Jump to content

User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 15

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

Embodied language processing

[edit]

Thank you for the support on Embodied language processing. I would not have treated it like a medical (in psychology) article except pretty much every source appeared to come out of a medical related journal. Example: Listening to action-related sentences modulates the activity of the motor system: A combined TMS and behavioral study. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(3). How is that anything but making it fall into the domain of medical articles? --LauraHale (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Psychology doesn't have to be medical, but it often is. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Push the Button (Sugababes song)/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Till I Go Home (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any more sources issues, other than mvdbase? Till I Go Home (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello — it's been a month since you last posted on the review -- it appears to have been abandoned. Any other suggestions (like prose) to improve the article? Ty. Till I Go Home talk stalk 13:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Eleonore Baur

[edit]

The problem you pointed out has been addressed by the article's author. Can you please check to see if this satisfies your concerns? Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Wyman-Gordon

[edit]

You noted a problem with large-scale constructs in this nominated article. Aymatth2, whose article and nom it is, has requested that you cite examples. Can you give at least one to demonstrate the problems you've found in the article? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy's Steve Lukather FAC -- image check?

[edit]

Hi Nikki, would you mind giving the four images for this FAC the once-over? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such prompt service -- you're a gem, tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

[edit]

Nikkimaria, just to say that your edits to that article show a depth of knowledge. Nice work indeed, but unfortunately some of it seems to have been reverted for ideological reasons. I say let's stay in there for the sake of the readers, the ones who really count! Tony (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University of Western Ontario logo issue

[edit]

Hi, I've noted the fact the fact that you placed the Tower Logo back in the article University of Western Ontario, although I have not reverted your inclusion of it as of yet. I'm not sure if you have checked back on the article talk page but since your last response, the IP user, myself, as well as another Wikipedia user have all made it clear that (as far as we are concerned anyways) the Tower Logo does not comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policies. Please note that according to the policy, the logo must comply with all 10 of Wikipedia's criterion (the criteria's list may be found here WP:NFCC).

However, if you believe the Tower Logo does meet the listed criterion's for inclusion, please respond to the users which brought up the concern in the article's talk page. Leventio (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've strengthened the FUR on the image description page. Someone will need to do the same for the other non-free image if it's to be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP, NPOV and issues

[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria, can you help out with Talk:Shahrukh Khan#The ageing controversy? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK hook removals

[edit]

Please also remove the credit line(s) [1] (or we get DYKbot errors and double tagging). Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I can see from your interventions in DYK that you are interested in preventing copyright violations.

When writing an article on another bivalve mollusc, I became aware that the article Grooved carpet shell uses text that is copy-pasted from this source. I do not fully understand quite what the phrase "being in the public domain" means. The original source in this instance is a FAO fact sheet and I am unsure whether it was legitimate to copy this verbatim or not. Your guidance would be welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<Talk page stalker>. Fao.org is part of United Nations and is not US Government website; it explicitly copyrights its webpages, and thus we may not copy (recent, creatively written text) from them. Materialscientist (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. That's not the only issue here, though: there's also copying from this source, which isn't cited at all, and this source. Nice catch, Cwmhiraeth! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about this

[edit]

I'm connecerned about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transport in Ahmedabad. The AfD was closed ten hours after nomination with only one vote by the creator of the article in question. Is that even allowed I wouldn't like to assume Good Faith here, as the editor seems to be trying to hide something. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is technically allowed in cases like this, where the author has either blanked the page or redirected it. If he re-adds the same material, let me know and I'll take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long Point (Cape Cod) DYK concerns

[edit]

Hi there, my apologies for the close paraphrasing. I believe I have addressed your concerns, but would appreciate another look, if you would be so kind? Note that there is very little written account of those days, and nearly every author, myself included, have made heavy use of Jennings (1890), which is in the public domain. Thank you very much, Groll†ech (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also tried to address tone on Long Point (Cape Cod). I assume you were referring to the "Getting there" section? That is unessential to the article, and it can be removed if need be. I am confused, however, about the "grammar" tag... can you steer me in a direction? Finally, I have left all three article tags in place, because I did not want to give the impression of biased editing. If there are any concerns at all, I will be more than happy to address them quickly as best I can. Thank you for your help, Groll†ech (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Grolltech. I haven't rechecked the paraphrasing issues (I'll hopefully get to that tomorrow). As far as grammar, I noticed some switching back and forth between verb tenses, use of contractions, and run-on sentences, though it does look better now - I'll go ahead and remove that tag. The tone tag, though, will stay for now. The "Getting there" section is problematic, but is not the only issue. The section headings are non-neutral, the article includes several cliches and idiomatic phrasings, and the wording used is at times too colloquial. Consider for example the phrase "Drought, however, was a mere annoyance compared to some of the fury nature can unleash upon Long Point", or "It stands today as a serene (and hard-to-reach) strip of beach and sand dunes that offers panoramic vistas in every direction", which sounds like something from a tourist brochure, to be frank. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some DYK paraphrasing improvements

[edit]

Nikkimaria, here's the latest batch of DYK nomination templates where you noticed paraphrasing or plagiarism issues, and the nominators write that they have fixed the problems you've cited (but sometimes with explanations that make me wonder whether they fully have been):

In addition, there are a couple involving Aymatth2:

Thank you so much for doing the close paraphrasing and plagiarism checks. They're so very important, especially because it's something so many people can't appreciate or even see in their own writing. (And so many DYK reviewers miss as well.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

[edit]

SPI

[edit]

You know policies about SPI? Can you consider helping me here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yasht101‎. I'm concerned just because one of the sock is not using his account anymore, but using his new account as a newbie instead. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't matter that both accounts are not currently active, as the first account was active recently enough that CheckUsers can check its IP if they feel it's warranted. By the way, though the deleted userpage is not identical to the first account (language levels are different, for example), there are some similarities - I don't know whether it'll be enough to get a CU, but maybe. I'm not familiar with either account, so I can't really tell whether they're the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Washington images

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I think I've redressed the issues that you pointed out concerning the images on Lynching of Jesse Washington. I swapped a couple new images in, if you have time, could you drop a note at the FAC if you have any unresolved concerns? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Armdale.JPG

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Armdale.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Wyman-Gordon

[edit]

This was almost reapproved today. Could you please respond to the current issues, and what needs to be done to get approval? That would help a lot. Thanks.

Also, Aymatth2 has made a fix to Template:Did you know nominations/Indian People's Tribunal and explained what was done in the paragraphs above the new "More comments" header. Please reply to indicate whether this solves the paraphrasing issue. Thanks again. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Large-scale constructs

[edit]

You are invited to contribute to the discuss at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism#Large-scale constructs. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination Angampora

[edit]

Astronomyinertia says he/she has made the changes needed. You are clearly better than I am on the copied text front, do you have time to check it? (Nomination is here.) Also, is there a tool you recommend using? Moonraker (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look. I don't usually use tools for paraphrasing checks, as I find they're very limited in their usability; part of my approach is outlined in the relevant section here, if you're interested. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia in The Great Santini

[edit]

Hey--thanks for making short work of that list-o'-cruft in The Great Santini! I was gonna leave the template for a couple of days and come back, but that hardly ever works. I like your approach better.

Thanks again! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Abdul Samay Hamed

[edit]

This nomination managed to get removed from the templates page by accident, and it was restored today. Before it fell off the radar, you had expressed concerns, which Gerda Arendt addressed, but the whole thing disappeared before you saw her response. However, within a few hours it's been reviewed, approved and already moved into a prep area. The reviewer does not specifically mention checks for paraphrasing, so if you want to check to see whether your concerns were addressed, there won't be much time. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original author has made additional changes to the article. Do these fix the paraphrasing and source issues you had? Thanks!
Also, other articles that appear to have made progress while you were away last week:
I think Long Point needs a third-party opinion about tone issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just pinged Orlady on Long Point. I'd put a note on her talk page on the Wyman-Gordan DYK a few hours ago, asking her to be the uninvolved third party to look at your work unwinding the structural similarities, so I added this as a second one. I didn't feel qualified to handle either of them myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, welcome back. I figured I'd give you a few days to catch up before pinging you on Long Point... and then I started feeling a bit frustrated after 12 days of talking to myself on the nom page... so I gave in and changed the objectionable phrases. I then stopped over here to drop you a note to that effect, and stumbled across this thread. Now I realize (and apologize) that my request for a third party may have had a chilling effect – it was certainly not my intention to have you 'step aside'. That was more an attempt to keep the process moving forward while you were away. I'd be happy to continue working with you (especially as you've helped improve the article so much already). Of course, I'm cautiously optimistic that we're ready for final approach, as we've been circling the airport for a while...  ;-) Thanks! Grollτech (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality discussion

[edit]

Hello. This message is to inform you that there is an important discussion currently at the talk page of the article Shahrukh Khan. Since you have been involved in a prior dispute related to this, your views are welcomed here. With (hopeful) consensus, we can initiate a neutrality-aimed change in the said article. Thank you. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cave Story FAC

[edit]
Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cave Story/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

[edit]

A strong foundation

[edit]
for a strong article
Thank you for yet another review, this time at Ruma Maida. The article has passed FAC, making it the first Indonesian film FA.

To thank you, I am building you a Batak Toba-style house; a vacation home, if you will. Although Lake Toba is incredibly beautiful, remember to watch out for mosquitoes!  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yogo sapphire at FAC

[edit]

I just wanted to let you know this article is now at WP:FAC. Link at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yogo sapphire/archive1. Thank you so much for helping get it there. Improvements welcome. PumpkinSky talk 00:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this pls PumpkinSky talk 18:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

URM

[edit]

I see you changed rights for Intoronto1125 (talk · contribs) "from (none) to autopatrolled (restore)". Why would you restore rights to an indefinitely blocked account, reversing the action of another admin? Toddst1 (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other admin appeared to have been acting on an error introduced into a little-watched policy. Given those circumstances, the action falls under the "clear and obvious mistakes" clause of WP:ADMIN, though of course this wasn't the fault of the other admin. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does a blocked account need advanced privileges? Toddst1 (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. However, that does not constitute a valid reason for removal, and from what I've seen admins tend to forget to check for that type of rights issue when unblocking. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with anything that says indefinite blocking is an invalid reason for removal of access levels. Autopatrolled is granted (and by implication, removed) at administrator's discretion.
It's not that Autopatrolled is that big a deal - what is a big deal is you thinking you know better than another admin and labeled this a "clear and obvious mistake." It doesn't seem like a clear and obvious mistake to me and I'm concerned that you would reverse another admin's actions so easily and as it appears to me, flippantly. Toddst1 (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More troubling is that you have been WP:WHEEL warring on this very issue at Orangemarlin (talk · contribs). Do you want to take this wheel war to ANI or shall I? Toddst1 (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was a clear and obvious mistake because it was based on an error recently introduced into the relevant policy without anyone noticing. You're of course welcome to take your concerns wherever you please, though the outcome would be questionable - after all, though Mifter was technically wheel-warring, it has been several months since the last administrative action on that case. TC's wheel-warring would definitely be considered stale by now. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify what "error recently introduced into the relevant policy." I'm not aware of any such policy. Toddst1 (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The error was introduced here. I'm going offline for a few hours now, so we'll continue this when I return if you like. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all clear that that change has any bearing on this issue. I've gone ahead and brought this to ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Maxviwe's talk page.
Message added 18:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 18:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

[edit]

URM Questioning

[edit]

Nikkimaria, that's my bad - I misread some of the timestamps involved and thought the rights changing had continued after the discussion above. Mea Culpa! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for some sourcing advice at FA level

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

I'm looking for some advice on referencing before I take an article (back) to FAC - and thought that you would be the safe person to ask. I'm just about to give the references an overhaul for Stephen_Hawking, I just wanted to make sure that I not only had them in shape for FAC, but also that I was proactive about any concerns. Certainly don't worry about answering these if you are busy. :)

So I have two main questions, first of all - Hawking signs his popular work 'Stephen Hawking' and that's well known, but he signs his scientific work 'S. W. Hawking' - even when other people on the paper get their full name (for example [2]) - given this, is it reasonable that he appears sometimes as 'S. W. Hawking' in the references and sometimes as 'Stephen Hawking' depending on the source?

Second question is that I was unsure as to whever the referencing style suites entirely notes-based (like the Hawking article was before I got involved - [3], or where the notes reference the sources (like Speech_generating_device is now. At the moment I'm thinking about kind of a half wayhouse where if something has an ISBN the note references the bibiography, and if not it stays in the notes, but I'm not sure if this would cut the mustard for FAC - what do you think?

Thanking you in advance. Fayedizard (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fayedizard. Yes to the first question, no problems with that. On the second, are you talking about something like what I've used on Melville Island (Nova Scotia)? If so, that's also fine; if not, you might need to explain a bit more. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - yes I am - thank you for your swift and helpful response :) Fayedizard (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Informal review

[edit]

I know that you are very busy with WP:FAC, but could you please carry out a review of Ra.One before I submit it for an FAC? The peer review I opened got shut with little headway, and Brianboulton carried out a useful but not complete review. I was hoping you could give the article a thorough wash-down. I'd be really obliged since two previous FAC attempts have gone rather badly. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of progress has taken place in the article due to your review, so let me first give you a big Thank You for taking the time to review the article :). Some of the changes require discussion or re-checking, so could you comment on the talk page of the article? Thanks! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! The informal review is at the final stage, with almost all problems rectified. As per your request, I have placed the necessary links directing to the discussions regarding Pandolin. I am somewhat weak in images, so I need your help regarding the concerns you raised about them. Additionally, I am still not understanding the problem between C5, C10 and C18. A problem regarding British English will be difficult to solve; are you aware of any Wikipedia tool that allows an article to be corrected to British English? Also, the important dead link has to be discussed since I really cannot get rid of it. Once again, I deeply appreciate your efforts to improve the article. Cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replied there. What did you need help with as far as images? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You had stated that the G.One_Original_Suit image requires an expansion in the fair use rationale. Could you clarify as to what I have to expand exactly in the rationale? Besides, I still haven't understood what you mean by dead link in original source; as far as I can see, the two source maps seem to be working fine, and all the references (s1, s2, etc.) seem to be working too. I'm confused. Thanks for the clarifications at the talk page! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the source maps is File:India-locator-map-blank.svg; the first source link on that image description page returns a 404 error. On the original suit image, two of the required parameters are filled only with "n.a." - those should be completed, and the "purpose" isn't quite clear as written (it should refer to the information in the article, if possible). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I finally understood. So should I remove the 404 (Indian Railways) source? I'll check up on the other image. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first you should check whether there's an archive or updated link available somewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have done the Original Suit image. However, I can do nothing for the India map since the page is protected from normal editing. Is there anything that can be done about this? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here, or at Commons? I think in both cases you should be able to post an {{edit protected}} message on the talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. Forgot about those (I have rarely commented on protected pages). I'll post a request, but what if no editor is looking after it or if there is no response for a long time? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, its at Commons. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less certain of the procedures at Commons, but here edit-protects show up in the admin backlog, so I would assume it's the same there. If you get no responses in, say, 24-48 hours, try posting at their admin noticeboard. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks :). Btw, the article has been put up for FAC here. Hope you can drop in :D. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dedomestication

[edit]

Hi, dedomestication actually is something very different from conscious "breeding back", I don't know why that got mixed up in previous articles. Dedomestication happens when f.e. domestic bunnies get darker, smaller and faster when exposed to natural selection with predation pressure, while breeding back is the attempt of re-uniting wild traits in domestic animals via selective breeding. Dedomestication does not have to result in an animal that is equal to the previous wild type, f.e. Dingos are no wolves in a phenotypical sense. These are two fundamentally different processes, that's why I split the two articles. Regards, -- DFoidl (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Queue 6 late substitution or addition

[edit]

You are one of the most frequent late queue adjusters, so I wanted to call your attention to a particularly timely hook for the next queue Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Possible_Queue_6_late_substitution_or_addition. You may want to make a late addition or substitution.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/2012 LinkedIn hack.
Message added 05:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dipankan (Have a chat?) 05:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check it out again.
Are you watching it? I have done what was required. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 13:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm watching; no, you haven't. That article has copyvio from almost every source it uses. I would strongly urge you to review WP:CV and WP:Close paraphrasing, as several of your edits have this type of problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Indian People's Tribunal

[edit]

Even though I've somehow ended up compiling lists of nominations needing review in WT:DYK, this is one that isn't going there given the paraphrasing issues. Aymatth2 has edited the last problem spot you pointed out (on June 5, and it's in the middle of the thing because of odd bifurcations). Now that Crisco 1492 has given it the "review again" arrow, I was hoping you could check the paraphrasing once again (and add your comment at the bottom, where it'll be easier to see).

Since I'm going through the nominations page to find stalled or undone noms, I'll add any others I happen to find below, assuming I do find others. Thanks as always for your fine work finding problematic DYKs. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried in Indian People's Tribunal earlier, but I guess I'm not cut out for this. Perhaps you might have better luck with Aymatth2? Or at least know what to do next? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that I can do any better there, at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then what next? Fail it if nothing's done in a week? If it somehow makes it to the queues as it is now because another reviewer intervenes, I imagine you'll pull it back again, which is far from ideal. What have you done in the past when someone balks at fixing close paraphrasing? On Wyman-Gordon, you ultimately rewrote the offending section, but are there other approaches? I could apply quotes on the one and rewrite the other, but I have the sinking feeling that there's lots more problems here that you'll find if I fix these two. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Past approaches: fix it myself, find someone else who can do so, or let it go - there've been very few noms that have gone this long without either being fixed or failed, so I haven't found a more effective solution. At this point, if someone else passed it I probably wouldn't pull it back- not because I think it's done, but just because that seems the least painful of the available options. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good to know. Aymatth2 has just posted that the two phrases have been removed. Can you take the next step? I don't think I can. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Checking again: can you take the next step? If not, then I'll put in a red arrow and we take pot luck from whoever comes by. There's also a couple others that you found which have since been edited:
Thanks once again for your incredible work finding close paraphrasing and other DYK problems. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed Template:Did you know nominations/Indian People's Tribunal as "no consensus to promote after 60 days due to continued close paraphrasing issues" and listed the close at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Template:Did you know nominations/Indian People's Tribunal for further review by the DYK community. Cunard (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

[edit]

2012 LinkedIn hack

[edit]

Kindly review this. I have put my attempt to change the text. Thanks. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 07:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I offered examples of the problem at the DYK review; have you looked beyond those examples for other potential issues? On a quick look, I see another example: "Marcus Carey, a security researcher at Boston-based Rapid7, told Reuters he was confident that, based on his analysis of the data posted on the forums, hackers had wormed their way inside LinkedIn's network for several days" vs "Marcus Carey, a security researcher at Boston-based Rapid7, told Reuters he was "highly confident" that hackers had wormed their way inside LinkedIn's network for several days, based on his analysis of the data posted on the forums". You see how those two are substantially identical, but with one segment shuffled around? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check it again, edited that section. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 06:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better, though it still needs a bit of work. Are there other articles which might have similar problems? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done It has completely been rephrased. Check it. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 10:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Burges

[edit]

Hello - I wonder if you'd have time to cast your eye over what I think are the 3/4 potentially outstanding issues from your source review of the above. I summarise them below for your convenience:

  • FN143 when you reviewed it, now FN151. You indicate a problem with page formatting but we can't see what it is.
  • FN179 when you reviewed it, now FN192. This is a sales catalogue from Vost's Auctioneers. It's not on the web, as far as I can see, it's not a Google book and it has no ISBN. Advice on what's wrong with the formatting would be appreciated.
  • FN259 when you reviewed it, now FN271. You indicate a formatting problem but we can't see what it is.
  • You ask "How are you ordering sources with the same author(s)?" Neither Dr. B nor I are sure what the issue is here. Would you be able to clarify.

As I said on the review page, your source check has been invaluable and we are very grateful. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed for the clarifications. I shall now try to fix them. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still need reviews for the Wikipedia Education Program research project

[edit]

Hey, Nikki! If you have some time to review the quality of some articles, we're using the results for a really important research project that will help shape the future of the US/Canada Education Program. For a few projects, we're on a pretty tight timeline and are really eager to have many more of these articles reviewed over the next week. However, we think it's most useful to come from experienced Wikipedia editors.

I have gone through each class to prioritize for various projects, and everyone on the Education team at the Wikimedia Foundation would be extremely grateful if you could participate by reviewing a few articles ('pre' and 'post' versions). If we can rally a lot of editors to review one or two articles each day, we will be able to make the most use of this research for our tight timeline. As many of our Ambassadors have requested it, we are really eager to find out which classes have been successful according to the Wikipedian standard.

If you can spare some time, please check out these priority articles and give it a go. Even 1 or 2 a day would help immensely! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Sawtell Wallis

[edit]

Thanks for creating this article!! I've been a fan of her mysteries for a while and added some information about them. I'm just wondering if there is anything here that would be suitable for a "Did You Know" -- it's not common for such a well-known scientist to write mysteries, and the artwork associated with Mapback #123 is really cool… I'll leave it to your better judgment. Ubelowme (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already done - Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Sawtell Wallis. Thanks for the tweaks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zduhać

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. Some time ago I nominated that article for FA. In your short review, you said that some parts have an "in-universe" or otherwise unencyclopedic tone. Recently I have made some changes in the article and would appreciate if you told me whether those issues had been addressed. If they have not been addressed, would you please offer examples of "in-universe" and unencyclopedic tone in the article. The subject is somewhat specific (folk beliefs and stories, mythology) but I suppose it can still be written in an unencyclopedic way. Vladimir (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vladimir. It's better than it was, but maybe it would be helpful to look at analogous articles that are already FAs? Vampire is the first to come to mind, but there's more at WP:FA. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria...I believe I have addressed most of your concerns here. If you care to examine the changes since, I can send you links if you like. I appreciate you taking the time to offer your advice. I had overlooked the issues regarding reference formatting. PumpkinSky and RJHall also brought up similar and additional comments that I have addressed. Thanks again!--MONGO 18:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cave Story FAC again

[edit]

Hey, I just wanted to follow up about sourcing issues at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cave Story/archive1. What do you think now? Axem Titanium (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine, on a quick check I don't see any further problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for all your help! Axem Titanium (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loveland, Ohio

[edit]

The important consideration here, as with any article, is what is most helpful for the reader. Would you please explain to me how any user of the references benefits from being told the unsurprising news that the New York Times is owned by the New York Times Company, or from being informed even once, let alone 49 times, that the Cincinatti Enquirer belongs to Gannett? Facts such as these are not helpful at all - they're just clutter that obscures the valuable information. It isn't necessary or helpful to fill in a parameter value in the cite template just because it's there. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that Wikipedia:Citing sources#Newspaper_articles does not include publisher in the list of recommended items to include in a citation, for the very good reason that there's no benefit to it. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you haven't even tried to answer my question. You're just asserting ownership of the article, not engaging in a debate about how best to serve the reader. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. It's not the article that's the issue here, it's that you, despite an ANI thread, a lack of consensus at WT:CITE, and several objections, are continuing to make the same edit across multiple articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you still haven't even tried to answer my question. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because publisher can be helpful in determining the reliability of a source, which some readers do actually care about doing. Furthermore, you removing these parameters and warring with other editors about it, as you've done in the past, makes the article unstable, detracts from consistency in presentation, and distracts editors from working on more vital tasks, and CITEVAR exists to prevent that sort of back-and-forth. Leave those alone, please. You have more than enough other tasks to do that are policy-compliant. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lets's be clear here: the only (brief) warring involved my reverting a hysterical editor who had reverted all my edits, accused me of vandalism, placed threats on my talk page, and whose subsequent complaint to WP:ANV was completely rejected, and whose complaint to WP:ANI ended with an endorsement of my actions. Here's the closing statement by the admin.
Of the examples I have seen, these edits seem fine and I don't think it would be reasonable for someone to assume that these changes would first require community consensus. Indeed, they appear to already have community consensus: guidelines for citing newspapers do not include citing the publisher. All of the examples I have seen have been of the kind to remove "Associated Newspapers Ltd" as the publisher of the Daily Mail, "The Washington Post Company" as the publisher of the The Washington Post, "MTV Networks" as the publisher of MTV News, etc. These are clearly superflous and should be non-controversial. I suggest this thread be closed.
So, to deal with the substantive issue: exactly which one of the publishers I removed would be 'helpful in determining the reliability of a source'? Is someone who's looking at a reference from the New York Times going to be aided in assessing its reliability by knowing that it's published by the New York Times Company? (And in the unlikely event that this made any difference, that information would be readily available from the publication's article anyway). Colonies Chris (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the closing statement - the closing statement was "Now being discussed at this location which is probably the right place. Closing the discussion here so as to not have it split across pages." That discussion did not end with an endorsement of your actions, and until such time as policy on the matter changes, your actions are still wrong - no matter how you justify them. (And yes, knowing that the NYT article being cited was published by the NYT Co instead of The Yes Men, for example, does make a difference). Now, again, Wikipedia allows a great deal of latitude in what citation style can be used, and CITEVAR says that you should respect the established style, even if you think another one (in this case, with fewer parameters) would be better. So drop it and move on to something else. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I failed to recognise that there are certain articles that shouldn't be changed without your permission. I'll steer clear of them in future. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what you're not recognizing is that it has nothing to do with any particular article, but with the type of change you're making, which you shouldn't be doing anywhere where a style is established and you have not discussed changing it. So long as you're not doing that, I don't care which articles you edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked the edit history of that article and discovered that you have never edited it. May I suggest that you step away from the role of self-appointed guardian of cite style and leave any objections to those editors who do work on it? Or are you stalking me? Colonies Chris (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that might've been a good thing to check before throwing around accusations of ownership. Might I suggest that you calm down, reduce the level of hyperbole, and edit according to policy? If you do that, there should be no need to continue this conversation. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose we try an experiment. I'll reinstate my changes and we wait a few days. If any of the established editors object, I'll self revert and open a dialogue with them. If not, my changes remain. How's that? Colonies Chris (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a better idea. You propose your changes on the talk page and wait a few days. If no one objects, you can go ahead and reinstate them. If someone does, then you can discuss with them. How's that? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(←)
I don't need prior permission to make changes that are already in line with community consensus (see admin quote above). Therefore, in the spirit of WP:BOLD, i've reinstated my changes (and other improvements). I suggest we wait and see whether there are any objections. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except, as I already pointed out, a) that admin quote is the opinion of a single admin, not community consensus, and was not the conclusion of that discussion, and b) the discussion at WT:CITE did not demonstrate consensus for your position. Therefore, in the spirit of WP:BRD, I've reverted your changes. I suggest you take it to the talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Russia

[edit]

hello,

could you tell me why you removed "multiconfessional" with this edit? I think it is important to mention that. Regards.--GoPTCN 19:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, feel free to re-add it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William Snyder Webb

[edit]

Thanks from Wikipedia and the DYK team Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

[edit]

Germany

[edit]

Sorry, where in the lead are "Europe" and "EU" already linked? Where else in the lead could they possibly be linked in the lead prior to the first and third sentence, which is where I am trying to return them to? I'd be grateful if you could point that out. They are not, by definition, duplicate links and they are clearly relevant and provide context, as allowed and even required by the guidelines cited, eg the contextlink section of WP:LEAD. I'm not going to edit war there or start a boring thread on the Germany talk page over something so trivial, but that begs the question as why you are so insistent on removing these links - which were there for a long time in what is a featured article - without any apparent real justification, when two editors have reverted you and when you've been 3RR-warned over similar behaviour on another country page. N-HH talk/edits 12:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where it says "in Europe" and "in the European Union", making the ones you're concerned with duplicate links. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that doesn't make clear what you are referring to, nor does it seem to make sense unless you're looking at a different page/version to me. This is the version of the page you have reverted to most recently, reverting my restoration of the links per the diff above. Where the word "Europe" first appears, in the phrase "is a federal parliamentary republic in Europe", in the first sentence, it is now unlinked. Where "European Union" first appears, in the fourth (not the third, my mistake), in the phrase "is the most populous member state in the European Union", it is now unlinked. When, for example, EU is next mentioned, in the third para, "which became the EU", it is indeed unlinked, correctly, as that one would be a duplicate link. N-HH talk/edits 13:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the correct version; the links appear next to the map. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that's the caption for the map, not the lead itself. You could have explained that earlier, if that was your point all along. Anyway, 1) that's a separate part of the page; 2) infoboxes are specifically treated as separate from text in linking guidelines; and 3) the lead comes ahead of it anyway, so the mentions there are the first ones. All the arguments I made above apply. Pls revert. Who put you in charge to breach guidelines and remove potentially useful links like that? N-HH talk/edits 13:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you linked to WP:LEAD earlier, I assumed you had actually read it. If you haven't, I apologize for making that assumption, but would suggest that you do so. You'll notice that the infobox is considered part of the lead and appears before the introductory text. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually, since you're being this pedantic, I'll follow that precedent and point out that I linked to the contextlink sub-section of wp:lead. No, I hadn't noted that elsewhere the page does technically claim the infobox is part of the lead. Thank you for enlightening me. However, that doesn't detract from the point that you made it far harder than necessary for me or anyone else to work out exactly what you were referring to, when you could easily have done so (as I did, for example, by numbering sentences and paragraphs). Or from the point that wp:repeatlink does treat infoboxes as discrete parts of the article when it comes to "repeating" links. Or from the point that wp:context link does specifically call for links of the sort under discussion in the actual main text of the lead. And, policy aside, I still fail to see the need for this outright removal of so many obviously relevant links from running text (btw I do not disagree with much of the other link tidying you occasionally do). N-HH talk/edits 08:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blog citations in Katy Perry article

[edit]

Hi. I saw your comments in the FA review of "Part of Me", where you criticized the use of blog entries as unreliable sources. I did give the author an explanation of why Yahoo! and such are generally considered unreliable, but there is a case where blog posts are valid sources. They would be inappropriate as factual sources, but are fine as opinion-based sources. In arts and entertainment articles, these can be cited to demonstrate critical and fan reception, which is how the article author used them. It's not correct to draw a line and say that these are by definition poor sources, one has to judge whether they're used in the correct context, and in this case, they are. Now, is there a shock when you open a page on popcrush.com and realize that it's being cited for an encyclopedia article? Sure, but it's right, no matter how weird it feels. Dementia13 (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dementia13. I didn't actually "draw a line and say that these are by definition poor sources". What I did do was request that the author justify their use, by showing that they're used appropriately (and that that issue has been considered) and by providing information on authorship and editorial policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling cavalry

[edit]

Hey Nikki, the New Forest pony article FA review got a little bogged down but we have it all sorted now. So, seeing as how you did an earlier review, can you give it another look through to see if you can vote to support? I'm trying to call the cavalry to get Pesky a nice gold star for that article, particularly because of all the stuff she's dealing with IRL. Obviously, if you still have concerns, we understand, but anyway... take a look? Montanabw(talk) 21:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Teamwork Barnstar
For your outstanding support and dedication in getting Yogo sapphire from a new article to DYK to GA to FA and FOUR. The team effort of the uncountable people involved in getting this unique article to FA is a textbook case of teamwork in article improvement, ie, what Wikipedia should be, not what it all too often is. I can never thank everyone enough. PumpkinSky talk 23:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ruth Sawtell Wallis

[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Loveland, Ohio". Thank you.

Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Template:Did you know nominations/Indian People's Tribunal

[edit]

I invite you to provide your views at this discussion, which I think is important in clarifying when quoting or close paraphrasing is appropriate, or at least is allowed. This should not be a matter of personal preference. If close paraphrasing is not allowed in any circumstances, we need policy or guideline changes. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, but that isn't the place to be pursuing policy change, wouldn't you agree? Besides which, there's also the issue of DYK requirements, which are above the bare minimum provided for by either current policy or legal precedent. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the policies are adequate, although they could use clarification. I think - although you may disagree - that the original article generally conformed to the policies and guidelines, give or take a quotation mark. I am asking for your perspectives on the use of close paraphrasing in this case. If these views could be generalized, debated, accepted and made into a DYK guideline of some sort, that could save a lot of aggravation. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive1

[edit]

Thanks for the review. Please note I have replied in the nom page to your comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Hi Nikki - I found your name at User:Simon Burchell/FAC foreign language reviewers as someone who can review sources in French. Would you possibly have the time to look through the sourcing on Trait du Nord, doing a few spot checks, just to make sure everything is in order? I've been working with a great editor who works mainly on the French WP, and together we've been trying to improve some of the French breed articles here in the English WP. My French is really low-level though, and her English (though much better than my French) is not perfect, so I'd like someone who speaks both languages (and understands the sourcing policies on the English WP) to take a close look at the sourcing. If you don't have time, then no biggie, but it would be really helpful before I take the article through PR and FAC. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, some of that terminology is a bit challenging in French. Not seeing female weight in FN4, and same source gives average male height as 172 cm. I'm a bit wary of interlanguage close paraphrasing, but am not seeing anything too egregious here - to give you an idea, the text cited for "organizes and contributes to contests and events that help to promote and develop the breed" would be directly translated as "organizes and/or contributes to the organization of breed contests...to help with the development of the breed". Checked a few refs, and other than some paraphrasing of that level, no other problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I'll address the above issues, take it to PR and hopefully have it at FAC before August...maybe... :) Dana boomer (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

[edit]

Kappa Kappa Psi FAC

[edit]

Thanks for the source review. I've made changes per your comments and replied on the review page. Sycamore (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has almost been two weeks since your source review, I just wanted to again remind you of my comments in reply to yours at the ΚΚΨ FAC. Thank you! Sycamore (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded and made the appropriate change to the article. My comments can be seen at the FAC. Sycamore (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Putting this back on your radar. Sycamore (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to your IR. Let me know if these pings are unnecessary—I know you watchlist and don't want to pester. Sycamore (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question on sourcing

[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria. I noticed that you frequently do source checks at FAC.. I am currently in the final stages of preparing Grey's Anatomy for FAC, but I am uneasy about the citations. First, what is the difference between a "work" and "publisher"? Second, if I am citing an internet news website, can I still use {{cite web}}, or do I have to use {{cite news}}? Finally, what is the standard on wikilinking in references? I am a bit inconsistent on adding wikilinks or not adding them for the publisher/work. I hope you can answer these questions, and I apologize if I'm bothering you, TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TRLIJC19. "Work" refers to the larger-scale publication being cited, and that should be formatted in italics, whereas "publisher" refers to the group/organization/company/whatever that is publishing the material. To give you a couple of quick examples, New York Times is a work, while New York Times Company is a publisher; English Wikipedia is a work, while Wikimedia Foundation is a publisher; World Factbook is a work, while CIA is a publisher. You can use either cite web or news, so long as a) you're consistent and b) you do it in a way that makes sense - ie. with the correct italicization vs quote marks, and with all the necessary info included. There is no strict standard on wikilinking, but again, consistency is the rule - if you're going to link a particular publisher every time, you shouldn't link another only 23% of the time, and if you want to link one publisher on first occurrence only, you shouldn't link another only the second and fourth times. Does that all make sense? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that all makes sense. Thank you so much for the fast response. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Research material!

[edit]

Thanks for the horsey stuff! Are any of those available online? With regard to quantity, the more, the merrier! What I do when I get a load of stuff is read it all over several times, making notes of what things I can fit bits into (once I know I've understood it all properly), and then start slotting into suitable places. So pretty much anything you have which relates to horses (mainly in the British Isles, at the moment) will be great; ideally with links as it can be hard for me to get anything from the local library (and I don;t have JSTOR or WIley access, etc. - though I do know some folks who do have it). Pesky (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - I found those through a subscription database, though they might be available elsewhere. If there's any you need that you can't get, shoot me an email. As to quantity...you might need to narrow it a lot, as <horse britain OR "united kingdom" prehistory> literally gives me thousands of results. I'll see what I can do about finding non-subscription stuff in the meantime. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll hunt about and see what I can get. Anything "history" at all is helpful, from Romans onwards, too. I'm working on the idea of getting all the UK's Mountain and Moorland breeds up to FA, gradually, and nice bits and pieces of info on horse remains etc. in any area of the UK is good to have. Most of our Mountain and Moorland breeds stayed predominantly within their (relatively) local area for yonks, which is why the various breeds are so distinctive, so anything historical ties in with the origins of the breed. Anything on any genetic testing involving any / all the UK (and Ireland) breeds is always of massive interest to me (mainly because on of my major areas of interest is genetics, too). I like to tie these things in together :o) I did a fair bit of historical research for History of the horse in Britain, which was my come-back article after years of WikiAbsence (and very few edits before that!) It's fun digging into the roots of stuff; loads of what I eventually get may take a while to get slotted into the right places, but once I've read it, I know what it was and where to find it again, kinda thing. My memory functions as a database rather than an appointments calendar – I can store tons of data, but forget simple everyday things (like eating). Pesky (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the links :D Pesky (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Urbanization in India

[edit]

With a little extra encouragement, both instances of close paraphrasing you had trouble with have been fixed. Please take a look when you get the chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you asked for have been responded to. Please check when you get the chance: how's the article now? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:A. P. J. Abdul Kalam/GA1

[edit]

Hi NikkiMaria, will you mind if you can review a GA which was badly reviewed yesterday. Will be great if you can put down some points which I would work on and make another GA nomination. Take your own. Was in hurry previous time, as the presidential elections in India was nearing, and that Abdul Kalam had confessed he wont be contesting. But now, I don't mind spending time for this one. Thanks in advance! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ra.One FAC

[edit]

I have been asked to ping those who had done earlier reviews of the article. The FAC has slumped completely, and I've waited a week for some concrete statements. Besides, a spotcheck (whatever that is; I'm not familiar with such stuff yet) is also needed, I believe. Brianboulton made his lack of interest very clear last time, and so has Mark, who "cannot review the article" for some reason. I hope this is not canvassing; I'm just eager to see some progress. Cheers. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited James N. Miller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Secretary of Defence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Billy articles

[edit]

Hi. :) I was working on G5ing, but I just realized that you have systematically visited culling them. I don't always G5, but I can't figure out how to get Billy to stop other than making it completely unrewarding for him to continue creating these socks and editing. But if you would rather I didn't, I'm not going to proceed with it. Stubbing them may suffice. What do you think? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, usually what I do is stub/rewrite where topic is clearly notable, and G5 otherwise. I see your point about deletion, though, so if you want to proceed with G5 go ahead. (Also, there's at least one currently at AfD). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review for Dan Leno discography

[edit]

We have put the Dan Leno discography up for peer review here. We would like to improve this to FL and would be grateful for any and all comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Teton National Park

[edit]

Is now featured. I deeply appreciate your suggestions to help make it a better article.--MONGO 01:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revelation FA candidate

[edit]

Some changes have been made to the article since you last commented. Do you have any more input to provide here?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've fixed those concerns - italics are consistent and the ID is in the citation. I've also responded to the RS concerns. Toa Nidhiki05 17:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't imagine you're squatting on my talk page

[edit]

You put this "on hold" after I posted it about three weeks ago. Nothing has happened to that article since, and it sorely fails FA standards just from looking at it (and even if it didn't, I would say a review after five years' time is worth having). So....what happens now? You said I could "readd" it, well, obviously I don't know what I'm doing, so...help, please. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 16:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ACR article image

[edit]

Hi Nikki, you may be planning to get to it at some stage anyway, but if you review this for sources, can you also just join in the image discussion initiated by Rupert? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo

[edit]

The status quo did not begin when you blanked essays from that template. It existed for years before you came along. If you insist on "one month" as an arbitrary measurement, then I last added an essay about a month before you went in and started deleting, so THAT is the status quo. Please make a legitimate rationale for deleting a lot of essays, some of which have been there for years, instead of engaging in slow revert wars. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist, though claiming BRD over a month after the edit in question was made is rather silly. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advice, please

[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was looking to promote Template:Did you know nominations/Alfredo Zalce today, and instead found what's either extremely close paraphrasing or copyvio. The problem is that I'm not sure what to do in this case, beyond the obvious DYK-based provisional "no". The article was nominated by someone other than the creator, and said creator has just stopped by to suggest that the nomination simply be withdrawn.

I don't believe that the article should simply be left the way it is even if it is withdrawn from DYK; what I don't know is what ought to be done next, since I'm not used to judging what's merely close paraphrasing, and what's copyvio. The latter process seems major and involved; could you please take a look and let me know what category this falls under, and the proper next step for it would be? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what was there was definitely copyvio, so I've gone ahead and removed that along with the worst of the close paraphrasing. There's a couple troubling factors in this case: first, the attitude of the creator (which seems to be that this is a minor nitpicky problem, which in this case it certainly isn't), and second, that most of the sources are non-English - interlanguage copyvio / close paraphrasing is also a concern, and is harder to catch (particularly when, like I, you don't speak the second language). Beyond straight removal of the worst of the stuff you pointed out, the more involved approach would be to first to find someone who can check the non-English sources, and second to check whether the author has other instances of copyvio in his contribs - which might require opening a CCI, probably one of the most major steps possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I greatly appreciate you taking a look at it, and doing the necessary steps to bring the article into compliance in terms of that source. Next time, I'll know to take action myself when the article reuses whole long phrases from a source. I've closed the nomination and noted why, and also expressed my concern over the copyvio. CCI looks to be quite drastic, and more effort and investigation than I'm frankly willing to invest in, so I'll forego the more involved approach just now. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

[edit]

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

[edit]

WikiWomen's Luncheon at Wikimania 2012

[edit]
WikiWomen's Luncheon at Wikimania - You are invited!
Are you a woman attending Wikimania 2012? If so, join us on Saturday, July 14, for the annual WikiWomen's Luncheon (fka WikiChix Lunch) This event is for any women attending Wikimania. Pick up your lunch, compliments of Wikimania, and join us at 1:30pm in the Grand Ballroom for a lively facilitated discussion hosted by Sue Gardner. We look forward to seeing you there. Please sign up here.
Sarah (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour

[edit]

It is understandable if you are not interested in my request to you, but I believe it to be good manners to make that disinterest known to the requester, something you have failed to do till date. Also, if you are not interested in communicating with me at all, please say so and I shall not contact you again. It is called "politeness". ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...Um, I'm sorry if I've overlooked something, but could you remind me what request of yours I'm to be fulfilling? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this request. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I had overlooked that, but will take a look momentarily. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Whitewater (POW camp)

[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Lunar_Sample_Laboratory_Facility

[edit]

I've tried to address the legitimate concerns you raised. Could you take a look when you can? Thanks. --JohnPomeranz (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More WikiChevrons

[edit]
 The WikiChevrons 
By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the second quarter of 2012, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewater PoW Camp

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. I just wanted to talk about the Whitewater PoW Camp page that you started and wanted to explain my edit. First off, thanks for creating this article, it's something that is needed! I'm a history student working in Riding Mountain National Park and I've been studying this particular camp for the last five years. I edited the original post to ensure the accuracy of the camp's description and I hope I did not offend you. However I feel that there are some things in the original post that should be changed and I tried addressing them in my edit. Looking forward to hearing from you and working on this. Thanks! Msohagan (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Msohagan, no offense taken - you can edit whatever article you want, although sometimes your edits might be questioned, as they were in this case. Let me explain why I undid your edit. First off, the issue of the name should be resolved on the talk page first, before it's changed in the article (and I've left a query for you at the move discussion on this point). Second, when you're moving stuff around in an article, you should be careful to move or repeat the necessary references with it - for example, you have "The camp consisted of fifteen buildings and housed 440 prisoners of war" cited to this source, which says 450 prisoners and doesn't mention the number of buildings at all. Similarly, the bit about why the camp was opened might well be true, but wasn't verifiable because you didn't add a citation and it wasn't supported by the citation already present in that paragraph. I notice that you're a relatively new user, so it might be helpful for you to familiarize yourself with some of Wikipedia's core policies (linked from the welcome message on your talk page) if you haven't already done so. Let me know if you've got any questions, and feel free to discuss the camp article further at its talk page. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help Nikkimaria. Still getting used to edit wikipedia articles - thought I'd help give back seeing how Wikipedia has been a great resource for me. I have edited my post and updated the references. Everything should be in order now. Thanks Msohagan (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. You had still changed the name, so I've removed that bit for now pending discussion on talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK help

[edit]

Hi. In reviewing articles yesterday at WP:DYK, I found at least three that I can remember with potential plagiarism. In all three cases, the problems now have been stated to be resolved. Can you look at them and give second opinions on them? One involved India, one Bahrain and then one was Template:Did you know nominations/My Ancestors Were Rogues and Murderers. --LauraHale (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

[edit]
The Content Review Medal of Merit  
By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the second quarter of 2012, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. - Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Me

[edit]

Hi, I've recentlye got the whole Part of Me FA review cleared up and I would greatly appreciate if you would continue the review if you're willing to thanks! , teman13 TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 21:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another award!

[edit]
 The Military history A-Class medal 
On behalf of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, I'm pleased to award you the A-Class medal for your outstanding work on If Day, Ray Farquharson and Melville Island (Nova Scotia), which were promoted between September 2011 and June 2012. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
coming soon --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

[edit]

Thanks for looking at those DYKs. :D

LauraHale (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

[edit]
Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC). 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.

Rcsprinter (yak) @ 15:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image query for FAC

[edit]

As per your directions, I contacted an administrator at Commons regarding the dead link source for the India map used in Ra.One. The discussion is here; the last paragraph concerns you the most. Please take a look. Also, would you be so kind as to give a solid Support/Oppose for the FAC? I know I'm begging, but I'm terribly eager for this article since it may be my first FAC. Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to find an archived or updated link somewhere with which you might be able to replace the dead link? Logan's right not to remove it outright absent a solution, but I am a little concerned that no complete reference was provided. As to the FAC, I can take a look, but I've got to warn you that I'm not a film expert and might not be able to support. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Logan himself searched the Internet Archives and didn't find a satisfactory replacement. He is saying that there should be no problem even with the dead link, so I'm confused now. It would be best if you could add your opinions on Logan's talk page; that way, the matter could be discussed more directly. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments would be appreciated

[edit]

I have opened a discussion here on what should be included in the Territorial_evolution_of_Canada article. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Ground Zero | t 09:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of progressive metal artists

[edit]

Thanks for fixing the image; however, I don't understand. The image wasn't working earlier. And I tried searching for it...BigJoeRockHead (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you search with the accent on the name? That probably made a difference. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Oerip Soemohardjo

[edit]

Hi Nikki, I've answered two of your questions with questions (regarding the best course of action). Could you reply there? Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goéry Delacôte

[edit]
Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Goéry Delacôte.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

[edit]

DYK for Eaton's catalogue

[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Gao and Timbuktu/archive1

[edit]

Done mos of what you asked, just dont understand one pointLihaas (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Mars Geyser Hopper

[edit]

Nikkimaria, could you please take a look at this? Even though it's using NASA material, enormous chunks have been lifted wholesale, word for word, with only a footnote to indicate anything at all. Even aside from whether there might be 1500 characters of original prose left over, I have major concerns regarding copyvio/plagiarism even beyond the proper quoting and attribution. Thanks.

PS: Lihaas has responded to you in Template:Did you know nominations/2012 SCO summit. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, NASA copies must be a new trend, there was (a less problematic) one just last week: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Lunar_Sample_Laboratory_Facility. Anyways, don't think this one ought to pass unless some significant expansion and attribution happens, as there's also wiki-copied material in there. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On close paraphrasing

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I've opened a discussion at this thread that you may wish to comment at (and so might all those who watch your talk page). It's likely at some point that I will specifically quote your wording of "Yep - this case does not constitute a copyright violation. However, it is also not well paraphrased" (00:58 18 May) as an example of views on paraphrasing, plagiarism, copyvio, that whole messy area. I have no problem with the concerns you initially raised with that article (and as I note in my comment, with higher standards for any "featured" en:wiki venue or award) - just interested in your views on what lines should be drawn, who should draw them, the whole what is our true purpose thing. ;) Thanks & regards! Franamax (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Salutations from Clemson

[edit]

HI Nikki

Welcome to DC!! And thanks for helping my students with their Wikipedia projects this summer. They are all going to introduce themselves today.

Pfancher (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jambo! My name is Benjamin Glover and I'm sure it will be a pleasure working with you. Thank you. Benjios (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Brian Del Greco, also a Clemson student. I look forward to working with you! Thanks. Delgreco15 (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hello my name is Patricia Fedele and a rising senior at Clemson University. Can't wait to work with you on this project! Laxfangirl (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! My name is Jacob Whitworth and I am a Sophomore at Clemson University. I cannot wait to get started working with you as well! JacobWhitworth (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my name is Wilder Allen. I will be a sophomore at Clemson. I am looking forward to working with you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilderallen420 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is Greg Outlaw. I'm a rising sophomore at Clemson University. I'm looking forward to working with you on this project. Goutlaw (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mar Revolution FAC

[edit]

Some days ago you made an image review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive5. I think your concerns have been filled. Can you check it back? Cambalachero (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling citations

[edit]

With regards to you observation at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Bundling citations please see Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#Footnote ordering --PBS (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania

[edit]

If I somehow don't run into you today ... I'll be in the hall after the last sessions are over, a little after 4:30, to round people up for a Milhist dinner, hope you can make it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come say hi, but I'm already committed to the Education dinner, unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback on Golden-crowned Sparrow

[edit]

Hi Nikki, why did you feature this feedback? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was in the Wikimania presentation about it and was testing the feature. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for un-featuring it, in completely good faith I would suggest that you have a look at WP:AFT5/G/M. Kindest regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 14:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Mina Salman

[edit]

You noted some close paraphrasing and fact issues with this. There have been some edits since, one from the original author and a couple of others, and I've done a bit of work on another paraphrasing segment. Can you please recheck to see whether it's okay to approve, and give it the appropriate icon whether approved or not? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awake FAC

[edit]

I was wondering where the double periods are on Awake (TV series). Other comments have been left on the FAC page. Thanks for you comments! TBrandley 03:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awake FA

[edit]

On the FAC page for Awake (TV series), I have removed one of the two Science Fiction sources; I kept one as it is an interview, and I can't find any replacement source for that other one, which is in the "Casting" section. Have also removed the Cinema Blend per the FAC, it isn't really a good source, doesn't really seem like it. Per the FAC, I have not removed the TV Fanatic review/source; as in the FAC, "Although I agree with TBrandley that TV Fanatic is a reliable source, based on its website", that's mainly why. I have decied to remove the Zap2it source; I replaced it with a source from TV by the Numbers, which is actually owned by Zap2it. Also, I didn't removed the Voice of TV source; I believe is should be fine, and can't be replacement from what I find anyway. If there are any concerns that haven't been done probably, or are outstanding enough to not promote for FA, please let me know. Thanks for your time! TBrandley 04:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

Its me. Zell Faze (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dorset

[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, A few days ago you left some comments on the Dorset article here, to which I replied. Were you intending to undertake a full review of the article or were you merely making some helpful suggestions? There has been a disappointing amount of interest and I am wondering whether it may have been passed over because it appears you have started. I understand if you don't wish to continue with the review and thank you for your remarks you have made but do you have any ideas how we might start the ball rolling again? I have left a message at WT:UKGEO. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ykraps, for most articles I provide source and image reviews rather than full supports/opposes - source and image checks are required for promotion, even if they don't look quite as encouraging as supports ;-). You might post a message at the general UK wikiproject, or perhaps look for editors who work in that topic area (so long as you're careful to avoid canvassing). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying your role and the advice. Things seem to be moving now.--Ykraps (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Goéry Delacôte

[edit]

Can you do a quick follow up with Template:Did you know nominations/Goéry Delacôte? Thanks. :) --LauraHale (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

about your editing on Teun Voeten wiki page

[edit]

hello, i was editing Teun Voeten wiki page and i have seen on the page history that you add the copypste note on the article. i don't think that anything important has been copypaste, but what do you think i hall do to solve this problem? which part exactly do you think have to be change? Ransfortstraat (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ransfortstraat. What you should do is compare the article to the website and remove or rephrase anything where the wording or structure is quite close. As a quick example, compare "he grew more interested in photography and learned the profession by working as a photo-assistant, both in Holland and in New York" in the article with "he grew interested in photography and learned the profession by working as a photo-assistant, both in Holland and in New York" - you see how these are almost identical? We can't do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_15&oldid=1139327899"