires either an anonymous author and publication date pre-1954, or an author date of death pre-1954; which are you suggesting applies in this case? As to the second (US copyright status), you'll need another tag or further explanation for that. Take a look at Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights for details. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, PD-Serbia couldn't aplied here. It is not anonymous work. I will change to PD-SerbiaGov because it covers "official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions". This maps were made by the Geography Institute of former Yugoslav Army. Do you think it is correct? --Mladifilozof (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't read the source to confirm, but that seems reasonable. Now you just need to figure out the US copyright status. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TWL account coordinator

[edit]

Hey Nikki, thanks for signing up for the TWL AC position! I'd love to get you involved. Would you

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Please do not remove links just because they are normally avoided. This amounts to vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.175.161.100 (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that you disagree with something doesn't make it vandalism. I suggest you have a read of our page on vandalism in Wikipedia and our external link guideline. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

[edit]

Discussion about Playboy Wiki at WP:ELN

[edit]

A discussion has been opened in the venue you suggested: WP:ELN#Playboy_Wiki_as_an_external_link_in_Playmate_Lists

You haven't answered all the points in the RS/N discussion, but you and others said the subject didn't fit that venue anyway. Wikilister (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Insinuations

[edit]

I think my comments have been misinterpreted, in part because they were unclear to begin with. I am not insinuating anything about others. I am merely stating that referring to sexual trafficking in a username is offensive to many. Some appear to be unsure about this. Andrevan@ 03:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misinterpreting the comments you're responding to, but since you've amended your statement hopefully this can be dropped now, with a reminder that you should be more careful with your wording in future. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least in one case, we are arguing over whether it is appropriate to refer to sex trafficking (pimping, at least the most common and primary definition, and one that could easily offend many, per our username policy) in a username. I believe this is not appropriate. Several users interpreted my comment to mean that I was accusing them of being personally misogynistic, which was not the case. I have no ideareason to believe if that they are misogynistic. Pimping, however, itself, is misogynistic, and I do not believe it should be referred to in a username. That was all I ever intended to say. Andrevan@ 03:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ärgre dich, o Seele, nicht, BWV 186

[edit]

Ärgre dich, o Seele, nicht is a very useful title. I miss an explanation why you deprive readers of the the at-a-glance information when this cantata was performed for what occasions, on what text, in how many movements etc., all this in an article to which you didn't contribute content. Other cantatas: same question. I thought we have an agreement. I leave "your" cantatas alone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We had an agreement, which you've broken and which my edits do not. You implemented a change saying that only one person objected, when only one (you) supported; I implemented a change that you supported and to which I objected. You don't miss an explanation - you provided it yourself. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We obviously have another misunderstanding. I changed a template which I use, while you don't use it. The change was supported by two voices, not one. I would like to try to reach more readers which I can do only if the change can be seen. I added that it is a try-out. - How do you think I have broken our agreement? - We lived through an arbcom case that confirmed that the principal author is important in making the content decision about the infobox. Please respect that. It has nothing to do with our agreement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like my changes have all been reverted. The template appears on articles I edit, because you put it there; I have an interest in minimizing its negative impact where possible. Furthermore, as we've already seen that you intend to use changes to one template as precedents for others, and as we've already had discussions about infobox use more broadly, everyone (whether infobox proponent or not) has an interest in their design and use. We've also already discussed that readers rarely comment on infobox design. Finally, the only person other than the two of us who commented on the proposed change did not support, and in fact presented an argument against the change. As such, I've reverted both of our changes to the template. We've already talked about respect and breaking agreements, both voluntary and imposed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, belongs here in context) Where can we discuss the line "genre" and "author" above the image in a larger forum then? The same wish to show those prominently may apply to other compositions and books, for example. - I didn't know {{hlist}} so far, learning ;) - I was sure that the identibox for The Company of Heaven was an acceptable compromise, compared to what I would I have used in an article where I was the only author, while I enjoyed the company of you and Tim riley in this case. Quattro pezzi sacri: that was before I was told about the narrow concept of "create" an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Bruns was after - the restrictions from the case have been broken so many times already, but nevertheless you should take care to stop doing so (as should others). But why is an identibox an acceptable compromise for an article I created, but not one you created? After all, the agreement was that you would not add a box (but you did) and I would not remove a box (but reducing is not the same as removing). (And yes, I know I removed on Bruns, but unfortunately the arbcom case "has nothing to do with our agreement"). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I do like the genre_header parameter, as it allows us to contract the infobox by one line - surely none of us wants an in infobox any bigger than it has to be? I'd quite like to see "Church cantata by J. S. Bach" on the third line, above the image - it's one of the most useful key facts for a casual reader and deserves prominence. I also prefer {{hlist}} to {{flatlist}}, especially for short lists - possibly because I originally created the former - but that is just personal preference and I don't mind if others make different choices. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great to reduce the size of these infoboxes, so hopefully we can get past the way Gerda has chosen to approach it. Is there a way to have the current type parameter automatically appear where the genre_header was, without needing to edit each article directly? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> - huge favor - please please cease these discussions! I'm sorry, couldn't help myself by saying that! But when I see that parameter creep might move to books and I'm only now beginning to see people creep back who left during the course of the case, my suggestion, for whatever it's worth, is to please stop discussing infoboxes until a full six months have elapsed since the case ended. Feelings are still raw and can easily erupt again. Nikki - putting this here because it's where I'm seeing it (and I'd prefer not to unwatch your page to avoid). Gerda, my suggestion would be to drop all discussions of infoboxes. Period. Victoria (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, I was ready to leave the thread politely, but need to tell you that this is not a discussion about infoboxes, but only if - once you have one - it is a good idea to have the genre and author on top above the image (my preference), or below the image caption, that's all, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That looks difficult, Nikki, because of the use of both {{{type}}} and {{{genre}}} for what seems to be the same thing. The template seems to be used on 168 pages, so we'd have to look at all of them to see the effects. Essentially, we would move the display of {{{type}}} into the subheader and deprecate {{{genre}}} - or vice versa (type seems much more common than genre)? I see that there has been discussion around that idea before and some attempts to implement it. Neither the type value nor the genre value is classed to emit a microformat so we wouldn't have to worry about that. It would make a bit more work for other parsers (which are helped by the type/genre labels) but they should be looking at the subheaders of infoboxes anyway. Why not resume discussion on Template talk:Infobox Bach composition and see if there's a consensus to be found? Any technical difficulties can always be cracked eventually, even if it does mean slogging through all 168 articles. I'd certainly help as long as I knew that there was a firm consensus behind the changes. --RexxS (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, Victoria; Rex, let's take this to the template talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize about your own page and I should have sat on my fingers! (or maybe chop them off) But it would be best, imo, to have a moratorium. Victoria (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK contributors medal

[edit]
The DYK Medal
For service to DYK over a long period of time, particularly your checking of nominations for breaches of WP:COPYVIO and WP:PARAPHRASE, I hereby award you the DYK contributors' medal. Thank you! Gatoclass (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gatoclass! Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well deserved, Nikkimaria. You do so much work on this. The Interior (Talk) 19:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Extra thanks from me, for sending a number of such checks your way. (I just did one below; forgive me?) That medal is deservedly gold. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both (and no worries). Nikkimaria (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Alex B. Novikoff redux

[edit]

Nikkimaria, the author has tried again; can you please recheck to see if it's finally free of close paraphrasing? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

[edit]

Yes, I have followed all the instructions. Thank you very much. Best Regards. --Shalbat (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Begging a favour...

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, Cassianto and I have started Hattie Jacques at FAC today. I appreciate you're hugely busy, but do you think you'd have time for a source review at some point? Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Highbeam account

[edit]

Thank you very much!--GrapedApe (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image question

[edit]

The GA reviewer currently examining my nomination of Finn M. W. Caspersen mentioned that the non-free image of Caspersen, who died 4 years ago, might not have a sufficient NFCC#8 rationale. I find the image use policy to be inconsistent and often overcautiously applied, so what I think it sufficient another editor will read differently. I think it's allowed, and no one else has raised a question or doubt. So...since you're the go-to-girl on image use policy, and I respect your knowledge in the area, I defer to your judgment on the matter. If it isn't sufficient, and there's a better way of establishing the rationale, or if there's some philosophical viewpoint on image policy that I'm not seeing, please do let me know. Many thanks. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ColonelHenry, I would think that the image meets NFCC, but you could improve it by a) briefly describing what steps were taken to find a free alternative (which bolsters the "no known representation under a free license" argument) and b) explicitly stating both that the image is the primary (sole) visual identifier and that the whole image is used to accurately portray the subject (obvious, but recommended under Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline#Necessary_components). Other than that, as he's deceased the prohibition of non-free images on BLPs no longer applies. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful for your help and guidance. Thanks again.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dredd

[edit]

Hi, if you get a moment could you give me a hint what I am looking for regarding this comment? "Be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized, what is capitalized, etc" DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I've responded to your comments. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 19:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ping! DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 22:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, I am in the process of preparing another article for FA and I was wondering, do you use a special tool to check Reference inconsistencies or just look? A tool would be really useful if it exists. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Darkwarriorblake, User:Cameltrader/Advisor.js has an ISBN check built in but doesn't appear to be working at the moment; the Peer Reviewer tool has some minor referencing checks in it (plus an external links checker); User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js looks for broken reference links produced by {{sfn}} and a few other footnote systems. Other than that, though, there's a lot of "just looking" involved. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info Nikkimania! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Antonio Pampani (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Venetian
Domenico Obizzi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Continuo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit College of Ingolstadt

[edit]

I see that on this article you removed all end-of-sentence line breaks, and also removed the |accessdate parameter from several references. You have done this before on articles I have worked on. I sense, no doubt being over-paranoid, that I am being stalked. I have undone the changes. See WP:NOSTRIKE. A single line break may follow a sentence, which may help some editors. Specifically, it helps me, since I suffer from eyesight and coordination problems. Please do not in future make changes such as these that make it harder for handicapped editors such as me to contribute. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. I frequently edit articles in the DYK queue to address formatting problems like misuse of accessdates; I don't check who edits these articles before doing so. Please do not in future add such parameters or remove tags without addressing problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

[edit]

BWV 215

[edit]

Thank you for your help to capital "types". Please consider to restore the relations for BWV 215 - collapsed anyway - as the piece is almost only interesting as a base for many other works including the Christmas Oratorio, it's the season, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's indeed unfortunate that the use of that parameter has been so poorly defined, but unfortunately your proposed change is inconsistent with our Manual of Style. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please explain why? Propose a better definition? - In the context: please don't "clean up" Bach's original marking in the score such as Sinfonia, Aria and others, marked by italics in the structure. It shows what he marked, and how - often inconsistently, and what not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to give the reader the terms more likely to be recognized, particularly given the lack of support for that usage of italics. Similarly, with a so vague "related" parameter, and with so little space to clarify the relation, that aspect is better explored in article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will postpone discussing the importance of the parody connections until next year. The IP with a question for BWV 197 would have been helped by a link to BWV 197a in an infobox. I don't see what you think is a problem of italics for Italian and German terms. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The IP asked for and received a new article, nothing to do with infoboxes. The "importance of the parody connections" is already discussed, no need to wait a year. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you misunderstood ;) - I meant that I will not do much for the rest of this year, enjoy the holidays, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue's Clues FAC

[edit]

Hey Nikki, so I've answered your questions at this FAC. It looks like I'm gonna have to solicit comments there if I want any movement on it, like most of my FACs. I dunno, is it me? ;) Anyway, thanks and happy Holidays. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays...

[edit]
Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth, and the same to you and yours. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Malplaquet House

[edit]

Nikkimaria, I found some severe close paraphrasing on this one at one of the sources, and this with an author who in the past has not been the best at clean paraphrases. Can I ask you to do one of your patented checks? It was approved and promoted in quick succession, but it's still in a prep and not likely to hit the main page soon, so there's time for it to be removed if you find that issues persist (or ones beyond what I found exist). Many thanks for your assistance on this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't have access to the book that is the source of most of the material, so there's not much I can do with this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping you could check the sources that were available, and also see whether the infringing material had been, in your opinion, adequately dealt with. But if you didn't see anything problematic off-hand, then it's probably okay. Thanks for trying. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff that I can check seems good enough, but that's only a smaller part. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. That does relieve my mind. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox theologian

[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you removed two deprecated parameters from an article linking to Infobox theologian. My question is this: could you redirect me to a Wikipedia discussion where the community took the decision to render obsolete the influences/influenced parameters of this specific infobox? I was able to find the relevant discussion for Infobox writer and Infobox person, but I could not find the relevant discussion for Infobox theologian. Thanks. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omnipaedista, Theologian is actually derived from Person, which is why people like Sandu Tudor show up in Category:Infobox person using influence and why the notice at the top of Template:Infobox theologian directs discussion to Template talk:Infobox person. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was almost certain that this was the case. Thanks for the clarification. However, I think that separate discussion for each infobox type should take place. I could argue that the case of theologians/philosophers/scientists is different than that of fiction writers; in the first case reliable sources for the claims can be easily found, while in the second case there was a lot of original research going on by most editors and reliable references could hardly be found. Maybe Infobox theologian should be converted to an independent infobox so that interested editors can determine which parameters are appropriate for it and which are not. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An independent infobox may be a possibility - why don't you propose same at an appropriate venue? (I will note, however, that in this particular case the influence information was quite different between box and text, and not sourced in either place). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt that your edit was justified. It just gave me the opportunity to discuss a general matter. Thanks again for the clarifications. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I just started reviewing the edits of an anonymous editor and came across this edit. My understanding is that the date range part of the lead section should not include places of birth and death as per MOS:DOB. Infoboxes serve that purpose in many English Wikipedia articles. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Infobox person" infobox from article

[edit]

Hi. I noticed you removed the "Infobox person" infobox template from the Masamichi Amano article twice, unfortunately with no explanation in either case. Could you please explain why you did this? I have always thought it was pretty standard to add such infoboxes to biographical articles like this, but if there is a valid reason for removing it that I am missing, I would be glad to hear it for future reference. Awaiting your response. --DAJF (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DAJF, see Wikipedia:COMPOSERS#Biographical_infoboxes and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines#Biographical_infoboxes. For the other removal that you reverted, see Template:Infobox_person/doc#Parameters. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the response. That's fair enough. If you could mention that it your edit summary in the future, you might find it saves you time and unnecessary hassle, as I can easily see other editors similarly reverting or querying unexplained removals of apparently valid text. --DAJF (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/The Doughnut

[edit]

Nikkimaria, this nomination was pulled from a prep due to hook issues, but I'm wondering whether there is close paraphrasing involved—I was about to call for a new reviewer of the revised hook, but I'd rather wait until you can check. I've only looked at FN1, but while reading it after reading the article it felt a bit familiar. Duplication detector (the toolserver version, since labs isn't letting me use that one) came up with ten phrases of five words or more, but I was uneasy before I ran it. Please take a look when you can. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Labs doesn't seem to be working at all for the moment, unfortunately. Taking a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch, definitely some problems there. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking. I still have toolserver bookmarked, so was able to use Duplication detector from there, though that option won't be available for much longer, alas. Not looking forward to the loss of those tools that haven't been converted... BlueMoonset (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

[edit]
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!



May 2013 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!

All the best

Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Gavin. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional nailgun deletion

[edit]

Holiday greetings

[edit]
 Happy Holidays!

Victoria

Same to you, VE. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Fleming

[edit]

Can you extend protection time of this article? --George Ho (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas! :-)

[edit]

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)


~TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi Nikkimaria, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Question for Wikipedia:GLAM

[edit]

Greetings, nice to meet a wikipedian interested in GLAM. For starters, where shall one go for information, FAQs, tips and advices ? --- Ktsquare (talk) 03:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ktsquare, in addition to the on-wiki page you linked to above, there's also a page on Outreach and a couple of mailing lists you might consider joining. What country are you in, if you don't mind my asking? Or are you interested in the online side only? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

[edit]

Vandalism

[edit]

Hi, how are you? The user Jerry Pepsi is vandalizing the article List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters... He is removing the information about the TV series Orphan Black.
Orphan Black is a Canadian series that premiered on Space and on BBC America. LP Sérgio LP msg 21:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LP, it looks like you two are involved in an edit-war and are each accusing the other of vandalism. The problem, though, is that neither of you are vandalizing (good-faith edits, even if wrong, aren't vandalism), neither of you have taken the dispute to the talk page, neither of you have provided any sources to support your edits, and both of you have broken the three-revert rule, which means that you could be blocked for your edits. I see another admin has begun mediating, so I would encourage you to work with him and begin discussing the issue on the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Jerry is that he is a hardcore deletionist and is doing this all over the place; check his contribs. Someone needs to show him either a trout or a cluebat. JMO. Montanabw(talk) 02:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway/archive2

[edit]

You suggested that the review may be reopened in March 2014 if there is no sufficient progress. However, the "Amigoe" section was recently discussed in the talk page and WP:BLPN. I tagged it with "primary sources", so I wonder if this affects the delay of the review. George Ho (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on re-assessing the situation in mid-February. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's now February. Seven days till reassessing, right? --George Ho (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

You many wish to contribute to this discussion at ANI. Thanks Span (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bridget Holmes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Portrait Gallery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue's Clues FAC

[edit]

Hi Nikki, happy New Year. This is me, soliciting comments for this FAC: [6] I've addressed your comments already; would you mind going over and taking another look? I agree with your estimation of the Steve image, so I removed it. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If interested

[edit]

The next article I'm turning my beady gaze toward is Rosie Napravnik. She's a terrific young jockey, about 25 years old. Ranked 8th in the nation this year in purse winnings and 3rd in the nation for wins in 2013. The article is a mess and I'd like to do a cleanup and rewrite to bring it to GA standard, but we're starting from close to zero for a BLP. Interested in helping out with some content editing? I already have been accumulating sources on the talk page. I like having a team to work on with these. It's also helpful to have a non-horse person on these to point out when we equine aficionados are starting to geek out on a topic. Montanabw(talk) 02:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your edits, thanks. More refs on the talk page if you want to start incorporating them in as well. I'll also continue to tweak on the article, there's a great 60 Minutes interview with her out there, I sometimes will use those, it takes sitting down with the video and creating the spot cites to anything used, which is a PITA, but has much good stuff. Montanabw(talk) 23:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bridget Holmes

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 21:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Doughnut redux

[edit]

Gareth E Kegg has made some edits to address your comments on structural close paraphrasing. Can you please check to see whether the issue has been solved, or if problems still remain. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Happy New Year, 2014
From Amandajm (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bellini began work on a rather large "Dejeuner sur l'herbe" but having set up the models and commenced the painting, he soon found that he was in no fit state to continue it.
At this point Titian stepped in. That's him on the extreme left. Bellini is sleeping it off under a bush.

Happy New Year

[edit]


Happy New Year, Nikkimarie.
Thanks for all the good work. Span (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bieber

[edit]

Since you locked this article, can you please remove the entire Controversy and legal issues per my explanation here.[7] I am uninvolved in this dispute. It only came to my attention as BLP/N is on my watchlist. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I try to watch over this article as much as possible as its the number one viewed Canadian article we have by far ...this fact is very disappointing to me that more are intersted in this young man over Canadian history... but the fact so many read the article means we should try to our best to comply with our polices. -- Moxy (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will you join us at Western again?

[edit]

Hi Nikki

Happy New Year

I'm starting a new course at Western, Special Topics in Biology: Education in Life Science. It is a course designed to introduce "educational skills" in the undergrad curriculum. I'm planning a WP project whereby students will add about 500 words each to disciplinary pages in biology as an exercise in public education. Fifty students working individually, so bigger than the GEL. I'm not sure the etiquette around attracting ambassadors but I am hopeful that you would agree to work with us again.TomHaffie (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tom, I'd be happy to help out again. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pruning - :)

[edit]

I noted you did prune the Bieber BLP a tad. <g> Collect (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Some of that might end up re-added when the dust settles, but for the moment we'll err on the side of getting rid of potential problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This seems apropos: "justin bieber visits animal shelter". Montanabw(talk) 19:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

[edit]

Query

[edit]

Hi. Is there a simple way of telling whether a featured article has been through WP:FAR? Is there a list somewhere, or should it be mentioned on the article's talk page? I'm wondering whether Asperger syndrome or DNA repair have been reviewed since they were promoted in 2004. Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Anthonyhcole, every FA/FFA article talk page has an articlehistory at the top of the talk page. Click on the "Show" button next to the line that says "Article milestones", and you will see all old FACs and FARs, and the date links to the version of the article that passed or failed. Those records are accurate (I helped build them). Yes, both AS and autism have multiple FAC and FAR entries, but they haven't been reviewed since Eubulides rewrote them in 2007; they are outdated, and if sent to FAR, would likely end up defeatured as we have no one to rewrite them.

DNA repair hasn't been reviewed since 2006.

If you were to view TimVickers entries at WP:WBFAN, you might find other problems, since Tim wrote many FAs and is now mostly gone.

There used to be records kept at WP:URFA of articles that had or needed FAR, and that page was used to coordinate FARs needed. I have been unable to understand why the current FAR process has let that work fall by the wayside, as I believe if the delegates would coordinate work as we used to, FAR would stand a better chance of becoming active again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nimm, was dein ist, und gehe hin, BWV 144 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • # Aria (soprano): ''Genügsamkeit ist ein Schatz in diesem Leben}}''

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Howard Lyman may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * 1996: Elected President] of the [[International Vegetarian Union]] (served through 1999)<ref>[http://www.ivu.org/members/
  • * 2002: Vegetarian Hall of Fame, August 3, 2002, at the North American Vegetarian Societ]'s annual Vegetarian Summerfest in [[Johnstown, Pennsylvania]]<ref>[http://www.madcowboy.com/02_

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Biohacking may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2013/jun/06/kickstarter-money-glow-in-the-dark-plants here] for another perspective on the aforementioned ''Glowing Plant Project'') This controversy is discussed in the Genspace course [http://genspace.org/project/Environmental%20Release%21%21 “Environmental Release @#%!!!” </ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Herbert Spencer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Bergson]], [[Auberon Herbert]], [[Roderick Long]], [[Yen Fu]], [[Tokutomi Soho]], [[Jack London]], [[[Ayn Rand]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mass in B minor structure may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The second acclamation of God is a four-part choral [fugue, set in stile antico, with the instruments playing [[colla parte]].{{sfnp|Scobel|2006|p=4}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robert Hillberg may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | birth_place = [[Imsoa, Iowa]], [United States

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Barbara Chernow may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • and other auxiliary services to the Stony Brook campus community. Chernow is also a member of [State University of New York Business Officers’ Association (SUBOA).<ref name="sbn"/><ref name="op"/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Donald B. Marron Jr. may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Center]] (Director)|[[Council of Economic Advisers]] (Member)|[[Congressional Budget Office]] (Acting Director|[[United States Congress Joint Economic Committee]] (Executive Director)}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wedding of Nora Robinson and Alexander Kirkman Finlay may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |title=The Vice Regal Nuptials at St. James' Church |newspaper=[[Wagga Wagga Advertiser)]] |location=NSW |date=10 August 1878 |accessdate=4 December 2013 |page=1 Supplement: Supplement to
  • * a double silver-mounted [[Perfume|scent]] bottle <br>(from Viscount [[Hugh Fortescue, 4th Earl Fortescue|Ebrington]];

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BWV 108

[edit]

I don't get from your edit summary why you think that the Bible quotations don't belong in the infobox. The cantata is unusual, beginning with one and including a second, - notable, if you ask me. I duplicated the links although I don't think it makes much sense, - the Gospel is short. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think it makes sense to do so, then don't duplicate the links. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought your reason to remove Bible from the infobox was that you didn't find it in the text. I tried to help by making it extra visible. If you have another reason, please let me understand. - I would also like to know why you revert showing Bach's Italian and German movement markings. We show the original text, not only a translation, - why not show the original markings once? The English terms are regularly used in the body. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for possible peer-review

[edit]

Hey there, when you've some time, I was hoping you could please give a wee review of the Tel Kabri article. It's mostly a prehistoric site given the lack of writing, but the time period covered is primarily in the Bronze Age, which is, of course, the best age. A review would really be appreciated and bribes in the form of fluffy kittens, or e-beer, could most certainly be given if needed. Thank you very much!Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 7 Shevat 5774 02:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Oct–Dec 13 Milhist reviews

[edit]
 The WikiChevrons 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period October–December 2013, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. During this period you undertook an incredible 32 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

House of Lancaster

[edit]

Hi there

Can you have another look at the FAC review of this to see if I have addressed the image issues appropriately, please?

Thx Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll look at the two points and get back to you. The duplicates have different labels (one Crouchback, one Thomas) and the other image shouldn't be an issue as it quite commonly used. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to List of Apostolic Nuncios to China

[edit]

In your edit, you mentioned "fmt" in your edit summary. What does that mean? --Huang (talk | contribs) 16:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Format" - see WP:ESL for explanations of such summaries. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Prié blanc

[edit]

Nikkimaria, I'm a bit puzzled by certain aspects of this DYK, and was wondering what you thought (and if you'd run into similar issues in the past). The article is based on a single source for its entire length except for the final Synonyms section, which appears to be based mainly on FN2, http://www.vivc.de/datasheet/dataResult.php?data=107. To my eye, the problem is that the entire list, with very minor deviations, is taken from the four-column table of the source and has commas inserted. The differences appear to be the addition of plain "Agostenga" at the beginning of the list and plain "Prie" in the middle of the list, plus the omission of three sequential names from the source—Madeleine Salomon, Madeleine Verte de la Doree, and Madlen Salomon—for reasons that escape me. (There are also parenthetical comments added to two of the synonyms to give location information.)

Is this some sort of copyvio, without quotes? Also, while notability seems to be the prime concern for why multiple sourcing is desirable in the DYK rules, is the nearly complete reliance on that one (new) source for that article an issue for DYK? Thanks for any light you can shed on the matter. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, a simple list of names in alphabetical order would not be considered a copyvio – see Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Compilation_of_Facts_and_the_Sweat_of_the_Brow_Doctrine. As a matter of style, the section should probably be converted into columned bullets, but that's style and not policy. I'd be more concerned about the use of (effectively) only a single source: that's an issue of not only notability, but also potentially accuracy and neutrality (in that only one author's POV is being represented). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rapid response. I didn't think of the list point, and thanks for the link to "compilation of facts" section. Good to know that there are genuine concerns about a having a single source for the rest of the article. In this case, since the source is written by a trio of authors, would that ameliorate the single POV concerns somewhat, or leave it still open? (It's a huge book; I don't know whether all three authors would have had input into all sections, or if they all had their own sections. The article does in one case refer to a particular one of the authors... BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The extent to which having only a single source is problematic is context-specific; without access to the source in question, though, I can't say how that principle applies to this specific case, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Texas Vampires, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

[edit]

SPI case

[edit]

Hi. Regarding our recent conversation, I've launched an SPI case here [8]. If you have any additional information or comments, maybe you could contribute there. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see an arb recommend launching an SPI; usually people are discouraged from trying to publicly link IPs to usernames. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I was only doing as instructed. The SPI clerk was unsure about taking it on at SPI too [9]. But apparently it's OK to open the SPI since the instructions came from an Arb, so the case is back on [10]. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: December 2013

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 17:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Noor Pur Baghan

[edit]

Nikki,

This is a small village and you wouldn't find much resources and references for most of the stuff online or in print media.

Consider this info the first and let me keep it the way I had it.

You just removed 5000 words of valuable info from that article on which I have spent a considerable time.

I completely understand the English part but removing the whole chunk of info was a bit harsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajjad Altaf (talk • contribs) 03:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I am a resident of this village and know more about it and what it is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajjad Altaf (talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sajjad, I've restored part of the material. However, you can't just write about what you know without including sources, as that is considered original research. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Texas Vampires

[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 01:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of Daily Mail as a Reliable Source

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. I reverted your edit on Laurence Graff as the Daily Mail has not been deemed an unreliable source by the Wikipedia community. There is a current discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_the_Daily_Mail I would think that using the Daily Mail for the names of his children and their occupations would not be controversial.Patapsco913 (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patapsco, I'm a bit concerned by your actions here: I don't really see how we can look at that RSN discussion, look at what the source was and what it was being used for, and conclude that it is acceptable. Please have a careful read of WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPREMOVE. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anything on WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPREMOVE that contradict the info. I am not sure how listing that his wife is of French origin (from Forbes) or the names and occupations of his three children is contentious so why remove? The Daily Mail and the Jewish Business News are both reliable sources per Wikipedia. If you want to take this up the food chain then do so.Patapsco913 (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am not sure why you do not want to discuss or explain why this violates BLP.Patapsco913 (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"This policy extends that principle [of requiring reliable sources], adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable" (WP:BLPSOURCES). "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight...or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion" (WP:NOTRS). Reading the RSN discussion you linked above should make it very clear to you why Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source for BLP material; reading the article and the source should make it clear that the issue goes beyond simply the names and occupations of the children. However, if it hasn't, "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections,...[i]f it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first" (my emphasis); the onus is on you to raise this at WP:BLPN and get consensus before restoring the material with that source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should also be aware that both WP:BLP violations and edit-warring may result in a block. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
well you violated the 3RR rule and anyhow....why remove the occupations of his children which is not contentious? Why remove that his wife is of French origin (which is from a citation from the Forbes article). And why remove the citation from the Jewish Business News which confirms the Daily mail info?Patapsco913 (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of poorly sourced BLP info is a 3RR exemption. I didn't remove that his wife is French; I removed the children because the source being used is utterly inappropriate for a BLP. The Jewish Business News source is substantially identical to the article, so I'm trying to work out whether they copied from us or we copied from them; either way, the material would need to be removed, because either it's a copyright problem or the source is a Wikipedia mirror and therefore unreliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the answer is they copied from us (so not a reliable source), but we copied from somewhere else (copyvio removed). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

[edit]
Books & Bytes

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%

Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC

New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers

Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors

Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration

Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
...Read Books & Bytes!

Sun temple

[edit]

Hello. Thanks for this edit but why did you remove the accessdates from some of the citations and why did you remove solar deity from the see also? Green Giant (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accessdates aren't needed for GBooks links, and per WP:SEEALSO things that are already linked in the article shouldn't be included in that section. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Edward George Sydney Paige

[edit]

Nikkimaria, might you be able to give this nomination a quick check to see whether any close paraphrasing remains? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Juan Cole, "Barack Hussein Obama, Omar Bradley, Benjamin Franklin and other Semitically Named American Heroes"
  2. ^ "In a distant age and climate, the tragic scene of the death of Husein will awaken the sympathy of the coldest reader." The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 2, p. 218
  3. ^ Reliving Karbala: martyrdom in South Asian memory, By Syed Akbar Hyder, Oxford University Press, p. 170
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_23&oldid=1226255826"