User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 11

Good article mentoring

Hi there, I saw that you were listed at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Mentors and am hoping you could give me a few tips, and perhaps review one or two articles with me until I become more familiar with the process. I have a cheatsheet to go by (User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet) so perhaps I should pick a GAN, review it against that list and get you to look it over in case I miss anything? Let me know if you can assist, thanks. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steven, I'd be happy to help. Cheatsheets are great while you're getting the hang of things. Another good idea would be to pick an article in a general topic area you're comfortable with for your first few reviews - it can be tricky to see if the article is broad and neutrally written when you don't know what that would mean. In terms of the review itself, some reviewers prefer to structure their review in terms of the article's organization, followed by an "overall appraisal", while others prefer using the criteria as the structure. You should choose whichever approach will work best for you, so long as you cover all of the criteria. I think the best way for you to get into reviewing is to review, so go ahead and try one; ping me once you're done and I'll give you some feedback. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm more comfortable with popular culture, so I did a review on Darren Osborne which is at Talk:Darren Osborne/GA1. Let me know what you think. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I agree with the outcome of the review, but not with some of the specific points you raised. The editor is correct in asserting that plot/storyline sections are generally not required to be sourced, at least not at the GA level. However, I'm not sure that it complies very well with WP:WAF, given the extensive Relationships and Fatherhood sections. In regards to referencing, I notice you didn't comment on the reliability of the sources used - is that because you thought they were all fine. If so, it's still a good idea to explicitly say that. A more important issue is whether you spotchecked sources to verify that they are accurately represented and not plagiarized in the article. You don't need to check every source, but a good representative check will ensure that the article respects copyright laws (criterion 1a), and is properly referenced without using OR (criterion 2).

In regards to the objections raised by the nominator: unfortunately, this does happen sometimes, but if you're confident that you made the right decision you should stand by it. Encourage the nominator to renominate the article once he/she feels it is ready. If you're uncertain of your decision for any reason, you can request a second opinion at WT:GAN or place the article on hold to see if your concerns can be assuaged. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading over Wikipedia:WAF#Plot_summaries as well as Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary#Citations, and as well as past experience, it was my understanding that plot summaries should generally be sourced. The other issue is that without any references I have no way to verify if the content in the plot summary is OR, it could be completely made up for all I know. I will admit that I didn't check on sources due to the other problems I saw with the article, and as such I didn't do an extensive review of the article, but I will definitely take this on board in my next review. I might do a shorter GAN next, so I can do an in depth review. As for my decision, I will stand by it as I feel that the issues with the article are not minor ones that can be fixed quickly. I'll let you know when I've picked another GAN so you can see how I go. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds for Divorce

Hello Nikkimaria, Can you please review my sections? Thanks--Nas132 (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there particular sections that you are responsible for, or do you want me to check the whole article? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 6 paragraphs under No-fault were my sections. If you have the time to check the whole article my group and I would appreciate it. Thank you --Nas132 (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear that you like the changes made to the article! I did make the changes you suggested in my paragraphs. I did tell my other group member about the non-paraphrasing sources that concrened you in FN 4. I also pointed out the change that had to be made in her section. That change was this one "No-fault divorces are less expensive.....". She said that she would not be able to get the changes until Thursday. If this is a problem can you please let me know asap. I did see that you don't have access to some sources. What sources don't you have access to? are they the sources in FN 4? --Nas132 (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, 4 I can read. I don't have 1, 3 (which is the same as 8, 10, 12, 13), 11 or 14-17. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. All but 1 should be accessible through Google Books... at least, in the US. NM, are you editing from outside US? That's the only explanation I can think of. (If so, perhaps a proxy would help...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Canada - I can see the GBooks links, but most of the ones I listed don't include previews. (FN 11 has a preview, but the direct-page link is for a "page that is unavailable for viewing"). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well if its ok with you and my teacher. Would you mind if my teacher looked over the rest of the page? since he has access to the links and he would get back to you.--Nas132 (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Thank you! I thought I was missing something. I would have suggested a proxy but I never heard of it before.--Nas132 (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary quibble

Hi, I largely agree with your edit of the Peter Gabriel article, but, looking at your edit summary "(tr)", I had no other option than to come and check your editing history and your talk page to find out whether you meant TRimming, removing TRivia, or TRolling. Looking at your other recent edits, I noticed summaries like "(tr)", "(rm)", "(org)" and "(rc)". I think I can assume that "(rm)" means "remove" and that "(org)" means "organise", but I have no idea what "(rc)" stands for in, for instance this edit. Quid?

In short, would you mind using slightly less cryptic summaries? TIA and cheers. - DVdm (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tr=trim, rc=recast. I find short summaries helpful for things like quick cleanup, but I'll try to be clearer in future. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and keep on TRimming the TRivia :-) - DVdm (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackford County, IN

Hello Nikkimaria, Thank you for taking the time to review Blackford County, Indiana. I thought I had the article in pretty good shape, but that only shows my inexperience. Is it proper procedure for me to comment "back", on the FAC page, to your comments on the FAC page? My plan is to make the easy fixes first. TwoScars (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've got the FAC watchlisted, so feel free to respond there (but note the instructions at the top of the FAC page). Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nikkimaria - I have been working on the Blackford County, Indiana page, using many of your suggestions. (I still have one newspaper article without a page number.) You mentioned "Stats or STATS Indiana or STATSIndiana? Use consistent naming". I have not been able to figure out this comment. Everything appears in the references as "STATS Indiana". Reference names may not be consistent, but is that relevant? What am I missing? Also, did you have any thoughts on the prose?TwoScars (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compare FN 4 (Stats Indiana) to FN 111 (STATS Indiana) - that was the inconsistency I saw, although the version without spacing has been corrected. As to prose, I glanced over it while checking sourcing, and it struck me as neither spectacularly good nor spectacularly bad, for what that's worth. Is there something in particular you were wondering about? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are sooo right! Fixed FN 4. I think I have the notes and references cleaned up (except the one newspaper article without a page number). I will try to address German Joe's concerns with prose—he had some good points. However, I do not feel comfortable with the layout suggestions. Moving the communities out of the Geography section, and putting them into the History or Demographics sections, is contrary to the Peer review, my featured article "template" (Warren County, Indiana), and the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. counties. What are your thoughts on the content in the Geography section vs. the History section vs. the Demographics section? (As info, I will have an upgraded Image Map that includes a few more extinct communities.)TwoScars (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your "template", I notice that it doesn't have any "Communities" subsections, but rather incorporates them into the main Geography section. I like that approach, though I can also see the argument for moving that material. (Disclaimer: I have a FA on a comparable topic, and as far as it mentions communities they're in the Demographics section). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility would be to drop the Unincorporated communities subheading, but leave the content. Then move the Extinct settlements to its own section, with the Image Map, after the History section.TwoScars (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like the first idea, not the second. There really isn't enough material there for an entire level-2 section; subsection maybe. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random question

I just have a random question about your FAC method. I understand that sources are very important to articles, and that that's your area of expertise in the FAC process. I was skimming the FAC page and I noticed that you were challenging a couple sources as reliable and authoritative. And the FAC nominator defended the sources here. But here again, you went on another FAC page and challenged the exact same sources that a previous nominator defended as being an authority in the field (rotten tomatoes being an example, where an editor noted that WP's MOS recommended the site). I'm just trying to get some insight into why this is. Is it that you don't agree that these sources are authoritative? Or do you not remember that the sites were defended etc? I'm not challenging you or anything. Just trying to understand your approach. Orane (talk) 07:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source reliability is highly dependent on context - sometimes I will forget about a source, but more often it's because I either don't agree that the source is authoritative or because it's being used under circumstances that I feel are different enough or inappropriate enough to be challenged. In your example of Rotten Tomatoes, look at what the page the first nominator linked says: "review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews". That's not entirely what the second page is citing to RT. Furthermore, in-text attribution is recommended for review aggregates, and the latter doesn't include them. Finally, RT includes some user-generated content, which is always a big red flag in a source review.

In a broader sense, though my philosophies differ slightly, you might find this page helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such an intelligent and well-spoken answer. Ok, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for clarifying. Orane (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds for Divorce page

Hi Nikkimaria!

My teacher said that everything looks fine now. He left a message on my talk page for proof. Is the box going to be removed from our page now?--Nas132 (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 10

Re: this edit, was looking at the selected articles/anniversaries now on the December 10th page. Out of the present 6 items, 2 are scientific (Nobel prizes, Halley's Royal Society paper), 4 are political. 4 are about European subjects - British (Halley/Royal Society, Brown dog affair, Edward VII), Swedish (Nobel) and then the remaining 2 are the Taiwan and the Vietnam political articles. Most of the 'Selected anniversaries' seem to me to have a tendency to veer towards the political/war or technology/science. Per the "mix of topics" mentioned on the date's page I thought something cultural might be a good idea, especially since the accompanying/pictured photo is of a person of color and so had previously changed the selected articles. Would welcome your thoughts - Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swapped in a different one, see what you think. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that's a better mix now. I admit, I do have a soft spot for the Grand Ol Opry/DeFord Bailey story. So many people follow country-music worldwide and people know all about the Grand Ol Opry and yet, there is a wrongful assumption that county music has always had some kind of systemic monotone skin-tone bias. Bailey's presence at the dawn of the Opry, his status as an African-American pioneer of the genre prove that assumption wrong and are both important aspects of the history of country music. But, I have to say, anything cultural (ie "Twain") is a good change-up. Shearonink (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I can quite honestly say that I never thought of country music as inherently white. Maybe it's an American thing? Then again, I don't know a whole lot about country music, so that could also be why. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about the December 10th Anniversary mix of topics lately. Could the Deford Bailey/Grand Ol Opry reference possibly be swapped in for one of the topics presently in the Selected Anniversary? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but I should point out that another swap will likely be done by someone else closer to the date in question. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right but I appreciate the Opry swap anyway. I fell into editing some associated articles and find the histories of popular music fascinating. Shearonink (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Chatting

Hey there! I just wanted to say thank you for spending a little time to talk to us this morning. I feel that your advice has helped to get me in the right direction, and I believe it did for others as well. I had the question about writing about a living person, so your insight has helped me to distinguish what I can and cannot do. Thanks again! Matthewrents (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Let me know if you have any more questions. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ENG103 Assistance

Hi Nikki,

I am working on this information for my assignment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lflemin/Homestead_High_School_(Mequon,_Wisconsin)_sandbox

I will be adding the above information to this already started article :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_High_School_(Mequon,_Wisconsin)

I am just looking for some feedback so far! Thanks so much!

Lflemin (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lflemin! What you have looks like a good start. I would suggest replacing all the sport-specific sections currently in the article with your gender-based subsections - the general athletics section, though, would probably be good to keep. Check the linking on your State Titles section. The only real concern I have about your article is that you're using a considerable number of sources from the school itself - it would be great if you could find some more independent sources. Other than that, looking good. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your feedback! I am definitely going to work on editing my page according to your advice!

Thanks again, I really appreciate it!

Lflemin (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nikki,

I have started editing and adding content to my article and am wondering if you have any advice on how to improve what I already have down. I plan to make it longer and to gather more sources, but for now, this is just a start. Thanks! Tallguy68 (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to my talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tallguy68/Nikki_Haley_sandbox Tallguy68 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Opinion essay: The monster under the rug

Recent research: WikiSym; predicting editor survival; drug information found lacking; RfAs and trust; Wikipedia's search engine ranking justified

News and notes: German Wikipedia continues image filter protest

In the news: Citizendium on the rocks, Shankbone celebrated, and the week in vandalism

Discussion report: Proposal to return this section from hiatus is successful

WikiProject report: 'In touch' with WikiProject Rugby union

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Abortion case stalls, request for clarification on Δ, discretionary sanctions streamlined

Technology report: Wikipedia Zero announced; New Orleans successfully hacked

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project A119

Thanks for your helpful copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For those last two articles saved during FARC. Brad (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thank you for reviewing! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about editing a page!

My name is Caroline Edgar and I am from Ms. Fancher's English 103 class. I was wondering if the topic Central Nervous System Damage from Aids is a good topic to edit. It was in red but I was double checking to make sure the information is not covered in other pages. What do you think?

Thank you Cedgar107227 (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That's not a topic I know a lot about. Do you think there would be enough information to create a complete article about that? Alternatively, do you think it would fit better in a broader article about the effect of AIDS on the body? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some research on it so I think I would be able to talk a good bit about it. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't covered in other articles about AIDS already! Cedgar107227 (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a little bit in AIDS, and more in AIDS dementia complex. If you're confident that you've got enough for a separate article, though, go ahead. However, I would strongly recommend you read WP:MEDRS first. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS

Nikkimaria, let me know if you need more info on how to identify primary sources vs. reviews in PubMed-- this Dispatch may help. For the initial screening purposes of FAC and FAR, probably least time consuming is to access via PubMed the most-often cited sources to make sure they are recent high-quality reviews, then do a random check of some other sources used to see if primary sources are used correctly. Another thing I do is to search PubMed for the most recent reviews to make sure they are reflected, and also look for free full-text reviews, since they can be helpful for our readers. In PubMed, you can find those indicated in the upper right. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

peer review

Hello. Would you be able to peer review the Giraffe article? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

=

ow do i edit the top of my page? i tried removing something i had typed in but when i clicked edit i didn't see what i needed to fix. helppppTigerfan15 (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i also used the template to cite my sources but it said there was content area. how do i fix this?Tigerfan15 (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard FAC

I nominated it about a week ago now but noticed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hard (song)/archive2 isn't in the queue? What did I do wrong? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you forgot to transclude it onto the FAC page - I'm not seeing any edits in the history from you on that date. I would transclude it myself now, except I notice that the two-week waiting period hasn't ended yet (the first nom closed 24 October, 12 days ago), so it would probably end up being closed right away anyways. I would recommend waiting until Sunday before transcluding, and at that time update your signature to reflect the new date. If on Sunday you're still having trouble, ping me and I'll see if there's something else going on. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to transclude. The S&M FACs always seems to do it by themselves. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 22:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They don't do it by themselves - eventually, someone (usually one of the delegates) notices that an FAC has not been transcluded and does it themselves. See for example S&M's most recent FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ground for Divorce

Hi Nikkimaria,

Thanks for finding problems that I have missed in the previous review for Grounds for Divorce. And I am sorry for not spotting them in the first place. I have received a request from 98.236.51.239 to re-review the article. However, since I am not updated as to the problems in the article and its improvements, I do not think that I am the best person to approve or reject its nomination. I believe that this right should be yours instead. Therefore, can you help to review the article once more? Sorry for the trouble. Happy editing!--Lionratz (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rechecked a few days ago: the sources to which I have access now indicate little concerning close paraphrasing, and Piotrus has indicated the same as to the other sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the notification regarding this thread discussing the problem with the article titles. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Basham

I purposefully kept to close paraphrasing due to the nature of this part of the article, and I did not want to misreport the facts regarding a legal judgement or the reporting of what happened by a journalist. Cites were given for each. Also I believe that the newspaper articles from which the information comes from are prior to 1923. Could you also sate which of the sources are of questionable reliability and self-published sources so they can be addressed. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the DYK Queues

In regards to this recent edit of yours, please remember the following when you modify the DYK Queues:

As indicated by the edit notice with the bright yellow background under the large, red lettered header entitled "ATTENTION:", all images added to the DYK Queues need to be properly protected in anticipation of their appearance on the Main page. Failure to perform this basic function generates an error message from DYKUpdateBot and will prevent the offending queue from being loaded by the bot unless corrected.
When removing {{DYKmake}} templates from the credits section, please only remove those associated with the hooks you are removign from the queue.

Thanks for your contributions. --Allen3 ^talk 23:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am working on the article, "eye movement in language reading." I have the draft in my sandbox, and I'm trying to submit it to "do you know." Could you please show me how to go about it? Thanks

Julietbee (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria!

Thanks a lot for your help! I have been able to submit my article to DYK. I followed the steps you gave me. Oh I'm so grateful!

English 103

Hi Nikkimaria. I have started to edit this article Goal-line Technology and I was wondering if I could get some feed back. Is it the right style? Did i reference it correctly?

       Thanks Srhanle18  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srhanle18 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julietbee (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hard (song)/archive2

Hasn't been transcluded yet. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 14:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Real World

Hi. Please do not remove information that comes directly from episodes. Primary sources may be used for descriptive information, and while many of the episodes in question were not mentioned, you also removed information whose episode cites were mentioned, such as the material sourced to the Los Angeles season premiere. As for the ones whose episodes were not mentioned, putting an episode tag would be more appropriate, so that I or others could be reminded that they are needed, since I wrote much of that information years ago, before I understood the importance of citations.

As for the Cultural references section, can we start a discussion on the article's talk pages, so that we can determine some criteria by which references can be determined to be trivial or not trivial? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take your point about the trivia, but per WP:BLP material about living people, particularly negative or potentially controversial material, should be removed immediately, not tagged. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material in question is not "unsourced", it comes from the episodes, which is implicit in the passage, and which I mentioned above. I think I've gone halfway with you by doing a tremendous amount of work in providing specific episode cites, and in trying to open a dialogue with you, but your knee-jerk edit warring does not exhibit the same indication of compromise. WP:V is satisfied when readers are informed of where the material comes from, so that they can look up those sources themselves to verify it. In addition, WP:PSTS says the content of narrative or creative works are self-sourcing, in that they can be considered primary sources for their content, though not for evaluative or analytic claims. Thus, the mention of the seasons satisfies WP:V. Saying that Pedro Zamora died, but removing mention of the disease he died of, when that fact is widely known and given all over the San Francisco season in which he starred, is just plain perverse, and indicates a tendentious letter-of-the-law approach to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. However-- if that's still not good enough for you, I'll suggest a compromise: Rather than deleting the info, you put episode tags on the passages that need it, and I'll provide them when I get a chance, since I already spent several hours today on that last round of material you seized upon. Would that be fair? Nightscream (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. You can say I'm being too strict on the rules if you like, but BLP requires citations for material like that, and specifically directs us to remove rather than tag such material. Re-add it with cites, not without. If the fact is truly "widely known", adding cites should not be too demanding a task. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"no uncited blp content, particularly not negative" Which material in question do you see as negative?

"...not "sometime in this show this was implied..." Who said anything about the material being "implied"? I don't include "implied" material in articles.

Also, you also removed this material: "Las Vegas castmembers Trishelle Cannatella and Steven Hill appeared in the horror film Scorned. Cannatella has also appeared on other reality shows, such as The Surreal Life, Battle of the Network Reality Stars, and Kill Reality, the latter of which also featured Hill and Cooley", which is not unsourced. For the third time now: The content of things like films or TV shows are self-sourcing, because they can be verified by simply watching them, so in this way, WP:V is satisifed. I've stated this twice before, and you haven't responded directly to it, preferring instead to just say the same thing over and over as if you're ignoring it. This is tendentious, and is not the way disagreements can be resolved. If you disagree with this point, then please falsify it by explaining why. But if you do not, and continue removing this sourced content, you risk being blocked from editing. Please don't make that necessary. Nightscream (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that someone cheated on their boyfriend, for example, whether true or not is generally seen as negative. Your statement that the "content" of shows or films is self-sourcing is completely incorrect - credits, maybe, existence of show, sure, but stuff like the bit about why McGee left? Absolutely not. It's not sourced, therefore you're adding unsourced BLP material. Saying that something happened over the course of an entire TV show also does not count as sourcing for BLP purposes - these aren't just TV characters, they're real people. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed sourced if it indicates to readers where there information comes from. So long as they know where the source is, then WP:V is satisfied. While putting the specific page of a newspaper in which an article you used as a source is ideal, it isn't absolutely vital that merely citing the newspaper and the date is insufficient. You're saying that specific episodes are needed. I believe agree that this is ideal, which is why I tend to cite them nowadays, but it is not so required that merely citing the show itself makes the passage "unsourced". Just because we don't specify which one of twelve episodes an event occurs in does not make it "unsourced". In any event, tagging it with an episode needed tag would've been a compromise until I tracked down and added the episodes. Since I spent several hours Monday morning and afternoon adding such cites in good faith to all the material you removed initially removed, the fact that you suddenly "find" more material to remove in the second half of yesterday, comes across as a possible case of spite, as if you were just looking for something to remove. This is not collaboration on your part; it's tendentious edit-warring.

Even if I'm wrong, then why did you remove mention of the movies some of them have been in? Was my application of WP:PSTS incorrect? I mentioned that three times, and you never responded to that, instead just saying over and over "it'sunsourcedit'sunsourcedit'sunsourcedit'sunsourcedit'sunsourced..." Why is this? Why do you not respond to counterarguments directly if you feel you can falsify them? Nightscream (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Nightscream (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (WP:BLP, my emphasis); "Exercise caution in using primary sources...Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies" (WP:BLPPRIMARY, emphasis in original). A large amount of material that I removed in my most recent edit was material I removed in my earlier edit. Removing BLP material is specifically exempted from our edit-warring policies. "Why do you not respond to counterarguments directly if you feel you can falsify them?" ^{[citation needed]}. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarifying note: You may notice that I gave, and then immediately self-reverted, a Third Opinion in this matter. In order to avoid the mere appearance of possible bias or non-neutrality, the instructions at the Third Opinion project say, "If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute." I have just realized that had dealings with Nightscream in the past (here and here, and indeed the second one of those should not have occurred) and am not qualified for that reason to offer a 3O in this dispute. I've restored the listing at the 3O project and, hopefully, some other Third Opinion Wikipedian will choose to give a 3O. Apologies and regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed responded directly to your stated position in every message I've made to you, Nikki. By contrast, you have stonewalled on specific points and questions numerous times during this dispute. The issue on which we seem to disagree is the question of what constitutes "unsourced" material. I explained why WP:V is satisfied by mentioning the TV show, and explained above with the newspaper analogy why the degree of specificity you seem to insist upon is your own interpretation of WP:V, and not an unambigous fact nor reflection of any community consensus. WP:V requires that a reader be able to verify the material at the cited source. Can readers do this when coming across the material in the article? Yes, they can. It may require them to look through the episodes (which used to number over 20 per season, and now number only 12), but again, this goes to my point: WP:V does not specify, as far as I know, how detailed we have to be in detailing the source or portion of the source in question, and that while I personally prefer to specify episodes now, all I was asking was for a little breathing room, in light of my already great WP workload to find the episodes, so that I wouldn't have to integrate the material back into the article, amid the additions made to it in the interim. Did you respond to this point? No, you did not. You just refer to the material in question as "unsourced", completely ignoring the fact that this notion is one of, if not the precise point on which we disagree. By contrast, can you point to an argument of yours that I have not addressed? Nightscream (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already explained, BLP requires a proper inline citation, and requires that negative or contentious material without such be removed, not tagged. If you prefer, you can take the material from the history and work with it off-wiki at your leisure. Again: since these are real people, not fictional characters, saying "TV shows are self-sourcing " is insufficient, and is outright incorrect for things like why McGee left. In regards to your newspaper analogy, saying "this appeared in this newspaper (or this TV show)" is significantly different than saying "this appeared in this day's edition of this newspaper (or this episode of this TV show". You have also yet to respond to the issue of WP:BLPPRIMARY, which supercedes WP:PSTS when dealing with BLP info.Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have not established that BLPPRIMARY supercedes PSTS. You have only asserted it. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Misuse of primary sources, which is the BLP section to which BLPPRIMARY is a shortcut, talks about, as its name indicates, misuse of primary sources, and specifies using public documents such as trial transcripts or court records to use in order to add personal details to articles such as dates of birth, addresses, etc. This is because of concerns over privacy and identity theft, and while persons are required to document such information to the state, they may not want the general public to have easy access to it. This has nothing to do with the information that they freely make publicly available when appearing on a reality TV show, which is not only given in the series for which they sign release forms, but which is given on the official site of the network in question, in this case, MTV. Neither MTV nor its TV shows nor website are "public documents" akin to court records. Arguing that citing the shows they appear on constitutes a "misuse" of a primary source is false, and not supported by that section. But if I've missed some other relevant policy page where it indicates that PS Misuse is both applicable to reality TV shows and supercedes PSTS, can you point it out, perhaps specify the page and/or quote the passage in which it says this? Nightscream (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PSTS directs editors to refer to WP:BLPPRIMARY when dealing with BLP material. As you assert, the TV show is in this case a primary source, which can be misused; simply because the page does not mention every possible example of misuse of a primary source, but only the most common, does not mean that a less common misuse is correct. Furthermore, your assertion that everything removed from the article can be sourced to the TV show is incorrect, according to the constraints imposed by both PSTS and NOR in general. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what way do PSTS and NOR indicate that the material in question cannot be sourced to the TV show? Nightscream (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I got here from the 3O noticeboard, and I've been looking over the changelog of the article. It seems to me that the problem here is centered around a conflict of the rules about citation and WP:BLP. Nightscream, I think you're right in saying that the show is a source for itself, but the problem is that it's not a citation for itself. Generally, as the when to cite essay says, one doesn't need to cite the events of a movie, book, tv show, etc., but the essay also says that providing citations to the episode number can be helpful for clarification or verification. Now, BLP says that any contentious material about a living person must be cited. Well, the show is a source, but it doesn't cite itself. Per the text of BLP, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis mine). If it's not specifically cited it's a problem, and, again per BLP (indeed, it's the very next sentence), "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (emphasis in the original). So, the correct way to deal with problematic BLP content is to remove it, and it seems to me that that's what Nikki appropriately did. I think you would be able to use the show as a source, but you must specifically cite it (as in episode number).

As an aside, I haven't actually checked the show itself, but we should probably be careful of original research, synthesis, and the like. when we're talking about this kind of stuff, since it involves BLP. It seems to me that the best thing to do with BLP is to err on the side of caution. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writ Keeper, thank you for your participation. I'll be adding episode cites as soon as possible.

Nikki, after I suggested a discussing criteria for the Cultural References section, you said you accepted this point, but now you're again reverting that material "per talk". What talk? Are you referring to this single post you made on the Talk Page, that I didn't know you had made, and never responded to? Do you really think that all you have to do is place a single message on a talk page, and that somehow means that now it's okay to revert? It's not. The point is that we need to discuss criteria for inclusion, and you're not doing that. Nightscream (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romances FA source review

A couple of months ago, I started a FAC for Romances and I left comments and questions on your spotchecks. Right here. Thanks. Erick (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that review is closed now. Did you need something else? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wanted to know if any the spot checks were cleared before I renominate sometime in the future. Erick (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do spotchecks on the article, just a source check. If you've addressed those points, then I would assume the source check has been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay then, thank you very much. Erick (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two queries about recent Richard III FA review

Dear Nikkimaria,

Question 1) Although the article Richard III (1956 film) has been on my watchlist for a while, I did not know about the FA review until the delisting notice today. How could I have known about it?

Question 2) While I agree with several of the reasons for the delisting, I strenuously and mightily object to the claim that the cited sources fail the WP requirements for reliability, and think the provenance of the sources was insufficiently investigated. (Had I known of the FA review I could have chimed in?) Where do I post my objections? I am going currently to post them on the R3 movie talk page, and post notices on the reviewers talk page.

Cordially,--WickerGuy (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WickerGuy, notification of the FAR was posted on the article talk page prior to the review being initiated. I'm not sure why you didn't see that, but generally only the top contributors by number of edits are notified directly - those just watching the page usually follow the FAR notice. As to your second point: talking directly to the reviewers who raised the sourcing questions is a good idea. If you cannot agree on this point, a post to WP:RSN might be helpful. Given that you agree with the other reasons for delisting, the article probably should not be brought up at FAC or FAR so soon. If you feel inadequate source reviewing is a widespread problem at FAR, feel free to post at WT:FAR, but if it's just this article, article talk is probably the best venue. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowle West

Thanks for your helpful comments in the FAC. Much appreciated. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Special report: A post-mortem on the Indian Education Program pilot

News and notes: Wikimedia Norway awarded, Halloween on the Main Page, Wikimedia UK recognised

In the news: The Economist assays the encyclopaedia's challenges, Jimbo speaks on net future, and an inclusionist alternative emerges.

Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC

WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science

Featured content: Slow week for Featured content

Arbitration report: Δ saga returns to arbitration, while the Abortion case stalls for another week

Technology report: Full steam ahead on Visual Editor, the avoidance of lock-breaking and 1.18b1 release

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With my apologies...

...please see Template:Did you know nominations/Learning to read. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, you're right. I'll see what I can do to help them out. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's always hard to tell unpleasant truths. You should know: with that list of FAs of yours, I'm sure you hear them all the time! Thanks, and thanks for working with new editors, Drmies (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Longtime no speak, I'm sure you noticed, I just accidently rollbacked your edit. My mouse and brower are lagging a little and keep clicking wrong links. Sorry about that Nikkimaria.RaintheOne ^BAM 02:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it happens. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Status on "Ban"

In a message dated 2 April 2011 I was informed that I was banned from editing any pages concerning Shakespeare,the Shakespearean authorship question, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (three subjects which I teach at the University level, on which I have published in over fifteen peer reviewed journal articles, and have completed an as yet unpublished book on). I did not contest this ban because at that time I had no active interesting in further offering my professional expertise on these matters. I am writing now to inquire into the status of this ban.The ban states that it is "To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been temporarily blocked from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block," but offers no indication of the length of the ban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BenJonson&redirect=no#Topic_ban

What is my current status? Thank you.--BenJonson (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BenJonson. That's an Arbitration Enforcement topic ban, which are generally of indefinite length. Therefore, you are currently topic-banned from the listed topic areas, and will remain so unless you choose to appeal for unbanning. Directions on how to do this are at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions. If you choose not to appeal the topic ban, you may edit freely in other areas, but not those under the topic ban. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response. Where do I discover what "misconduct" I am accused of? Thanks--BenJonson (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was the discussion that led to the ban. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I informed him of his continuing ban earlier today, but neither my message nor yours has made any kind of impact. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I've left him a very clear warning on his talk page; any further edits and it's time for another WP:AE thread, unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I did not read Tom Reedy's previous comment until now. Second, I frankly don't take most of what Tom Reedy says very seriously. I will say no more in this context. However, please understand that I do appreciate the clarification offered by you, Nikkimaria, even though I find the charges essentially trumped. I will refrain from further edits on these pages until this matter is resolved. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I would respectfully suggest, on other other hand, that until independent Wikipedia editors learn something -- and I'm talking about doing something like starting to actually understand the history of this debate and some of the reasons why Tom Reedy and Nishidani could not be more wrong in their approach, then in the end it is Wikipedia that is going to be hurt. Having said that, I will pursue appeal without further edits on the banned pages. Can you please offer me some further guidance on what kind of appeal process is appropriate in this circumstance? I invite you personally to engage further dialogue in any context you deem appropriate. I would like to share with you in a context without interference what I know on this topic and give you the opportunity to cross examine me to heart's content thanks. Here is a link to my publications. http://shake-speares-bible.com/publications/ --BenJonson (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall having run across that page at some point during the original arb case...maybe I'm misremembering. In any event, because of the circumstances in which the ban was enacted, the available options of appeal are WP:AN, WP:AE (or one of the other Arb subpages; maybe Clarifications?), or directly to ArbCom via email. The first option would involve the input of a wider subset of the community, which may or may not be beneficial; my experience has been that it usually isn't as helpful in cases like these, which tend to require at least a modicum of background knowledge. AE is where the ban was enacted, and respondents there generally have a clearer sense of how to interpret discretionary sanctions. Appealing directly to ArbCom is more private and quite often more focused; having not been the subject of sanctions myself, I don't know what their response time is like, nor what exactly they will require from you. I do know that in a more public forum, sanctions are often loosened by degree before being done away with entirely. If you do choose to appeal in one of the public fora, {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} may be a useful way to structure your argument. Ultimately, though, it's up to you how you want to approach this. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Favour

Hi Nikki. Can you do me a favour? Can you merge the histories of User:Novice7/Sandbox4 and "One of Those Days"? Thanks in advance. Novice7 (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wasn't sure if you wanted the history of your sandbox kept; let me know if you do and I'll restore it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. No, I don't want to keep my sandbox history :) Thanks again Nikki. Novice7 (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Maria Calhoun

HI hi Nikki, Thanks for all the help you've been giving the students in my class. I have one student's project that is giving me trouble. Anna_Maria_Calhoun page has been suggested for merging with with her father's article John C. Calhoun. I think the problem we have here is that the student created the page with the name Anna Maria Calhoun, not her married name Anna Maria Calhoun Clemson. How can we change the title of the article to Anna Maria Calhoun Clemson? Is that possible? The student working on this page is User:Patdarat78. Could you help us figure out how to change the title of the article and how to prevent the page from being merged.

Pfancher (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've moved the article to her married name. That in and of itself might not prevent the article from being merged. To do that, you (or, in this case, the student) need to show why she meets the notability policy - specifically, notability for biographies. I think the point being raised by the person who suggested the merge is that Anna Maria is only notable because of her father and husband - see WP:NOTINHERITED. I don't know enough about her to know whether that argument is valid, but if not, I would suggest that Patdarat78 simply find some more sources that talk about Anna. Does that help? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is very very helpful. thanks so much. Projects are due tomorrow! You may get a few messages from students in the next 24 hours. Thanks so much for your help. Pfancher (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Help Please

Hello Nikki,

I am a student at Clemson in Ms. Fancher's class and I have a notification that an image on my page has been recommended to be deleted because it has no source. I know it is the right license because I got it from flickr. I might not have cited it on my page because I don't know how. I was wondering if you could help me. Do I need to protest? If so where do I need to go to do that? My page is Chapin, SC. Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapin,_South_Carolina Thank you so much!

Tigerears27 (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tigerears, what you need to do is go to the image description page (click on the image to get there), edit it, and where it says "Source=" add the Flickr URL that you got the image from. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nikkimaria I am in Miss Fancher's English class and I am having trouble with my page. I am currently editing Paris Mountain State Park Page and I can't get the picture in the infobox to stop displaying [[frameless}}]] above it. I would appreciate it if you could help me on this matter. Also I could use some tips on my page to make sure it looks right and sounds good. Thank You WGENGLISH (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a Nikkimaria talk page stalker: I fixed the code in the infobox for you. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Could you please clarify this removal? Here you mentioned plagiarism, but I don't see an explanation here. Do we have a policy which disallows or discourages referenced copy/pasting from PD sources? Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Materialscientist. As I've now clarified at the nom page, the fact that the article does not use quote marks or otherwise indicate that the material is copied verbatim from the cited source means that it is plagiarized, though not a copyright violation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm ... this contradicts WP:QUOTE For free or public domain material do not use quote marks but the text must be attributed and given a footnote. Do we have contradiction in some WP policies on this issue? Materialscientist (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but doesn't matter in this case, as while a footnote is present attribution is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm .. I'm missing the problem. The article contains an attribution note in the reference list, which I thought is a standard practice of attributing PD sources. Materialscientist (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only where the PD text makes up the whole or majority of the article. In this case, it's limited to specific paragraphs, and so must be attributed more specifically. IIRC this procedure is outlined at WP:PLAGIARISM. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my clumsiness, I can't find it in WP:PLAGIARISM. All I see is that bottom-page attribution is fine if sections are copied. Materialscientist (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"when quoting or paraphrasing very closely the careful use of in-text attribution may be required along with an inline citation...if the text taken does not form the entire article, specifically mention the section requiring attribution". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm .. questionable. Nevertheless, the article does contain an attribution tag and proper referencing. It copies from several PD sources in several chapters, and thus it is a tad unclear how one should mention specific sources and chapters in the tag. The DYK hook was returned, and can be featured in due course. However, I see no evidence that your tagging it as plagiarism is supported by the most relevant here WP:PD and WP:Plagiarism policies. Plagiarism is a potentially blockable offense on wikipedia, thus may I ask you to support those plagiarism claims by wikipedia policies or withdraw them? Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that plagiarism was only blockable in egregious or chronic cases? This would AFAICT qualify as neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw 2 categories of copyright blocks: (i) newbies, who get quickly tagged with templated warnings, ignore them and blocked, (ii) regulars, who get informed (not everyone dares to tag them), don't properly cooperate, and get blocked. In (ii), previous precedents and threads are considered as evidence of past misbehavior, which was ignored, etc.. In those threads, admins' voices have much weight as admins act as an interface between the policies and the user. You've cast an example which may later be used for a ban or block of the author of that article. Don't get me wrong, I really do appreciate your work, we have a few editors willing to sieve through articles for copyvious, but I believe you went too harsh in this case. We all have our ways, but if I were in your place, I would have corrected the attribution template and not behead the DYK queue. Once the article was pulled off, I would withdraw the claim of plagiarism and indicate the actual concern (linking the policy, as this case would not be evident even for admins), which is formatting the attribution tag to include the section(s) which contain the copied text. I don't see a plagiarism case here, either law-wise or wikipedia-wise. Materialscientist (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A small favor

Dear Nikki, can I ask for a small amount of your time. Would you just glance at the references for "Like a Prayer" article and see whether they are of high-quality or not as FAC demands? Just a glance and temme what do you think. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing full bibliographic info for Kent 1993, so I can't judge the reliability of that source. Other than that, I would question this, and probably Timmerman. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK's

Thanks for catching those close paraphrases, what tools do you use for copy-vio searching? The Interior (Talk) 19:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My eyes ;-). Automated tools have their uses, but also have limitations - they won't catch things like synonym substitution, non-verbatim plagiarism, etc. If you're interested, I've written a short how-to on the subject, based on the method I use: User:Nikkimaria/How to spotcheck. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I was initially going to post a screed about just reading and noticing stuff, gee that's an odd turn of phrase, and then investigating from there. Most lazy copying is done via the internet, so it's trivially easy to find the source text with a little ingenuity, once you know how to spot which sites are mirrors. I would have almost exactly duplicated what you say in your essay. :)

To the point though, will you be taking further action with respect to the paraphrasings you've found? I looked at the first two examples here and chose to act on the second.[1] [2] On the first, can you re-check the Oxford Online Art source or shoot me a copy? Undue paraphrasing/opying-with-minmal-changes needs to be removed. I usually go with straight removal and TP notice, others use a {{copyvio}} template and revdeletion, sometimes it becomes an investigation - but whichever way, we need to clean up the material. I've got a bit of a geocaching mountain hike coming up tomorrow, but I'll return to the cleanup when my kness recover, if you don't address it first. Thanks for the good spots, and sorry both for nosing in. :) Franamax (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been rather inconsistent in what sort of action I take wrt DYK catches - some actually get fixed once the DYK nom is reopened, but some just get dropped. I'll try doing some follow-up, see what happens. The thing that concerns me, though: I checked only part of the queue today, and had four removals nevertheless. What is in the part I didn't/don't check? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK in general, I believe there is a fundamental problem with the rotation rate being set high enough that there is undue pressure on the regulars there to "ship product" to keep the queues running and satisfy everyone's expectation that if they submit a qualifying article and hook that it will be published on the main page. This avoids the unsavoury alternative of exercising editorial judgement in choosing only the "best" DYKs for use in a more limited rotation scheme (read, endless arguments about which one is best today) - but I feel promotes an uncritical approach to DYK review. That's an underlying structural issue which the community is yet to solve.

I had a similar (limited) experience where I decided to work up the queue from the bottom and on the third try turned up a small copy-farm in the editors' early new article work. I was not enthused when my post to their talk page was followed by a notice approving a DYK hook for another article where I'd identified substantial copying. I think the best approach is to concentrate first on educating the editor, since in many cases they may be genuinely unaware that they are doing something unacceptable, especially so when they are trying to incorporate work from a single source, copying the exxact words here and making small tweaks. I rely on a supposition that, editor or admin, I am fully empowered to deal with copyvios on sight and cause them to be removed from "public display". So I nuke the offending content, sometimes but not often with revision deletion, and note what I've done on talk or editor talk - plus always try to leave something sensible behind in the article where I can. MRG in contrast has her own (vastly more efficient) approach with self-made subst:templates and more rewriting than I do, but I think she at least tolerates my way too. :) One of her points is that not revdeleting the material leaves open the possibility of someone else reverting it back in, but I keep articles on my watchlist, so I can check for that. So my approach is to politely but firmly remove and note the material immeditely, and if a DYK candidate turns into a stub, that's a secondary consideration.

As far as the regular DYK patrollers, there has been some change in the last few months to add more accountaibility for reviewers, just not quite enough IMO It will be a big step to add a tick-box where someone says "I checked and this is copyvio-free", I would hesitate to check that box myself. It's an ongoing problem and I think the best way for now is just to show leadership in identifying and removing copyvio. The DYK regulars are actually trying hard, so there's no sense berating DYK itself in public. Working with them, as well as the original and possibly unintentional offenders, to just spot and remove this stuff seems the best course for the present. Franamax (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for greeting me

n/t. --Cerlomin (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lest We Forget

Talkback

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Mercedes O. Cubria.
Message added 23:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks for giving us some suggestions on what needed to be worked on for the Learning to Read page it was helpful in getting our article further along. Sngriffi (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: S&M

So you can only nominate one at a time? But the last FAC for S&M was closed 7 weeks ago. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 02:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Year delinking in OTD

I see you've been delinking most of the year links in the OTD pages. Based on the discussion at WT:OTD#Year wikilinking in OTD I don't think there's consensus to do so. Please revert your edits. Or at least wait until the RFC concludes before taking any action. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing no such thing. I have been doing general delinking in OTD pages, in accordance with the policies on the matter, but have not been blindly or systematically delinking dates. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Are you perhaps using a script or something that's doing it automatically? howcheng {chat} 19:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I don't believe I've ever used a script on an OTD page. I repeat: I have not been blindly or systematically delinking dates. Your assertion that I've "been delinking most of the year links in the OTD pages" is incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you just to stop altogether and revert yourself, as it appears the general consensus is that those links should be retained (and besides, the Manual of Style is a guideline, not policy). Thanks. howcheng {chat} 20:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself have stated that there is no consensus on the matter. I believe that my edits were appropriate, and you've not convinced me otherwise. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking any action before the RFC concludes is premature. Any effort to change the status quo, especially when others have disagreed with you, requires consensus which you do not have yet. howcheng {chat} 21:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm acting within established guidelines, which is entirely appropriate. I'm not systematically delinking dates, which I agree would be a problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'm challenging you under the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, except that I don't have the time go and revert all the edits you've already done. howcheng {chat} 22:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good, because reverting all the edits I've done, even the ones you agree with, would be a WP:POINT violation. Perhaps it would be less time-consuming to be more specific about which edits you have a problem with and why? You'd have fewer discussions to manage that way. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Sidney Beauclerk

Hi, I really do not know what to make of the bizarre comments made by user:BenJonson at the bottom of his user talk page. I haver already been falsely accused of being a follower of Alistair Crowley (by one of his cronies, but not afaik by him). This most recent accusation is particularly distressing. I find it difficult to believe that he cannot find information about Beauclerk, which is not very difficult. Anyone can make a mistake, for sure, but to put that on his talk page rather than in a proper forum seems...strange. Paul B (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what he's talking about either, but I think by avoiding a "proper forum" he's trying to not overt violate his topic ban, which would cover Beauclerk. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does canvassing for proxy votes avoid it also? Tom Reedy (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing is a problem even without the topic ban. Whether it is also a problem with the topic ban would depend on how strictly ArbCom wants to enforce it, but my guess would be yes. Technically, even the posts on his own talk page are potential violations, but generally more latitude is allowed on one's own page. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

News and notes: ArbCom nominations open, participation grants finalized, survey results on perceptions on Wikipedia released

In the news: Fundraising vs ads redux, WikiConference India nigh, a world lit up with articles

WikiProject report: Having a Conference with WikiProject India

Featured content: Writing featured content: Advice from Sturmvogel 66; Sports, sports, sports!

Arbitration report: Abortion and Betacommand 3 in evidence phase, three case requests outstanding

Technology report: Coding Challenge results; Wikimedians to wait and see if Athena really does represent "wisdom, courage and inspiration"

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonating account

Bullis School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
96.255.110.83 (talk · contribs)
Nikkiemarie (talk · contribs)

No idea what it's about, but you might like to check the above article and user. Johnuniq (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of RfD

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Wikipedia:Run_to_Mommy you might be interested in. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you

at Template:Did you know nominations/Diego Archuleta. Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 02:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M-185 and US 2 at FAC

I'm awaiting replies from some libraries concerning page numbers, but many of my old newspaper sources come from Who's Talking about Michigan Transportation, a newsletter from MDOT that includes photocopies of newspaper articles. MDOT's PR people did not cut out the page numbers and stamped the date/paper name on the articles if the article is not adjacent to the top corners of the original printed pages. Some very nice librarians are looking up things for me, as I indicated on the US 2 nomination statement. Imzadi 1979 → 04:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ping for the US 2 FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 03:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

May I get your input about a dispute regarding sources and music genres? A certain editor User:Dan56 has introduced the term "downtempo" as a music genre into the Take Care article. Upon my reversion of the term, which almost resulted in 3RR (I admit, I should know better), the user provided only two very vague sources the he believes support his claim. The first, a Rolling Stone review, makes a single mention of the term "[the album] blurs hip-hop, R&B and downtempo dance music"; another article, The AVClub, writes, without even mentioning "downtempo": "Crafted primarily around the oblique production of Drakes native Toronto—all rippling synths, distant pulses, and purposeful empty space—his follow-up album is plenty downbeat, but its also gorgeous." Do you believe that these quotes are strong evidence to support his claim that "downbeat" is a musical genre, and not just the tempo/pace/mood of the songs, as I argue? Orane (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The second instance is irrelevant, and the first instance is ambiguous as to whether the author intended the term as a genre or a tempo indication, so not enough to support genre. In fact, even if the first author was clearer that it was a genre, I would be tempted to quote it as a neologism. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. Thanks again for your brilliant input. But the editor will not listen, so I've decided to not waste any more time on the matter. Thanks again. Orane (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this

User_talk:Panyd#What_happened.3F PumpkinSky talk 11:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK removals

Thanks for the note, Nikkimaria. I have no clue about this recent creation of yours. I wasn't even looking at T:TDYK when I removed that hook to prevent an edit war. May I suggest a reminder in the page notice of the prep areas? Just a thought. Happy editing. --PFHLai (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you, thank you, thank you for drawing my attention in this direction and for your work at DYK. It would be a far worse place without you. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Panyd! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, could you perhaps take a look again at this? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

[3] « ₣M₣ » 21:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Percival

Thanks for pointing out the close paraphrasing concerns, I've tweaked the sections to the best of my ability. Please take a look it now. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great tool for future. Glad I came to your user page. Kanatonian (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the US Education Program and the Ambassador Project

There is a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Voceditenore (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few Education Program-related articles listed at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Educational assignments needing timely reviews. If you have the time, would you be able to take one? maclean (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hit a couple of them at DYK, so I'll leave the GANs to others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hello Nikkimaria, Review of Template:Did you know nominations/Wiki Conference India is done. According to hook ...that the three day Wiki Conference India is running from 18th to 20th of November at the University of Mumbai? , it should be on main page either 19th or 20th. And It is not even in the Preparation Area. So please help. Thanks in advance. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 18:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ansumang, you should probably post a note at WT:DYK about this. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks:) left a note. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 19:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Gert (1993) source reliability query

Hey Nikkimaria. Sorry to bother, but I'm wondering if you could help out with something over at Hurricane Gert's FAC talkpage when you have time to spare. Specifically, the sourcing issue concerns this website. Any help at all would be appreciated. Auree ★ 20:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALBC

Hi Nikki - I think I've finally gotten around to replying to the last of your comments at Talk:American Livestock Breeds Conservancy. I hope that I've answered them all adequately. I would like to put this article up for FAC fairly soon, but wanted to give you a chance to give any more input that you might have. If you have time to give more thoughts, I would love to hear them; if not, no worries and thank you very much for your help so far. Now...off to peruse FAR... Dana boomer (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course, about "quest". I've apparently been reading/talking about too much epic fantasy lately... I've tweaked a bit. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Percival DYK

Are you happy with it? Google Books still wont let me check. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mark Satin" bio up for second FA review

This is to let you know that my thoroughly revised Mark Satin biography has just gone up for a second FA review, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mark Satin/archive2. It would not be the article it is today without your help. I hope you will take another look at it.

Here's how I'd re-address your original critique today:

Oppose, unfortunately, because while it's clear there's been a lot of time put into researching and writing this article, I don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria.

How right you were! - Babel41 (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically:

Use of contractions in article text, which should be avoided outside of direct quotes.

Done I have removed every single contraction, except for thoser in direct quotes. - Babel41 (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organization seems odd. For example, seeing the section heading "Choices" I'm not sure what material such a section would contain, and the section itself spans a considerable time period and does not exclusively cover "choices"

Done I agree. I not only got rid of the ambiguous-sounding sub-sections, I reorganized the article. It now goes it strict chronological order. The "Personal life" section, previously a long hodgepodge recapitulating Satin's life "choices" before the main body of the article, was scrapped in favor of a brief "Early years" section. Some of the rest of the material in "Personal life" was inserted into the main body of the article. Other material there was worked into the new "Later life" and "Legacy" sections at the end of the article. - Babel41 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phillips contributed the photo to the public domain, but who holds copyright on the image on the door? Is the artist known, is the image PD...?

Done Your question eventually caused me to familiarize myself with Wikimedia and its requirements. All five of the pictures in the article that come from Satin's collection (the first, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh) now have their yellow OTRS permission slips from Wikimedia. In other words, I had the photographers send documents to Wikimedia verifying that they were turning their photos over to the public domain. In the case of the "door" photo, I also had the artist - Satin - submit a letter to Wikimedia verifying that he is the artist and that the image belongs to the PD. - Babel41 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some redundant or repetitious phrasings - for example, four consecutive sentences in "Toronto Anti-Draft Programme" begin with "For..."

Done I redid that phrase and all other redundant and repetitive constructions I could find. (I assume you are not referring to the extended parallelisms I constructed in the "Toronto Anti-Draft Profgramme" and "Radical Middle, the book" sub-sections. Those I put in consciously & deliberately in order to help readers compare ideas easily.) - Babel41 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tone is at times more appropriate to a journalistic than a encyclopedic venue, for example "Sometimes he spoke from the gut...Sometimes he spoke from the heart..."

Done Yes, I know what you mean. The tone problem is a remnant of a "literary journalism" or "creative nonfiction" style I used many years ago. I believe I've ironed that out now. I was especially careful to not attribute emotions to Satin (except in one case at the end of the "Early years" section, and that comes directly from his published memoir, which I cite). - Babel41 (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper references without weblinks should have page numbers

Done It took ages, but I manmaged to track down page numbers for every unlinked newspaper (and magazine) reference. I then tracked down page numbers for every linked hard-copy periodical reference, on the assumption that at least some of them will be taken off-line in the years ahead. - Babel41 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Include ISBN links for book sources.

Done Every book now has a linked, 13-digit ISBN after it, except for two books from the 1960s (for which I've listed linked OCLC numbers) and one book published in Sweden (which simply lacks an ISBN or OCLC number, but was brought out by a reputable publisher with a page on English Wikipedia). - Babel41 (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider having a peer review done on this article to improve its chances of reaching FA status.

Done I did this last month, and Ealdgyth's extensive comments were invaluable to me. - Babel41 (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hope these notes are helpful. - Babel41 (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singlechart overlinking

Hi, Nikki. I have another question about references. It is requested by WP:FACR that citation formatting be consistent. I decided to wikilink publishers on first occurence. However, Template:Singlechart wikilinks publishers everytime and this breaks the consistency. Will this be an issue, and if so, is there any way around it? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I saw it I'd question it, for sure. Other than using a different template, I don't know that there's a real workaround for this problem, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I will replace the template then. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linking countries on ITN

FYI, I started a discussion about linking countries on ITN at WT:ITN#Linking countries. -- tariqabjotu 07:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rehab

Hello Nikki. First of all thanks for commenting on the FAC. I think that all of your issues were resolved. You can check again. However, I have a question for you. Since "Rehab" is very close to a FA status, am I able to create the External links section so that I can add the URL for the music video? Thanks — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 10:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can create an external links section, so long as it complies with WP:EL. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 15:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First/Second World War

Please don't change OTD links from "World War I/II" to "First/Second World War". Space is at a premium on the Main Page, so the more compact wording is preferred. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 19:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, actually that's not correct. First/Second World War is used for BritEng topics per WP:ENGVAR. If we need to make the wording more compact, there are other ways of doing so. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not going to have it as "World War I/II" on some days on "First/Second World War" on others. There are enough BrEng speakers watching OTD (most prominently User:Kevin McE, who has very diligently kept us on our toes regarding ENGVAR issues) and nobody has had an issue with the naming of the war until you. howcheng {chat} 20:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So? We use BritEng spelling for some items and AmEng for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC certainly seems to have no problem with "World War I" or "World War II", so I don't see why you do. howcheng {chat} 20:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a better argument than trying to make this a case of ILIKEIT vs IDONTLIKEIT? WP:ENGVAR says that for topics with strong national ties to UK/Commonwealth, we use BritEng. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that the terms WWI/II are perfectly acceptable in the UK, and according to WP:VNE "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English". That being the case, you have no cause to change them. howcheng {chat} 21:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the terms First/Second World War are perfectly acceptable in the US - see for example the Wall Street Journal. However, WWI/WWII is more common in the US, and First/Second World War in the UK. Besides which, as I've already pointed out, a) we already allow for English variation in OTD, and b) if space is really such an issue for four characters to cause all this fuss, it'd be relatively easy to tighten the wording to make up for it, as I did in one of the edits you recently reverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RETAIN: "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another." howcheng {chat} 21:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A specific exception to RETAIN is where a topic has strong national ties. Furthermore, OTD isn't an article, and that wasn't the only change made. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

News and notes: Last-minute candidates for ArbCom, the Sue Gardner European Tour hits London

In the news: Indian wikiconference heralds expansion, fundraiser in Silicon Valley major donor coup, import of Wikipedia reconsidered

Discussion report: Much ado about censorship

WikiProject report: Working on a term paper with WikiProject Academic Journals

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: End in sight for Abortion case, nominations in 2011 elections

Technology report: Mumbai and Brighton hacked; horizontal lists have got class

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, part 2

No matter who talks to Kaldari‎ in his own talk page, no matter what Kaldari‎ does himself own his own talk page, Malleus Fatuorum will be there to bother him. Every single time. That's harassment. I don't remember you ever asking him to stop. Ow, I forgot, you're one of his friends. Then don't come here telling me how to behave until you keep following the two standards-rule and until Malleus Fatuorum continues meddling on my business. I hardly care if you and SandyGeorgia both believe that Malleus Fatuorum is somekind of misunderstood genius or that Wikipedia will surely end if he leaves. --Lecen (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to speak to my beliefs, as AFAIK you don't read minds. Once again you are misusing language: posting to someone's talk page absent a request to stop or otherwise inappropriate behaviour is not harassment. If MF had made the comment you did, I absolutely would have warned him, because that comment was blatantly inappropriate. Don't do it again. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single Ladies

Greetings Nikki. Hope you are enjoying good health. Nikki, i would like to know; is that a good reason to just write a big oppose there? He/She himself/herself said he/she was not so sure. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jivesh. I don't know enough about the subject to know whether the criticism is valid, but it's relevant in regards to the FA criteria (summary style). I personally would not have opposed over it, but the oppose, if valid, is not inappropriate. If you feel they're wrong, the best approach would be to respond explaining why, as you've done, to try to convince them and other readers why you've taken the approach you have. Your comment about them being not very active, on the other hand, is not really going to help. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki. Jivesh 1205 (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FA comments

Start at the 19-minute mark in here-- there is quite an alarming disconnect here, but not the same as expressed by the original poster.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35594&st=0

If that sort of thinking doesn't put the death knell on an already dying Wikipedia, don't know what will. The discussion starts out about DYK-- it's fairly disturbing the number of folks who don't see the cut-and-paste issue there or acknowledge what a big problem it is, and interesting that the discussion didn't even go there, rather to sourcing on FAs and how the drive for "quality" is killing the project. Um, no, mediocrity and the abandonment to child editors is; it now appears more and more that those who are here to build a serious reference work are unappreciated. Bottom line seems to be that WMF wants more articles (even if copyvio-- the DYK issue was completely overlooked in that discussion, fast forward to FA), not better articles; and more editors (particularly female, even if children who don't have the background to be trying to build a reference work, even if students only doing it for a grade), not better editors, and anyone who supports better editors and better articles is part of the "quality" problem that is driving down Wikipedia. The moment of highest irony was when Gardiner blamed that effect on the Essjay controversy and Seigenthaler incident and how those drove editing to a higher standard-- as if that was a bad thing!!!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy, I'll take a closer look at that when I get home. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few takeaways from that video:

Make your choice, either deliver a presentation then get off the stage, or engage in genuine discussion. DO NOT, when someone else is speaking, sit there filling your face with food, nodding and saying "mm-hmm, mm-hmm" then jump in with your response before the speaker gets their last word out. That seems to me supremely dismissive, but maybe my personal bugaboo on body language and genuine listening. Oh, and "you're completely wrong" is not a good way to foster open discussion.
The first bit of it, ha ha, I am pretty much 100% at never ever dropping a template (except the welcome template, and even then with a personal followup) on any editor talk page, I've always used my own words as a basic matter of respect, newbie or not, to me personal communication and explanation is (almost the only) thing I can contribute here. I agree that the first-person-shooter video-game attitude is likely to be off-putting to newcomers, and I also feel that the "time-saving" aspect of automated utalk messages is counter to our mission of retaining new (worthwhile) editors. It's true that the new editors I greet with personalized messages still by and large run off in screaming fits, but all I can do is try.
As far as "be good or be open", I completely reject that blanket statement. There is room for both, we can have new contributors and increasing quality at the same time. I do have to note my disquiet at the increasing tendency over the last several years to insist on sentence-by-sentence inline cites. It's probably necessary but I do miss the "old days" when a well-written article with a References section was still a good article. And don't get me started on the rigidity of MOS...
The complaints about people not having leeway to include copyvio material at DYK or elsewhere leave me completely cold. I'm not a genuine oldtimer but I've yet to find where this project ever encouraged or accepted copy-paste or minimal rewriting. What few article contributions I've made have always been done after closing all windows, books and magazines and just writing what I'd learned. But maybe we need to have another look at welcomes and advice to newcomers to put that more up-front, on the off chance they actually read any of the helpful links? People do come here eager to contribute (and as noted in the video, start off with a flurry of edits), we need better ways to let them know what is acceptable. Again here, personal discussion will always be the best option IMO.
And just as a sideline, connecting to the Signpost reporting of SG's activity, I kinda resent any statement that wiki markup is a salient reason for female editors in particular to not edit Wikipedia. Didn't Larry Summers lose his job for suggesting there might be intrinsic differences in aptitude between the sexes? Why does Sue Gardner get away with saying that the main reason women don't edit is that it's (paraphrasing) haeder than operating a car with a stick-shift, tee-hee? Not that that is particularly relevant to the video, just that the WYSIWYG thing was mentioned.

See Nikkimaria, you add 5 words to my talk page, I add 500 to yours. Sorry for the clutter. ;) Franamax (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, you make some good points. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S&M

Can I put S&M up for FAC now as it has been 2 weeks since the FAC for Hard was closed? Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 15:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's been two weeks, then you're allowed to put up another nom. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OKay thanks. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 17:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey =D

hello,

your copyedit on Otis Redding back then was pretty nice, but the prose is so bad, it does not even passed the point one of the GA criteria. Could you help to reach the article to FA status (or GA at least). Have you got any suggestion how the article could be improved, maybe anything to eliminate the "grammar-flow" issue. Also feel free to leave a feedback. Thanks!--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 17:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might ask over at WP:GOCE (or their FAC-oriented subgroup) for a copyedit. A useful exercise in the meantime would be to try reading it aloud, and see where you stumble. Alternatively, take a look at the writing tutorials listed near the top of User talk:Tony1. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...but if you think the prose is still bad, jumping straight to FAC is probably not a good plan. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, but you must understand it was my very first FAC. You said there were MOS issues; can you tell me which exactly? And do you think the prose is reasonable well-written and meets WP:GA??--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 15:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can give you a few examples: "$5" first and then "US$25" two lines later (should identify currency first time); "460-acre" is the adjective form, should be "was extended to 460 acres" or "was extended to a 460-acre area") - in contrast, should be "3,000-seat hall"; overlinking (if you've linked something once, you generally don't need to link it again, particularly not in close proximity); check use of hatnotes, and where you use them don't link the same term in that section. As to prose quality vis-a-vis GA, it depends how picky your reviewer is, but it's not too far off. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Hi Nikkimaria

Thanks very much for taking the trouble to add review comments to the Tetrabiblos. I'm keen to fix any problem but I don't understand what you mean by some of your comments, so I don't know what I should be correcting (some are obvious of course). I also - sorry about this - don't know the protocol in this situation. Should I explain what I don't understand on the review page where you listed them? Is it OK to do that? Otherwise, can I ask for clarification here? Thanks again, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zac, feel free to ask your questions at the FAC - it's usually best to keep the discussion together. For some protocol guidelines, make sure you read the instructions at the top of WP:FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Klondike Gold Rush mark II...

Just to say, since you gave a helpful peer review on the Klondike Gold Rush a while back, that it's been having some improvements and is up for GAR. Any further advice or thoughts naturally gratefully received! Thanks again, Hchc2009 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it hasn't been picked up by Sunday I'll do it, but in the meantime I've got some RL concerns making a full review of such an important article difficult. Sorry, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hope the RL issues work out okay. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, nothing worrying, just busy-making. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: University of Zulia; Soka University (Japan); Freddie Stroma; Ricky (song); Euphyllia divisa; Isle, Haute-Vienne; Wigmore Hall Live; Richard Dacoury; Hylomyrma; Manteno State Hospital; The Curve (film); Late Show Fun Facts (book); Limoges – Bellegarde Airport; TDI Disraptor; Obed Sullivan; Limoges-Fourches; EDDA submachine gun; Inventions and Dimensions; Fathom Five (comics)

Cleanup: Genghis Khan; Kanon (singer); Tartessian language
Merge: Philo Records; Berber (name); Australian Teachers' Federation
Add Sources: List of films considered the best; Josei Toda; Wilderness (The Features album)
Wikify: Ghosts Upon the Earth; Garand carbine; Go Naked in the World
Expand: Herbie Lewis; 1955 in jazz; Gene Krupa

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doublecheck ?

Canvassed DYK passed to prep: [4] [5] "I would just stamp the article with approval 'It's been rewritten, and I'm AGFing the off-line stuff, per WP:AGF' ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purgatory is the place of cleansing of souls, and I was suggesting that the article had been stripped of even the appearance of a few paraphrases. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. Whether the article's been fixed or not, that post was not the best choice. I'll take a look shortly. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to dump it on you, but we know that no one else involved at DYK is likely to have a thorough look, or care about canvassing anymore than they do about copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the source that was previously problematic is now fine, and a couple other online sources checked look fine. I don't have access to the offline sources, so can't speak to those, but I'm going to allow this to hit MP as-is. As for the potential canvassing, I'll point out that issue to the editors involved. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking-- and for all the good work you do! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy and NikkiMaria!

As noted on TCO's page, the guilty phrase came late in the conversation, and specifically followed

TCO's asking whether he was supposed to do a GA review of the DYK article and
after I had repeatedly offered to send him 3 articles that can be difficult to get.

Also, TCO's integrity and care in reviewing is known, and he has been a good reviewer of my past articles, as a true friend rather than as an enabler.

Nonetheless, I acknowledge that ironically intended and self-deprecating phrasing as "wheedling DYK review" deserve rephrasing, and certainly your statement of concerns was warranted, by our need to preserve the appearance of propriety. Thank you again for the careful reviewing, and for catching a few sentences of paraphrase before and now for vetting the article. I like to think that you found C.A.P. to have been an interesting academic.

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk That Talk (song)

Hi Nikki. You are an admin right? I want to create the article. I worked on it in my sandbox and the song charted. But, there is a problem, I can't do it because the title redirects to the albums article. Can you fix it? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 17:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, I've done it. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 18:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominica tea culture

You may not be watching Template:Did you know nominations/Dominica tea culture. I have left a request there for you to fix the problem or problems that you see in the article. To just say that there are "structural and phrasing issues" is not helpful. A dance where other editors try to guess what you mean, make a change, and you say "nice try, but try again" could waste a lot of time. Better you fix it than say you don't like it. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching it. If you don't understand what I'm saying, feel free to ask for clarification, but me jumping in to fix it myself wastes a lot more time - because the problem will reoccur if people don't learn how to fix it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're using circular arguing, with no logical basis, so you can string this along forever if that's the little game you're trying to play. You've been asked for clarification multiple times, by several others before me, and yet you keep refusing to do the obvious thing and provide us all with an example by writing your own correct paraphrase of a sentence or two. Please do set me straight and show me that you're not just trying to purge the article of any properly cited and correctly paraphrased concepts? That seems to me what you're trying to do, as a way of stonewalling the nomination. I can't for the life of me imagine why you would do such a thing, but I can't see any other rationale for your posts. OttawaAC (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, you suggest the only reason I'm engaging at DYK is because I want to play a game? I assure you I have things that would be more fun to do than that. While I have you here, though, I would recommend you read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. You could probably also find some worksheets on paraphrasing elsewhere on the web, if you need more practice. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is to ask you to clarify. I have no idea what you are saying. Please respond on the nomination page. As a teaching method, saying "I don't like it" is rarely helpful. Saying "here is what I suggest, and why" is much more useful. What do you suggest? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ygm

Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phodopus

Hello again. I have improved this article (thanks to some help from User:Stfg) and they suggested that it needed a thorough citation check before I take it to GA. Is it possible that you could do this for me? Thank you Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but likely not until Monday at the earliest. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big discussion over at DYK

Hey, there is a big discussion over at DYK about making the submission process easier whilst also cutting down on the number of close paraphrasing issues we have. Now my suggestion, which I fear is getting lost in the heat of things, is this. May I have your opinion? I'd also like to ask if you'd be interested in writing a 'close paraphrasing for beginners' guideline to add to one of the pages. You are by far the most qualified (though of course consensus would have to be gained). Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 02:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Don't have time to get heavily involved in the discussion at the moment, nor to write any sort of guideline, as my wiki-time is limited and fragmented for the next few days. Your wizard is a good idea in theory; however, my concern would be that it would be unlikely cut down on the number of problematic nominations, as it would increase the sheer volume of noms without a proportional increase in good reviewers. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll suggest that you strike the "it is recommended that you review articles" before submitting your first DYK, but keep "it is recommended that you read several DYK-nominations before submitting your first DYK". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keifer - noted. Also, Nikki, no problemo but thank you for the advice. What I'm hoping to do here is not only ease the process of submitting a DYK but also put up barriers to it. Not hard ones, but sensible ones. For example, we currently have no mention whatsoever of close paraphrasing in the edit notice, making people check their own work through the duplication detector before they post it, and similarly making those reviewing do the same, can only help in my opinion. Anyway, have a good break from DYK and hope to see you back soon. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Half dollar

Changes made. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax Explosion

I saw you made some layout changes to this article a couple days ago. I intend to re-write it to get to FA (just redid the wartime Halifax section today), and wanted to see if you had similar plans. If so, perhaps a collaboration? Wouldn't be too useful if we were editing the same article at cross-purposes! Cheers! Reso lute 19:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You caught me - pushing that article to FA is a medium-term goal of mine, though I've not managed to do much towards accomplishing it yet. I'd be happy to collaborate with you on it, as it's a big task! Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I have some very basic layout ideas and links at my sandbox, and would welcome any thoughts or suggestions on how the article should be organized. And I agree that this one is a pretty big task! I'll probably be plodding my way through it over time - Was hoping to do more than one section today, but with all of these WMF errors popping up, that seems unlikely. Reso lute 23:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on the two survival stories currently in the article? I don't think either requires their own section, and I'm not convinced either were even notable enough for an article... seems more like two cases of someone reading an obituary and deciding to create an article and section. But is there a case for a brief mention in this article? Particularly "Ashpan Annie"? Reso lute 23:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably reduce them to a line or two in the Legacy section. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being that I live in Halifax currently and noticed you all working on it. I might note that Ashpan Annie is a very famous story. At least around these parts. Whether or not that is good enough I don't know but I thought I would mention it. Especially since the museum here has a big section just about her. -DJSasso (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results
Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content
Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing
Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Why This Kolaveri Di

Hi Nikkimaria, an user has fixed the copyvio section, as you noted at Template:Did you know nominations/Why This Kolaveri Di. Can you please process the nomination further :) Thank you, Lynch 7 15:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/spot check for The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.?

Hi Nikkimaria, I'd like to bring this article, which I have worked into a Good Article, to FAC soon. I'm looking for knowledgeable FAC editors to take a look at it and give advice and suggestions, particularly concerns any potential issues or problems that might come up at FAC. Would you mind taking a look at it? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Puffin's talk page.
Message added 21:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

Hi Nikki! Just a heads up that I'm leaving decisions on both the Turkey FAR and the Francis Petre FARC up to you...I'm involved on both. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

News and notes: Arb's resignation sparks lightning RfC, Fundraiser 2011 off to a strong start, GLAM in Qatar

In the news: The closed, unfriendly world of Wikipedia, fundraiser fun and games, and chemists vs pornstars

Recent research: Quantifying quality collaboration patterns, systemic bias, POV pushing, the impact of news events, and editors' reputation

WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Bugle

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Voting underway in the elections, finally a final decision on Abortion, scant movement on requests

Technology report: Foundation appears correct to back improved smartphone support; and how a Reddit slip meant no-one could read anything for thirty minutes

Talkback

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Puffin's talk page.
Message added 16:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Osarius's talk page.
Message added 17:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 17:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Tarakeswar affair

Please check. I have addressed your concern. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check. Posted a query too. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check. I have modified some paras. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leyla Doss' post

Hi Nikki,

How are you? .I'm having technical difficulties with my page for the SMC315 class at the university of toronto. For some reason whenever I try to cite, the list of choices that tells me whether I want to cite a webpage, a journal, etc does not show up. I am writing on an article called "Philanthrojournalism". Another issue I have is that my section called "Theoretical Background" is also not showing up in the final page, even though it is in the editing page. Could you please help. Unfortunately I'm not tech savvy when it comes to wikipedia! Please help. Thank you. Leyla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leyla Doss (talk • contribs) 18:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

Hi Nikki. Hope you are fine. I wanted to ask you whether short articles (having no information on recording and just a few lines on production) can be nominated for FAC or not? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To list an example, this. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They can be nominated; however, I would sincerely doubt they would pass due to potential comprehensiveness concerns. Pop music is not an area I know a lot about, so I can't comment authoritatively on your specific example. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks Nikki. Have a nice day and happy editing. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back again. Nikki... Concerning the FAC of "Single Ladies", there is something i would like to say.

Some reviewing editors have strong opinions on how an article should be written, and they can't see an alternative to their style of writing. But that doesn't mean it's the only way to write an article. My writing style is quite direct and they don't seem to like that. I don't see why we need to use a higher level of language when most probably 9 out of 10 persons will not be able to read and understand a single paragraph without consulting the dictionary at least once. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I'm not sure what can be done about that conflict - if one or more editors have one view, and another another, a review like this will highlight the differences. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to adjust. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed all your issues at the FAC. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The" NYT vs. NYT

I've noticed that you are requesting this change in many FACs and I wanted to make sure you were aware of conventional citation elements, like Chicago 14.210, that say:

An initial The is omitted (see 8.168). A city name, even if not part of the name of an American newspaper, should be added, italicized along with the official title. The name (usually abbreviated) of the state or, in the case of Canada, province may be added in parentheses if needed. Odd cases may call for special treatment.

Chicago Tribune

Hackensack (NJ) Record

Ottawa (IL) Daily Times

Saint Paul (Alberta or AB) Journal

but

Oregonian (Portland, OR)

For such well-known national papers as the Wall Street Journal or the Christian Science Monitor, no city name is added.

8.168 says that the same thing applies to the newspaper titles in text, as long as they are in English (i.e. Le Monde would stay Le Monde). Other citation styles may be different, but I'm not sure requesting this change in FACs is necessary as long as the style is consistent. Hope this is helpful. :-) Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, Eubulides told me the same (somewhere back in my talk archives, if it matters and you care to search). As I recall, his point was that New York Times or The New York Times were equally acceptable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks guys. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime, Nikki. Thanks for the work you do. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nixon

Would you consider putting the {{cleanup-images}} template back? I believe it is completely appropriate and should not have been removed, especially while discussion is ongoing and not yet resolved. Yworo (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's a point of contention, I don't think it would be appropriate to re-add it through protection. Resolve the discussion, figure out what is going to happen with the images, wait for a broader range of commentary, then apply the results. No doubt I have protected the m:Wrong Version, but given that the tag was also reverted, I'm going to opt to keep it out. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, heh. No, I wouldn't say it was the "wrong version" and didn't and wouldn't ask for it to be changed to the "right version", whatever that means. Nor would I have reverted again or replaced the tag myself. I just think that the tag is entirely appropriate in what it says may be an issue with the article. But as you will, no biggie. Yworo (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the protection has expired, I have removed the protection tag. I think once Yworo is back online, he will hopefully agree to my compromise. If not, consensus seems against him both at the article talk and at WT:IUP. Either way, I think this has pretty much run its course. Thank you for being proactive there in your administrative role.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lost student

I ran across of student of this course editing with multiple accounts, Ehwang86 (talk · contribs) and Hwangest86 (talk · contribs), and accidentally creating articles into the template namespace several times. They are also editing while logged out. They don't seem to be paying attention to the messages that I'm leaving them. Would you be able to contact the course's TA and pass along a note to the student about what they are up to? I don't want to see them accidentally get blocked or swamped with deletion notices from NPPs that don't realize that it is a student and then prevented from finishing their course work. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gogo, I've sent an email about this. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about CP

Hi Nikkimaria, I've seen you doing some close paraphrasing checks at T:TDYK and wondered if you could help me with something. I just expanded Alexis Bachelot and nominated it for Did You Know. I could only find one source for the section on his early life (available here) and had trouble paraphrasing it. Could you (or anyone else who happens to see this) check whether I paraphrased too closely in that section? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, that section looks fine in terms of paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the check, I appreciate it. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkcaldy

hi nikkimaria, can you have a look at the article for me? since the failed nomination for feature article status back in July this year, the article has undergone a copy-edit and tidy-up. very recently, Brianboulton has done a further copy-edit of both the lead and history sections and has been taking notes. the article still requires a lot of work and i would like to put the article forward again for FAC, sometime next year

what i have done is include a [6] to my own talk page, as advised by Mutt Lunker who has also been giving me a lot of work recently but does not know the FA process very well. Kilnburn (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything in particular you want me to look at? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the lead, history, geography, economy and landmark sections. the information is there, but it's the wording, the grammar and flow that i feel is letting the article down, overall. Kilnburn (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lake of the Woods

Nikki Pls see Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Lake_of_the_Woods_(Oregon)_&_Lake_of_the_Woods_Ranger_Station's last two posts. Let's settle this one way or the other and move on. PumpkinSky talk 23:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Chopin trivia

I'm at a loss, frankly, trying to understand why you removed the "trivia" template from the Frédéric Chopin article. Do you really feel that section contains high-quality, encyclopedic content? I'd love to discuss it if you have some time. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 04:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the remaining material is proportional, sourceable and appropriate. Popular culture sections are, within reason, accepted for use in articles on influential people/topics. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Klondike Gold Rush mark II update...

...I think all the review actions are now complete! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about linkrot and 2010 Nobel Peace Prize

NM, I'm getting quite wary of linkrot for articles I'm preparing. I was wondering, before I go headlong down the road of webcitation for the above, if you could look at this edit and tell me what you think as to the way to introduce archive links. This is sort of an ex-post move, because I want to 'freeze' the article from any more linkrot, but don't want to have to redo all the references in the style of citation templates (pls see the style at Olympus scandal#References, or more simply at Template:Citation#Web). Your advice would be much appreciated. Cheers, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be a problem, so long as it's formatted consistently. I do, however, have two issues to raise based on the template method: usually we see a retrieval date added in addition to the archive date, and the template produces a shift in the archive link when the deadlink=yes parameter is added - from [archived] from the original to archived from the [original]. Without including that, you may still find dead links tags being added. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that for my Olympus scandal article, non-use of the templates could still potentially be a problem when a link goes dead or behind a paywall? I mean is the issue a theoretical one or a practical one? My thinking re the above method is that the accessdate is only helpful to find an article on the wayback machine once it goes dead, but it doesn't matter if there is an archive specifically made of it at Webcitation.org, plus the date it was archived. I'm also not keen to go inserting those citation templates into the article for the very small benefit. I am not aware that any bot goes around adding the {{deadlink}} tag, but I have seen it added by Reflinks, which won't usually touch a populated citation. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I'm not sure. I don't know whether this would cause a practical problem or not. I seem to recall having seen a bot adding deadlink tags, but can't find it now, so perhaps I was thinking of Reflinks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the clarification. I'll suck it and see. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Crawford (captain)

Could you please have another look at the DYK for Thomas Crawford (captain)? I have now learnt how to use the Duplication Detector (thanks for including the link in your comment) and my re-phrasing is now of a higher quality. It's difficult with historical texts to re-phrase without adding false information; I hope you think I've got the balance about right. Wikiwayman (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using the Duplication Detector again. This time I've compared two of the sources, the publicly available one (Lang) and the Gazeteer for Scotland which was used on your original comparison. There are similarities between the former and the latter. As I've re-phrased everything, I've therefore decided to leave references in for Lang and delete the references for the Gazeteer. I've also decided to delete the "text from public domain" statement as that isn't true any more (following the re-phrasing work). It goes without saying that I've run the Detector tool against Lang, and there's nothing major left now.

I hope I've done the right thing. If you're interested, I've copied the public domain text to my talk page User_talk:Wikiwayman/Douglas_of_Mains#Crawford_of_Jordanhill to make the Detector process simpler. Wikiwayman (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CP concerns at DYK

Nikkimaria, I saw your comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Matete: it might be useful when you find such issues to inform the nominator of the article, and possibly the user who approved the hook too (in this case the latter was me). That way the issues can be dealt with in a more expedited manner. Regards, Harrias ^talk 16:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See {{DYKReviewNote}} Nikkimaria is already doing all the heavy lifting-- perhaps someone else will do that task? I've been trying to do it for her, but usually I find the folks are already notified or already aware. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no way trying to criticise what she is doing; personally I watch the pages I nominate and review, so I catch these; just worried that other people may not. I'm trying my best to help to get DYK under control (although as we can see with these issues and others, it's not easy: I've been spotchecking for close paraphrasing, and I've missed two recently!) and anything other people are doing to help is great. It was just a suggestion to possibly help people come back to address the concerns quicker: I'd rather they all watched the reviews like I do, but I know a lot of users don't do that. I'm rambling now while I'm meant to be packing, so I'll stop! Harrias ^talk 16:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply you were being critical, but to point out the template to you in the hopes that you (or some other regular at DYK) would take over the notification I was doing :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm away for the next week: but I'll see what I can do after that! Harrias ^talk 17:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi old friend

How you doing old girl...I have missed you! We have not had a disagreement is some time LOL. Anyways I have always found your logic very sensible and was wondering if you have any toughs on Project pages called "guideline" to be moved to "advice" status over guideline status. As per WP:PROPOSAL. Pls see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Guidelines vs advice (essays) if yor at all interested.Moxy (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Moxy! While I think your argument is correct, I'm not sure the issue is important enough to merit such a long discussion...unless there are instances of these pseudo-guidelines contradicting actual guidelines? If so, then that should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SL

Hi Nikki. I have fixed all your issues at the FAC. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the catalog number. Sorry for taking so long. I did not notice your message there. The review is so long. Lol. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for the work at Klondike Gold Rush from Soerfm and myself - very much appreciated, Hchc2009 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one is for you

Try to defend him now after this one. As I said before: you can't be his friend and at very same time threaten me with sanctions on my talk page or review my articles. Impartiality is all I ask. --Lecen (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no reason to defend him: while I don't agree with the language he used, his point is essentially correct. If because of that you feel I need to not review your articles or warn you when you very clearly cross the line...sorry, but I don't agree. "The enemy of my friend is my enemy" is not a principle I agree with, nor do I judge article content based on the personalities involved. Now drop the stick and move on. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I won't be able to trust your word that you'll be capable of being impartial when reviewing my articles. If I had any doubt of it, it vanished the moment you put a "hat" over the discussion after what I wrote, but not after he said "go fuck yourselves is all I have to say to that". It was OK to him to insult everyone in the discussion but it isn't when I complain about his behavior? And you tell me that you won't "judge article content based on the personalities involved"? Can't buy that. --Lecen (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can believe what you want, but do you really think that that discussion was going anywhere productive? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't tell that to me. I don't go around telling people to fuck themselves or call them dickheads. Since it's well known that you're his friend and that you saved him before [7] you're the least appropriate person to be involved. How many times was he blocked for this kind of behavior? What will happen if someone fills an ANI report about what he did yesterday? Will you, John, SandyGeorgia and Ealdgyth tag-team again and complain about how unfair it was to have him blocked? Don't think I'm a fool, Nikkimaria. I might not get involved on all those futile discussions but I'm well aware of everything that happens here. I've seen many editors leave this place because of him. The FAC has less and less editors helping for a well known reason. --Lecen (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The person most likely to find themselves at ANI is you Lecen. How many editors is it now that you've accused of dishonesty over the past couple of days? Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try it, then. Fill the report. --Lecen (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for crying out loud, cut it out, both of you. Lecen, FAC has fewer editors because wiki has fewer editors; if you'd like to blame that entire trend on Malleus, then you really are a fool. Otherwise, you just need to drop the stick. If someone files an ANI report about what he did yesterday, you're both likely to get blocked, and I'd really prefer if neither of you were so long as you both can just back away. Srsly. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what disruption would my being blocked over a comment made yesterday be likely to stop? So far as Lecen's suggestion is concerned, as he knows everything he'll know that I do not "fill" reports at the ANI playground; perhaps he might like ponder on why that is. Malleus Fatuorum 20:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't say it'd be a good block, just that it'd be the most likely outcome. Where's your cynicism? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My cynicism is all present and correct, hence I don't make reports at ANI. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can please lock down Ernest Hemingway until we can reach consensus on the talk. I've reverted to the version before all the changes. I don't mind which version is locked, whether you revert my revert because a lot people spent time of this, but it needs to be discussed. Thanks. Once it's been locked I'll post to the talkpage. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, would you be willing to block me? Ceoil has been blocked after the AN/I thread was closed that involved an article that I don't own or edit, and quite frankly I'm beyond insulted. If Alarbus isn't blocked but Ceoil is, then I think I should be too. If you won't I'm sure Diannaa will. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not blocking you, TK, sorry. I don't think Diannaa would either (and if she would, I don't think she should). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Tree Hill

Hi Nikkimaria; thank you again very much for your comments on sourcing at the "One Tree Hill" FAC. I know you're very busy, but if you have time would you be able to revisit the FAC? I'm not sure if I nested the templates correctly, or if there are any further outstanding issues on the sourcing quality. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Tarakeswar affair.
Message added 04:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please take a look. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which section? the whole "Assessment and portrayal of the characters" or just that para. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That para mostly, although I didn't check the final para closely. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reorganized the author's views (who discusses in terms of plays) in terms of the characters and summarized the paras in 1/2 sentences. The villag wives v/s prostitutes is also 1 para, which 2 lines now. Check if it is OK. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost there. Just this is still a problem: "In one play, Elokeshi's character is debated by village wives and prostitutes. The wives condemn her as unchaste, question her love for Nobin and express the belief that a woman cannot be raped without her consent." Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check. "The wives vilify Elokeshi as an unchaste woman, question her devotion for Nobin and express the belief that a woman cannot be raped without her consent" --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I award you this barnstar for your work with the DYKs and cleaning up variuos Indian film-related articles. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 08:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]