Jump to content

User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 29

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

Seasonal Greets!

[edit]
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Nikkimaria, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
The Herald : here I am 11:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sno Balls

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

I have included the references in Sno Balls. I can see that you include things which have no references but delete posted by others even if they have some reference. Looks like double standards and unfair. Jayeshrchinchole (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry New Year

[edit]

Whatever beliefs you have, merry New Year! We all mark that with new calendars, whether we like it or not! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic marmot

[edit]

Hi Nikki, any chance you could do a source review for this article's FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delisting of anarchocapitalism from FA

[edit]

Given that there was no consensus to delist, I'm curious as to your unilateral decision to delist it. What was the reasoning behind the unilateral move without consensus? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Knight of BAAWA, the review was open for several months yet some of the concerns raised as early as July remain unaddressed, and many commenters in the FAR section suggested that FA status should be removed. All three of the reviewers who commented in the FARC section agreed that the article is not currently at FA quality. There are valid cleanup tags on the article and generally indications that it does not currently meet the Featured article criteria. I understand that you and JLMadrigal are upset with this conclusion, but the move was not unilateral - it was supported by both reviewer comments and by the current state of the article. You are welcome to renominate the article at FAC to regain its status, but I will tell you that with the article as it is now such a nomination would not be successful. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus to delist; that's the problem. Ergo, you unilaterally delisted it. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the case. There was consensus and evidence that the article does not meet the FA criteria right now, which means that it should not have FA status. If you feel that it does meet the criteria, you can seek FA status at FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, there was no consensus. I do not know what you were reading (and I mean that sincerely and without any malice), but there was no consensus to delist. If you feel there was, I would like to see it. But I read the whole shebang--and it's just not there. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that the article as it stands meets the featured article criteria? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you did not show that there was a consensus to delist. Thank you for admitting that your decision was completely without consensus and was unilateral, for you would have provided the consensus if there was one. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicated above, there was consensus that the article does not currently meet the FA criteria. If you believe it does, you may seek repromotion at FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the page shows: there was no consensus. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but this is getting us nowhere. If you truly believe the article should be featured, nominate it at FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 21 December

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DiMera family (Days of our Lives), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Italian, Salem and Carver. 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) 11:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for a happy holiday season

[edit]
Happy Holiday Cheer
Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!Hafspajen (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BMET

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

I am curious why you'd remove the BMETWIki and flag it as WP:ELNO when it. It falls under #12. Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. It doesnt mirro or fork Wikipedia. Please explain why in further detail. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virusunknown (talk • contribs)

Hi Virusunknown, WP:ELNO excludes open wikis that don't have a substantial number of editors - that one has had only four editors in the past year, including bots. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Youth in South Africa

[edit]

Nikkimaria, last week you pointed out close paraphrasing in this nomination: the professor fixed a couple of the issues the next day, and the student appears to have done a significant amount of editing the day after that to address these problems.

Can you please give this another check and see whether the close paraphrasing has all been addressed, or if there's enough work left to stop the nomination. (The professor appeared to be ready to withdraw the nomination, but if everything's been fixed, it seems a shame to do so.) Many thanks, and happy holidays. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best of news on that particular nom, but happy holidays nevertheless - thanks for your continued stellar work at DYK. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays...

[edit]
Happy Holidays...
and may the coming year bring peaceful melody accompanied by joyous harmony. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To you as well! Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

[edit]
 Happy Holidays!

Victoria (tk)

Cheers Victoria! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

[edit]

Happy Holidays!

[edit]
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Nikkimaria, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Happy Holidays

[edit]
Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Ealdgyth! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Thanks so much for fixing the dashes on Ohio State Buckeyes field hockey. Seeing that you have a script for fixing dashes, would you mind also fixing the dashes used on the other Big Ten Conference field hockey team articles? I created all of these articles, and I fear that I have misused dashes on all of them. Thanks in advance. Michael Barera (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michael Barera, I've done that. You can also install the script yourself if you like, it's quite easy to use. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Williams (jazz singer)

[edit]

A page you previously contributed to, Joe Williams (jazz singer), had many prior revisions deleted due to copyright issues. For details please see Talk:Joe Williams (jazz singer). Your prior version may be temporarily restored upon request if you need it for reference to re-incorporate constructive edits that do not make use of the copyright infringing material. Please feel free to leave me a talk message if you need this done. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Nikkimaria!

[edit]
Happy New Year!

Nikkimaria,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Elaine Surick Oran threedux

[edit]

Nikkimaria, more work was presumably done, and it's now over two months old. If it isn't ready now, perhaps it's time to close, or at least to mark the article with an appropriate template or templates. Please take another look if you're willing. Many thanks, and Happy New Year. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taiko FAC

[edit]

Hey Nikki-- Taiko is up for FAC again, and it has changed a bit since the last one; there have been some additional images added, for instance. Any feedback you have to offer would be appreciated here. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 11:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/We Bare Bears

[edit]

Nikkimaria, a fairly new reviewer believes there is close paraphrasing in the Plot section, though the nominator disagrees. Can you please check? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

[edit]

Requesting some help

[edit]

Hello. I'm sorry to bother you, but I remember that you often reviewed images on FACs, so I was hoping that I could ask for your opinion. Do you think that the images here would be considered PD? I know that two-dimensional recreations of PD works are also PD, but what about a photograph taken inside of a Post Office building? The murals were created by an artist working for the Section of Fine Arts, so the mural itself (referring to the one with the birds) should be PD, as it was created by someone in employ of the U.S. government in the course of their official duties. However, I'm not sure how something like that works when the painting is on a wall in a public building. Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide into this.-RHM22 (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RHM22, murals (even interior ones) are considered 2D works, so photographing them is copying rather than creative. If the mural itself is PD, those photos are also PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you much, Nikkimaria! That is some great information. I'm almost certain that the murals are PD, but I'll do some more research to make certain before I include the photo in the article. Thanks again, and have a happy new year.-RHM22 (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Nikkimaria!

[edit]
Happy New Year!

Nikkimaria,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 17:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Nayanars

[edit]

I have expanded the articles and addressed your concerns. Please check. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am further expanded the articles you pointed out. Please check. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I'd like to see someone else weigh in on the implications of A5 first, before checking again. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded Sadaya Nayanar too, even if Vayilar is considered first and A5 applied. IMO, the expansion will suffice. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Second_opinion_needed_-_Template:Did_you_know_nominations.2FNayanars, I have expanded all necessary articles. So even if the repeated content is not counted in character length, it is above 1500 characters. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Savile Row

[edit]

I withdrew from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Savile Row/archive1 when Savile Row became unstable. The article has now been stable since August so I am considering nominating it again. You did a detailed source review in the FAC; do you feel your concerns have been addressed, or should I be paying more attention to the sources before re-nominating? Regards SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork, on a quick look I'm not seeing any really questionable sources in terms of reliability, but there are a few dead links and formatting inconsistencies to address. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I've been busy off-wiki for a week, so only able to respond now. I'll be looking into the dead links and formatting inconsistencies over the next couple of days. Though, unfortunately, the same experience I had last time I worked on the article has returned. An editor has been making substantial undiscussed changes. I have reverted and asked the editor to discuss these changes before making them, so I'll see how that goes, but if we don't make progress I think I'll have to walk away from this article as being a little too problematic for me. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Fitch Shepard

[edit]

Nikkimaria,

What do you think of my updates, based on your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elliott Fitch Shepard/archive1? Any other help would be much appreciated.

Thank you,--ɱ (talk · vbm) 21:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 9

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
  • Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

[edit]

This Month in GLAM: December 2014

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

German anthem

[edit]

Why want you not to see the audiofile in the article "Germany"?--Unikalinho (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unikalinho, please see Template_talk:Infobox_country/Archive_10#RFC:_Audio_links_to_national_anthems. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand English not pretty good, so understood only that this anthems are prohibited, But why? There are not reasons obectives...--Unikalinho (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning for this decision was presented in the discussion, but in short: it was felt that the anthem recording should be present only in the article about the anthem, which is linked from the country article. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But I see there and there are the anthems. It's allowed only for USA and UK? :)--Unikalinho (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, they shouldn't be there either. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hutcherson

[edit]

Hi, any chance you could do a spotcheck for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Josh Hutcherson/archive2?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfriended Vandalism

[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, Please help this page is being vandalized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfriended Weeknd112 (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Weeknd112, there hasn't been enough vandalism to warrant protection of the page, so for now I would suggest just using the history to find the last "good version" of the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thank you for your answer. Is there a way where I can put some sort of stub to welcome people to expand an article? Weeknd112 (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Weeknd112: you could use either {{expand}} or {{movie-stub}}, but you might actually have more luck soliciting input from a relevant WikiProject such as WikiProject Film or WikiProject Horror. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Highbeam

[edit]

Hi, Nick. And thank you for the Highbeam access! It's been since Jan. 6 when you said to expect an email, so I just wanted to follow up. Thank you again! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tenebrae, according to my records that email was sent Jan 10. Can you check your spam folder? If it's not there, send me an email and I'll respond with your access code. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/We Bare Bears redux

[edit]

Nikkimaria, the nominator says that the plot section you found problematic has been rejiggered. Before I call for a new reviewer, do you think you could check to see whether you're satisfied with the edits? If so, tell me here and I'll post for a reviewer; if not, of course, please post there. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edits are good enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria. I've put the "review again" icon on it, and it'll be in the next list of old DYK noms that I post on the talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for material found through use of HighBeam

[edit]

Thank you for approving my request for access to HighBeam. I have already found one fact that I added to an existing article, and I want to be sure that I am formatting the citation correctly with regard to indicating use of HighBeam. Would you mind looking at the "Carter Sisters" section under "Notable personalities" in the WRNL article and checking the citation for "June 1, 1943"? I want to find out if I'm citing correctly before I proceed much further. Thanks! Eddie Blick (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie, that citation is fine, but you could make it a bit more precise using the "chapter" parameter: |chapter=Carter Family, The . Because it's a dictionary and the page number isn't included, having the title of the entry would allow someone to locate it in a non-HighBeam format (eg. the print dictionary). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I have added that parameter. I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for [1] and per this (where a different editor is editing article in the opposite direction), could you point me to the MOS or guideline that verifies that your edit is the "right" way to do this? Muchas Gracias. Montanabw(talk) 00:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Montanabw, the applicable guidelines are WP:SEAOFBLUE (don't put links next to each other so they look like a single link - so prefer [[Helena, Montana]] over [[Helena, Montana|Helena]], [[Montana]]) and WP:OLINK (so while United States is a good link in the general Montana article, it's not nearly as helpful in this much more specific article). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what argument is there for the overlinking thing? I run across it all the time, and usually revert it, but I also don't have the time or energy to edit-war about it. Just wondering if I can create a standard "here's why you don't do that stuff" message. Montanabw(talk) 21:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like the bit at WP:BUILD: "In adding or removing links, consider an article's place in the knowledge tree. Internal links can add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia, allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles. Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?"". It's very unlikely that anyone looking at this very specific article would want to follow the link to US, or would be helped significantly by reading it, or would be unfamiliar with that topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Montanabw(talk) 00:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Portland

[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria, Whilst I accept that the religion entry could be accepted as a "duplication", I see no reason for the deletion of the Hilaire Belloc paragraph. Re-reading WP:BURDEN does mention books as a source, as I see it on your reasoning all the book references could be taken out. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, books can be permissible sources - the problem with that particular entry is a) the lack of full inline citation for the quotation, and b) the lack of a secondary source to indicate the significance of the entry. There is certainly room to make further cuts to that article on the basis of sourcing, particularly given that it is an FA. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 21 January

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

[edit]

Raynolds

[edit]

Hi Nikki...did you use some kind of bot to trim the refs on William F. Raynolds [2]...if it is a script or something can you show me where it is ? Oh and of course, thank you for that cleanup!--MONGO 21:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Fraid not, it's just working by hand - generally you don't need anything after the page number to get to the right place. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Least I now know what to do to eliminate those quirky book page links...I learn something new everyday still. Thank you.--MONGO 04:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done!

[edit]
 The WikiChevrons 
For completing 17 reviews during October–December 2014, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft section for Milhist Coordinators' Handbook

[edit]

G'day Nikki, I've started drafting a section about the Quarterly Reviewing Awards here. Could you have a look and add any information about the easiest ways to tally the reviews? I'm going to ask Ian and Rupert to have look too. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, I will take a look, but I notice you've mentioned FL reviewing as something to tally...I don't think we've used anything other than FAC? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably a good point. I might take it out before we get mission creep... Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schloss Nörvenich

[edit]

Hi, any chance you could improve the translation? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Bermicourt is a good translator too I believe but probably busy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/May 18th National Cemetery

[edit]

Nikkimaria, since pings to you from templates don't seem to work, I thought I'd note that Piotrus has corrected the one example of close paraphrasing you gave and asked if there are any more... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I'll take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any time. Can I ask you to take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Shankill United Predators F.C.? While I don't see any direct close paraphrasing offhand (Duplication detector is down at the moment, so I can't do a full check), the History section's first few sentences, sourced to FN1, feel a little too close to the source: the facts are in the same order, and there are word and phrase substitutions, but it feels like two authors working from the same outline, if you know what I mean—it's enough to keep me from promoting it without you having checked it first. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from with that, but I would say the paraphrasing is adequate. If you feel otherwise, though, you could always request changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking it, Nikkimaria. If you think it's adequate, then as I said I'll go with your assessment. It was enough to make me want to check first, though. (I've since found another hook for that particular prep slot, so I probably won't end up promoting it after all.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro

[edit]

Hi Nikki,

It looks like all four of us have commented at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pedro I of Brazil/archive1, all generally to the effect that a FAR is not warranted. I would be inclined to close it as a procedural keep. We usually skip recording FACs in articlehistory if actionable-WRT-criteria concerns were not raised on the nomination page, but I don't remember a precedent at FAR: would you still typically record a procedural close in articlehistory? Maralia (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I generally have not been recording such noms. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

[edit]

Jurgens

[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria,

I am trying to repair damage done by hackers overseas. Perhaps you can help me 'phrase' info about Mr. Jurgens, so that its not deleted before I get a chance to add cites?

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janesaint (talk • contribs) 00:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Janesaint, you should include cites to reliable sources at the same time as you add the info. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Are we saying Amazon and its IMDB are no longer 'reliable sources?' --thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janesaint (talk • contribs) 01:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source, particularly for biographical details. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name's Cat... SchroCat....

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I hope all is well with you. Could I beg a review favour again please? I have Casino Royale (novel) now at FAC, and I hope you will have time to have another look through the references at some point. Once of these days I may finally get a clean bill of health from your review, but we shall see if this is the one! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, I wonder if you could revisit the Casino Royale FAC to comment on the info regardng the Griswold source (and anything else you feel appropriate), as Ian Rose has said he will hold off supporting until you sign off. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Money in the Bank (2011)

[edit]

Hi Nikki, this FAC's been awaiting a spotcheck of sources for a while -- could I trouble you...? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of Human Feelings

[edit]

Hi again, Nikki -- if you have a chance to source review and source spotcheck this long-running FAC, that'd also be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/May 18th National Cemetery redux

[edit]

Nikkimaria, Piotrus has removed the text associated with your latest example of close paraphrasing remaining in the article. Are there any more? If you find more than one, you might want to say that when giving the next example; otherwise, this could end up going on for a long time. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus just pinged us both: he revised the infringing paragraph and asked whether there was anything else. I'll let you decide whether you want to continue or shut it down. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rereview?

[edit]

Would you mind taking a look at Zeus FAC again? I believe I have addressed all your concerns, with the exception of ACCESS which I'll need some help on. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a pain, twice in a few days...

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, Sorry to be a pest, but a second article at FAC within a few days brings the begging bowl out once more, this time a joint op with Tim riley on the difficult to fathom Laurence Olivier, whose campaign for the gold star can be found here. If you're able to spare the time to pop by for your usual excellent source review, I'd be much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image query

[edit]

Hi Nikki. Sorry to bug you but you seem to be the expert on images and I don't know who else to ask. The article i'm currently focusing on is R.V.C. Bodley. While the article has an early photo of him, i've been looking for a later one. I found this image for sale on eBay [3]. It is dated 3/5/1946 though listed as photographer unknown. If I purchased the photo, would I be able to upload it under fair use rationale (considering there is already a free image of him, albeit much older). Or has the copyright expired and is the image in the public domain now? I note the New York Public Library have the same image of him, if that makes any difference: [4]. Any advice you could give would be appreciated, or if you could just refer me to where questions like this should be directed, that would be helpful too. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freikorp. According to the NYPL, the image is from the dust jacket of a 1945 book first published in the US and copyrighted there the same year; the copyright was renewed in 1972. Assuming this information is correct, it's not in the public domain, and with an existing PD photo of him it's unlikely that a fair-use claim would succeed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your help. Freikorp (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St Joseph's Convent, Taunton

[edit]

Big favour to ask: I've just created this article, but I'm worried that the architecture section follows the source (here too closely. Unfortunately, I basically have no idea what it is talking about, so I struggle to vary it much. I've seen you around DYK a fair bit on the topic of copyvio and close para-phrasing: I don't know if you might be able to have a look at this for me, and see if you think it is a bit too similar, and if you can offer any suggestions? Any help would be much appreciated. Harrias talk 22:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Harrias, I've done some editing there - would it be possible to find another source to supplement the existing one for that section? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

[edit]

This Month in GLAM: January 2015

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

[edit]


Valentine Greets!!!

[edit]
Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Nikkimaria, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
 Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
 - T H (here I am) 12:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sno Balls

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria,

I have included the references in Sno Balls. I can see that you include things which have no references but delete posted by others even if they have some reference. Looks like double standards and unfair. Jayeshrchinchole (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)jayeshrchinchole[reply]

Hi Jayeshrchinchole, unfortunately sites like Wikia and Wikipedia do not count as reliable sources - see WP:SPS. Since I also removed the statement with the {{citation needed}} tag, I'm not sure what content without references you're referring to - can you clarify? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

media_type

[edit]

I have seen you remove |media_type= from {{infobox book}} instances without elaborating in your edit summary, though the template documentation doesn't specify for such a removal. Why? czar ⨹ 04:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey czar, often that parameter is not significant enough to warrant inclusion - it's not in the example, for instance. There are instances where it makes sense to have it, but just to say "print" not so much. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel strongly either way, but it might be worth sorting this out in the infobox's documentation for consistency. (Also just so you know, I didn't get that ping.) czar ⨹ 15:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Notifications would be so much better if they worked consistently. Thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK stuff

[edit]

Nikkimaria, there are a couple of nominations that are awaiting your attention:

Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BlueMoonset, I think May 18th should be okay now but it would be best to get a new reviewer to check. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria, for checking all three. I'll put up the "new reviewer" icon. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

[edit]

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Fernando Gaviria

[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your edit to Fernando Gaviria, which is otherwise pretty much entirely my work. You've corrected a few Manual of Style points, for which I'm grateful (goodness knows how you can know the whole thing!). Could I ask, though, why you changed the Palmares section to use bolded year names, rather than `<dt>` tags using `;`? I'm not disagreeing; I just want to understand Wikipedia's guidelines, being a fairly new user! Many thanks. Relentlessly (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Relentlessly, I did that because conversations at WT:LAYOUT and elsewhere have recommended against the use of "pseudo-headings" (semicolon markup) due to accessibility issues. However, reviewing the guidelines, I think perhaps I took the wrong approach in this case: MOS:DEFLIST suggests the effect you are going for should actually be achieved using templates rather than any type of bolding markup. I've tried implementing that. Feel free to revert, though - your original formatting is pretty common, and it's not a big deal either way. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for clarifying; that's very helpful. Relentlessly (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Age (Velvet Underground song)

[edit]

1) What do you consider a reliable source for song lyrics?

2) I don't understand why you feel the need to delete useful, interesting, and utterly noncontroversial information. Anyone can find the song on Youtube and a dozen other websites and see that the lyrics sung by Tori Amos are the earlier lyrics. (For the record, I didn't add that info myself. I cite sources when I add info.) (See also: Dealing with unsourced material )

3) If you consider a source unreliable, why not get off your metaphorical butt and look for a better one? That's what I and other editors do all the time. Do you think it's beneath your dignity to do a little Googling and add a citation where there was none before, thereby confirming useful information for others' benefit?

--Rosekelleher (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rosekelleher. I do not consider that information to be either useful or interesting, certainly not without any indication of significance, and so believe that removing the poor source is a better option than attempting to replace it. If you do consider the information to be valuable, then as WP:BURDEN indicates you can restore it - once you include a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not tag it, as advised in the guidelines? Here's that link again: Dealing with unsourced material Tag the information that you, on your lofty, impersonal plane, find so useless and uninteresting, and then, after a reasonable amount of time, remove the information if it hasn't been properly sourced. I sense that you prefer removing other people's contributions because it gratifies you in some way. --Rosekelleher (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your "sense" is mistaken. The article was tagged with {{ref improve}} for a week and still wasn't properly sourced. I removed material that a) had no reliable source and b) I didn't think warranted inclusion. If you think it does warrant inclusion, then again, restore it with a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being testy. I find your manner off-putting, and I'm not a morning person, but no matter, you're a volunteer doing your best for a noble cause and I should have bitten my tongue. --Rosekelleher (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem - we are both doing what we think best for the encyclopedia, even if we disagree on what that might be. Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Elsevier

[edit]

Hi, I got your email about Elsevier access. However I still don't know what my username and password are so I can log in to ScienceDirect. I tried my Wikipedia username and password but it didn't work. Can you tell me how I would log in? Everymorning talk 15:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Everymorning, you will get a login via the email you entered on the form once Elsevier has processed the latest requests; it will probably take a week or two, as we'd like more of the recipients to respond before processing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relax duplicate linking rule (again!)

[edit]

You might be interested to see that I'm reopening the issue of duplicate links at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Relax_duplicate_linking_rule. --Slashme (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions from Old new land

[edit]

Hi,

Why did you delete so much material from that page? The edit summary "rm OR" is not very informative... --Erel Segal (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erel Segal, OR refers to our policy against original research. As indicated by that page and this one, it is not to us to decide what is "noteworthy" or "worthwhile to note" - that determination should be made by reliable secondary sources. Without such sources, we cannot make declarations about the implications of the work, or infer details about the author's thoughts and intentions. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you can remove the adjectives "noteworthy" etc. But, most of the paragraphs you removed are factual and do not relate to intentions/thoughts. They can be easily verified by reading the text. --Erel Segal (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most can't. You can verify what terms the author uses but not why, and you can't make interpretations on that basis. You can see how the author depicts things but not what this might "possibly imply", or what the outcome of agreements mentioned might be. You might know that the plot is similar to another work but it would be synthesis to draw conclusions about that without sourcing. And as far as I can tell nothing in the "Allusions" section can be verified from the text. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Arts Commemorative Series medallions

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. I'm sorry to be a bother, but I wonder if you could assist me with my current FAC, American Arts Commemorative Series medallions. One of the coordinators has requested a check of the sources since I haven't been active at FAC for a while. I was wondering, if you've got the time, could you please take a look? Most of the sources are online, but there are a few offline ones as well. I can provide scans of the offline ones if you'd like. One or two of my offline sources are currently in my storage unit, so I can't access them right away, but if you'd like scans of those I can get them as well once I'm able to retrieve the books and magazines. Thanks in advance for your time.-RHM22 (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Actually, I now have access to the major offline reference (Gilkes, 2010), so I can show you the pages if you'd like.-RHM22 (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria: Thanks again for all of your efforts. Please let me know if there's anything that I can help you with in the future (although I doubt you'll be needing any blurry black and white photos of pattern coins from 1913).-RHM22 (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Jäger (artist)

[edit]

Hi, can you add a bit more from German wiki? He's mentioned in Piano Sonata Hob. XVI/20.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation proposal for Wikimania 2015

[edit]
How to pick up more women...
Hello Nikkimaria! Victuallers and I have developed a proposal for a talk to be presented at Wikimania 2015. It's titled, How to pick up more women... -- as in more women editors and more women's biographies. Examples include the Edit-a-thon blitz during WikiWomen's History Month and the "new articles" work underway by WikiProject Women Writers. The Wikimania talk proposal review process has begun and there's no guarantee that this proposal will be accepted. That's where you come in. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. Ultimately, we hope you add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal which signifies you'd be interested in the talk if you were attending it (it does not commit you to attending Wikimania). Thank you! Rosiestep (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/CG 4

[edit]

Nikkimaria, the article appears to have had significant close paraphrasing issues, and I was wondering whether they had been adequately addressed, since it's been over two weeks since the last comment there. Thanks for anything you can do here. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respect each other

[edit]

Thank you for your note in Remember and enjoy. Would you be willing to word some agreement that we alleged infobox warriors could sign, better than my (a little sloppy, a little provoking) "Think twice before reverting the same thing a second time, and think three times before making a third comment in the same matter." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda. I might try, but I'm not sure that I would be the best choice for that, given that the last agreement was not followed. Perhaps we could find someone respected. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last agreement (if I remember right only between you and me, while now I think more of all involved) was perhaps built a bit too much on ownership, no? - I respect you as a person and think you know both sides. I imagine you start (user space?), and then we - pinging some who regularly appear in infobox discussions - think together? - Having more or less the same discussion every page is a waste of resources. We just had reason to compare The Rite of Spring (2013) and Chopin (2014 / 2015), - with Andy or without, still a lot of repetition. 10 years of "war" (of which I had only 3) are enough ;) - Brainstorming: editorial choice of the person who starts an article is a fine approach, but how to treat and involve the inevitable IP or other editor who has no idea of a conflict? (I would not have touched Chopin, for respect to Smerus, if that had not happened.) How does come into play what readers normally expect? How can falsehoods and clutter be avoided? How later changes be monitored? ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that editorial choice is a fine approach, but one argument that I see repeated way too often is "ownership". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it just comes down to personal preference and how you view articles. I remember in the old days on here if I saw a biography without an infobox I'd add one simply because I thought it looked bare and inconsistent without one. I really don't think it's worth the continued arguments and conflict over them though. I think it's time infoboxes were controlled by wikidata and then editors given options to suppress them in their own preferences. Often I've worked on biographies with Rosie, Nvvchar or Aymatth and they've added an infobox and didn't contest it, but I do ideally prefer the look nowadays with just a nice photo.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ownership: I would gladly word without ever using the word, and used it only for something past here. Let's go forward. I think we agree that the first person to make a decision about infobox yes or no is the person who creates an article, followed by other editors who do substantial work. - Back to where problems come: a user who has no idea of a minefield comes along and in good faith adds an infobox. Did you see the nice work in many steps done recently on Chopin? I really loved "severely underweight", but reverted, of course. How can we address these people in a friendly manner. - A bit of history: who created the article on Victor Bruns? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks so bare without that infobox!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Blofeld did. Dr: while that idea sounds good in theory, in practice I think it would be bad for the encyclopedia. If someone who has suppressed infoboxes is working on an article, and they don't see what's wrong with the infobox, how can they address that? Wikidata is not always right, and not always right for our purposes. Plus I think we are all agreed that there are articles where infoboxes make sense, even if we do not agree how extensive that group might be. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In a recent discussion, the term "main editors" came up, can we use that, instead of "owners"? Can we try to define what it means, and what suggestions and decisions they can make? What if two main editors disagree? What about the interests of the community and the readers? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking to the wrong person on that first issue - that is already the term I use. We would also need to define what suggestions someone who is not a main editor can make - someone who "has no idea of a conflict" is one thing, but if someone knows of the conflict and readds or asks someone else to readd a reverted infobox - well, warring is not something in the best interests of the community or the readers, wouldn't you agree? If two main editors disagree, they should talk it out between each other, respectfully. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't re-adding has happened recently, - also we want to look forward, right? What has happened recently was the revert of an infobox which had been in place for 8 years, but same approach, better next time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has indeed, and those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. So looking forward, warring would be something to avoid, where the preferences of the main editor(s) is known either way. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey folks, Gerda made me aware of this discussion; hope you'll forgive a little additional bloating of your talk page, Nikkimaria. Now, as to issue at hand, I'm assuming that the "main editor" principle that everyone is referencing here (and apparently elsewhere on the infobox frontlines that seem to be developing between two entrenched camps again across numerous biographical articles) is the old hold-over that "For content decisions that are purely matters of style, the oldest significant editor still active on the page is typically allowed to decide the version retained"? I'm forgetting the exact wording and which policy that little tidbit is enshrined in, so I'm uncertain that this is principle everyone is referencing here with regard to "main editor" but it's surely the only piece of policy that remotely seems to conform to what people are saying in these instances.
If this is indeed the principle being debated, I would caution both sides to show caution with regard to it. That concept has only been retained (and has remained as vaguely worded as it has) because it is meant to refer only to trivial matters of visual aesthetics. And while I might be tempted to agree that a good many of the more hyperbolic reactions to infoboxes seem to be predicated on subjective visual aesthetics (rather than solid policy arguments one way or the other), I think we long ago passed a threshold where any infobox debate can be considered trivial. That state of affairs ceased the day ArbCom had to step in with regard to the subject. What's more, I fear that any effort to try to invoke that principle is doomed to inevitably be perceived as territorialism in this contentious area. There probably room for some "oldest stable version" arguments in that small minority of infobox debates where a minimal amount of editors for even a small consensus in infeasible, but I can't imagine anything invoking a principle of a "main" editor will be a tenable strategy for resolving these disputes efficiently. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious as to what we are discussing here, though! Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 13:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In a recent discussion, those who made the article FA (within a few weeks) were considered the (new) main editors ("it's common practice for the main editors' preference to be respected"). They disregarded the article history and removed an infobox that had been stable for six years. - I don't believe that an infobox is only a matter of style, falling under preferences of like and dislike, - it's information of value to some readers, which should be respected more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And therein lies the conflict: espousing a blanket "respect" for all infoboxes. They are not all of equal value. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "all" and didn't mean "all". Having clarified that, I think it's better not to extend your talk by that but move to a dedicated space. (Done, please continue there.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not put my comments on any page of that WikiProject. It is no place for peace as it stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Will start without them then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is perhaps why it makes sense to sometimes look back, as you were right the first time: "Any neutral discussion of infoboxes should NOT be on the pages of this project which supports them". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is true for a neutral discussion of infoboxes, but the project can host a discussion how to improve behaviour and understanding, NOT about the value of infoboxes, NOT their addition and removal, but - as the header suggests - aiming for more respect for each other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would argue that in that case it would be even more vital to find a better venue, one more amenable to those aims. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I came here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

[edit]

Yet another favour?

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I've recently been working on the Great Stink - an odd and obscure event in London's history that led to a massive set of of civil engineering projects that lasted 15 years. The article is now at FAC. Can I persuade you to do your usual excellent job on the sources? Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Williams Lake, British Columbia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Man in Motion. 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) 08:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/spotcheck

[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria,

Could you be so kind as to do spotcheck at the Battle of Malvern Hill FAC? I know the Coordinators usually ask for one for first-time FAers, so I guessed I'd be proactive. Furthermore, can you do a source review. Auntieruth55 did one, but I'd like to get more input on that front. Thank you kindly, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 22:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ceradon, I've done a source review, but I don't have access to enough of the sources at this point to do a reasonable spotcheck. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, but I have most of my souces available online (the two most used are in PDF format). If you want, I could email the links to you (or the full documents, if you want.) --ceradon (talk • contribs) 14:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sure, I can work with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

--ceradon (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though I don't expect you'll be happy with the result...Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone over the entire article. I've fixed quotes, and ensured what I say is in the citation is actually in the citation. Could you do another for me please? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey ceradon, I'll take another look tomorrow or the next day. Would you mind unstriking my comments in the meanwhile? Generally the coords don't like noms to strike or otherwise amend reviewer comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me again. Can you do a re-recheck? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:42d Air Base Wing/GA1

[edit]

Nikkimaria, I was taking a look at this GA review to see why it was stalled, and noticed a disturbing comment in the notes at the bottom, in the additional notes, about the potential for copyvio, and why the reviewer thought it probably wasn't copyvio (which I think is mistaken, as did, apparently, the nominator). I just put that globalsecurity.org source (which is copyright) and the article in Duplication Detector, and the first three matches alone total over 100 words. (This is FN47.)

The sourcing does also include government material; the beginning of the bibliography section includes the following statement: This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the Air Force Historical Research Agency. I'm not familiar with whether this is sufficient for the copied material (FN11).

Thanks for anything you can do here. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The attribution is admittedly vague but within the standard allowable for PD sources. The GlobalSecurity issue is more concerning, and I've commented on that there. Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking. Something odd's going on with the comment you added: the contents of that box have disappeared, and all that's there now is the word "Pending". Maybe there's something with the URL you give that's causing problems with the template it's in? One of the characters, or maybe it's just too long? BlueMoonset (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Peacemaker's moved it. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sant'Ambrogio della Massima

[edit]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review for Gary Cooper

[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. Would you have time to do a source review for Gary Cooper? The last resolved comments were over two weeks ago, and Tim riley recently completed a spot-check. Thank you for doing the image review for the article last month. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 10

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
  • New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
  • TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have added an application to volunteer for TWL as per the call for more help in this newsletter. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ThaddeusB, I've sent you an email on that topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

[edit]
[edit]

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

Nadia Myre
added a link pointing to Algonquin
Patricia Martin Bates
added a link pointing to Embossing

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/The Battle of Palmdale

[edit]

Nikkimaria, can I ask you to take a look at this one and determine whether the article needs a close paraphrasing or other template, and also whether the given sources are adequate? Meegs17 did the original review and did a little work with the nominator/creator, who is fairly new and is also in an academic course that may or may not be related the article. But it looks like only the sections given as an example were looked at; there are several quite significant stretches in each of the two online sources that show up in Duplication Detector. I suspect what we have here is someone who is unclear on how paraphrasing should work, since this is far too close and verges on (if not goes over the line into) copyvio. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, I did some fixing on this article since you tagged it and would like to remove the tag. Perhaps you have a moment to take a look? Thanks, Samf4u (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Samf4u, thanks for your work on this. It can be quite difficult to balance between adhering to the sources and avoiding close paraphrasing, and we're not quite at that balance yet. For example, the article says there was no post-impact fire, but actually FN1 says that the plane burned on impact. On the other side, "chunk of rocket went through a front window, ricocheted off the ceiling, drilled through a wall and ended up inside a kitchen cabinet" is for example still quite similar in phrasing to "chunk of shrapnel burst through the front window, ricocheted off the ceiling, went though a wall and came to rest in a kitchen cupboard". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Thanks for your quick response! Not sure what FN1 means but all 3 online refs and the book I read clearly state the drone ran out of fuel then crashed with no fire. As far as the other example I'll try and change it but those are facts. How much can I alter it without making things up? Samf4u (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Samf4u, FN1 refers to footnote 1 - this source - which states that "the plane disintegrated and burned on impact". Do any of the sources explicitly say that there was no fire, or do they just not mention one? It's possible for a fuel-starved plane to crash but still have a small post-impact fire, particularly in a dry area with combustible material on the ground.
As to how much to change - as I said above, it's a careful balance. You can help minimize problematic paraphrasing by quoting directly from the source when you don't want to change the meaning, or by using multiple sources in combination. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, FN1 states as you quoted (I missed that). FN3 states "drone finally crash-landed harmlessly in the Mojave Desert." FN6 says "the Hellcat cart wheeled and disintegrated". The book I read X-Plane Crashes states " the airplanes right wingtip dug into the sand and the Hellcat cartwheeled and disintegrated. There was no fire." page 128. This is interesting. What's the protocol when 2 conflicting sources are found? I will change the other example, thanks for showing me how. Your patience with a newbie is much appreciated. Samf4u (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality says that where sources disagree about the facts, we should present both sides - assuming we consider both sources to be equally reliable. I haven't looked at the book you mention so I can't speak to that aspect. You could also choose to exclude the detail, as it's not hugely significant to the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I see that Samf4u has removed the close paraphrasing template that you added to the article. I just wanted to be sure that you concurred with that removal. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit more tweaking, so based on the sources I can see it looks good enough now. Thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering

[edit]

what you found at Florence Wyle that was unsourced? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Einar, the details about her private life didn't include an inline citation - if they are supported by one of the given sources you can add one. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am a book person and have a couple on Loring & Wyle and will add a few citations. I also had cataract & glaucoma surgery less than a week ago and get the other eye done later, so reading is not my favorite pastime right now. However I will try and add some citations and generally fact check as I go along. Life is supposed to be interesting. Carptrash (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my editing is a bit spotty because I live and take care of my mother (92) and when she gets up. as she just did, I spring into action. More later. Carptrash (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly understandable, and there's no deadline - whenever you get to it is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Official name parameters

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, despite the consensus at WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes recently being reconfirmed, I'm puzzled why you continue to remove "official_name" parameters. I recognize by no means are you doing this in large masses. I think it is just a few over the last month or two. Is this just being done with a configured bot that you employ? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hwy43, I don't use typically use bots for editing. The last time I had looked at the discussion, only you and I had contributed to it, with a result of no clear consensus as to which guideline took precedence. I see now that it attracted additional commentary after a couple months of silence, so I'll continue the conversation there. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

[edit]

I've left comments here Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick questions

[edit]

Are pictures like this one, File:Chaco Canyon Chetro Ketl great kiva plaza NPS.jpg, which was taken by a National Park Service employee while in the service of their duties and published by the NPS, really PD? How about brochure content or official park maps? Thanks. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, anything created by an NPS employee as part of their duties will be PD, whether photographs, texts, or maps. (Note though that not everything on the NPS website is necessarily theirs.) Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Do you think File:NPS map of Chaco Culture National Historic Park.png is appropriate for commons, and can I be sure it's PD? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything to suggest it wouldn't be PD - it's not attributed on the NPS website, so absent evidence otherwise we assume it's theirs. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian women artists

[edit]

I notice that you have twice removed this category from Sandra Bromley. Why are you doing this? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency with the categorization scheme established by Tom Thomson, among others, which do not have an equivalent. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't work that way. As an experienced Wikipedian, you should know better. If you're objecting to the existence of this category because there is no male equivalent, your recourse is to take it up at CfD, rather blanking it without cause from articles to make a WP:POINT. If you continue to do this, I'll start issuing POINT warnings. I encourage you to voice your objections at the appropriate forum, if you feel that strongly about it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not correct - I don't much care whether the category exists or not, and I have no intention of adding or removing it en masse. If you disagree with the categorization of a particular article, you should discuss it on the talk page rather than edit-warring. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one who's edit warring -- you are. You've reverted the edits of two different editors on this silly point. WP:BOOMERANG much? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken, but if you think it's a "silly point" then I really don't know why you're continuing this. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

[edit]
The Guidance Barnstar
Thank you for sharing your knowledge and expertise with one who's star is not as bright. Samf4u (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need suggestions

[edit]

Hello, as requested on the article about Michel Ducros, I'm currently work on the page in order to synthesize and summarize all the passages that are too long or not really relevant with a biography. It would be great if you could have a look and let me know if you have any suggestions about those modifications. Thanks a lot MrBeBe (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrBeBe, it's not so much that the article is too long in terms of raw length, but simply that it reads more like a magazine profile rather than an encyclopedia entry. It would be great to reframe it using a neutral tone and avoiding peacock terms like "renowned", focusing more on Ducros' actions rather than his thoughts and feelings. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this feedback, I will proceed like this : first finish to summarize the over-detailed or poorly-sourced passages and then rewrite the peacock terms and try to give a more neutral tone (at first, the first line with "renown" French businessman). Would you like to put this page in your watchlist, to have your opinion on the modifications ? Thanks again, MrBeBe (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: February 2015

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

[edit]

DYK for Janice Wright-Cheney

[edit]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sarah Lindley Crease, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Fox. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Louisa Murray

[edit]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(USA) rather than US for horse breeding

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, can you pause from changing the suffix (USA) to (US) on thoroughbred horse names, please. Although the MOS defines US as the abbreviation for the United States, the breeding suffix (USA) is part of the horse's name, showing where it was bred, and shouldn't be changed. Similarly horses bred in Britain are suffixed (GB) and Ireland (IRE), although these aren't standard abbreviations. Thanks. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bcp67, since both US and USA are used in that context, US is what we should opt for. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, it's not about opting for, (USA) is the officially recognized suffix showing foaling location. This link to the International Federation of Horsracing Authorities shows the full list of suffices; [5]. You can click on Article 4 and it will take you down to the list. MOS states "USA is correct, though, in the context of formal codes in which it appears that way" --Bcp67 (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Are there similar rules for non-racehorses? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, to be honest. I'm very interested in thoroughbred horse racing but don't know about horses in general. Thoroughbred breeding is quite tightly regulated, to protect the breed, but as for as other types, no idea, sorry! All the best anyway and thank you for the discussion. --Bcp67 (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, please stop. The suffix for Thoroughbreds is (USA). Tigerboy1966  20:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I did, after the conversation above. That doesn't mean you should revert other unrelated changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MOS has to be applied in context, please read this [6] which shows the internationally recognised suffixes for racehorses. Tigerboy1966  19:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but this has already been resolved - see the discussion above, which includes that link. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have read the full thread. On a technical point, these official suffixes apply to racehorses, not all of whom are Thoroughbreds. Tigerboy1966  07:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Murray - your reverts

[edit]

Re: your reverts to the Louisa Murray article.

My edits are supported by Wikipedia guidelines, viz:

A subpage/section of WP:MOS (specifically, WP:EDITORIAL) talks about words that could potentially mislead the reader. To quote it:

"Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, possibly inappropriately undermining the validity of the first statement while giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second."

Since the term "However" can incorrectly lead the reader to believe that the previous sentence may not be totally true, it was removed. The sentence, without the "however", makes a factual and encyclopedic statement.

WP:CAT talks about the order that categories should appear. To quote it:

"Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first."

When a person was born or dies is generally not of great importance to our readers. More important is what the person is known for. That's why the birth/death cats were moved to the end of the category list.

Would you please reconsider your reverts. Cheers. Truthanado (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Truthanado, thanks for explaining
  1. The "However" statement is less clearly related in that version than in the original, as another editor has inserted new text - in the original there was a clear relationship between the practice of publishing in multiple magazines, and the consequences of that practice. I've reorganized that section to clarify that.
  2. Why change reflist to Reflist?
  3. Since importance is subjective we could go back and forth about how important dates are - I've done a bit of reorganization - but surely we could agree that the dates are more important than the cause of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial women categorization

[edit]

Hi Jc37, your closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_2#Category:American_colonial_women included the renaming of Category:North American colonial women in warfare to Category:Colonial American women in warfare. However, because not all North American women are American women, this has resulted in the miscategorization of several individuals from Canada and the Caribbean. While I am recategorizing those as Category:Women in warfare in North America just so they aren't wrong, I think the colonial designation would be useful, particularly in Canada. Could you re-examine the situation? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did so based upon the discussion, and that the term is apparently Colonial America(n) per the discussion and per references.
As for whether the term includes the Carribean or Canada during colonial times, if it helps, my read of Colonial America (disambiguation), and European colonization of the Americas, suggests it does.
That said, I'm merely acting as closer - weighing the discussion and references based upon Wikipedia policy/guidelines. I hope this clarifies. - jc37 05:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
jc37, I'm afraid it doesn't - the only country discussed in the debate was the US. In fact, the debate didn't discuss the North America category at all - the nominator only mentioned Category:American colonial women, and no one extended that - so I'm not sure how you can conclude from that discussion that the preferred term for "North American colonial" is "Colonial American", because the two mean different things in standard usage. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The term, as noted, is "Colonial America". It's not "Colonial United States". And therefore it was indeed discussed. I think your confusion here is summed up by your assertion that "...not all North American women are American women..." - which actually is not accurate in colonial times (as noted even by our own articles on the subject). And as a closer, I'm supposed to weigh the discussion and the related policies and guidelines. And per the discussion (and references - including our articles) apparently the term used in scholarship is "Colonial American". See User:Hmains' comments in particular.
All that aside, I made it clear in the close that the change was done as a "speedy" rename. if you disagree with it, please feel free to immediately nominate it at WP:CFD for renaming to whatever your referred name is. I happily defer to a new discussion of the category name at CFD. - jc37 14:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmains' comment states "This category is women in the area of the United States before the United States came into existence--known as Colonial American to all historians" (my emphasis). You cannot conclude from that comment, nor from any other made in the discussion, that "North American" is understood to mean the same thing as "American", so what policy or guideline led you to make that close? As our articles indicate, even in scholarship dealing with the colonial period "American" is more commonly used to refer to the US (Colonial American military history is just US; Colonial American history redirects to US; etc). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion of my edit to "Maple syrup"

[edit]

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit of the maple syrup article. I deleted the Commons and Book links because they were literally redundant—the links to both already exist in the infobox at the top of the article (they are standard parts of the Infobox food template). Would you please be so kind as to restore my edit?—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I would just like to point out that those external links (as in not en.wikipedia) in side bar is discouraged as per WP:SIDEBAR. Would be best to fix that and just have them in the see also section were the majority of our readers will look for them. Not a good way to attack attention to the links if there not were people expect them to be.-- Moxy (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against those links being in the infobox, but if they are not there, they belong in the "External links" section, not "See also", per MOS:APPENDIX (specifically MOS:SEEALSO and WP:LAYOUTEL).—DocWatson42 (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree ..as they are right? --Moxy (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are in External links at the moment. I think it's fine to include them there, or we could simply remove the sister-projects template altogether. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, I like the idea of keeping the Commons and Book links in the infobox (it's very convenient and compact), and replacing the Sister projects links template with just with the Wiktionary template (i.e., I like what I did originally;; my second comment above was just to clarify on Moxy's point).—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's much benefit to having just the Wiktionary link in EL with the others elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Eleanor Cripps Kennedy

[edit]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols of Winnipeg

[edit]

You have no proof those images are copyrighted, you can't keep doing this! It has already gone through the DR process and was determined to be PD. If you think otherwise, go nominate them again, but you're holding Wikipedia hostage with your silly little "I don't think they're free so I get to decide all by myself they can't be used anywhere" game. You're not an admin anymore, I will pursue this if I have to. Fry1989 eh? 20:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fry! In order to use an image, you need to be able to prove that it is not copyrighted (or is freely licensed); if you have found evidence of same since the DR, by all means present it, but thus far that burden has not been met. The images are derivative works of others that have since been deleted as non-free (File:Winnipegflag.jpg and File:Winnipegcoa.gif), and the copyright tags are incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under the impression that not only do you know better than everyone else, but that you get to decide all by yourself and rule by personal decree what images from Commons can and can not be used, and seem to have a very strange obsession with the Winnipeg symbols. You simply have no authority to do so. I'll go through RFC to overrule you, I won't tolerate this nonsense any longer. Wikipedia's relationship with Commons depends on trusting Commons' ability to determine the copyright status of the images it hosts, you don't get to just completely side-step that on your own whim because you think you know better. Fry1989 eh? 20:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, start an RfC if you wish: perhaps someone would be able to find actual evidence that the images are PD and thus we could use them. I suggest though that in the interim you take a step back and calm down a bit. My interest in the images' copyright status arose not from "obsession" but from my efforts to bring the Winnipeg article to featured status, which requires clear-cut evidence of appropriate licensing for images; I found on review that such evidence was lacking here. Again, if you have it I'd love to see it, but the source presented in the DR did not provide such evidence - the image is not based solely on the textual blazon given there, but is derived from the non-free image mentioned above, and the source also does not give sufficient information to support the use of {{PD-Canada}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 19 March

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review request

[edit]

Hello Nikkimaria! I was wondering if you could do a peer review Romance (Luis Miguel album) as I could benefit from a reviewer who is not familiar with the subject of the article. Thanks in advance, Erick (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

[edit]

Hey, Nikkimaria! I was wondering if you could do a peer review of "All Is Full of Love". I'd love for it to become a Good Article in the future and your help would be amazing. Thanks in advance! --Bleff (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enthiran

[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria, would you be interested in conducting an MoS review on this article as it was recommended by editors in its first FAC. You can leave your comments at the article's 2nd peer review. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssven2, have you already addressed Sandy's comments? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's regarding Sandy's comments that I need your help. User:RHM22 recommended you for it when I asked his help. I am addressing some of them as I write this. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me know when you're done with her comments and I'll take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed most of her comments now (NBSP, PUNC). Please do let me know if there any issues left that I have to sort out. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mission school, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Residential school. 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) 13:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian bios

[edit]

Hi, I created 3 Canadian bios late yesterday -- Bertha Allen, Jeannette Vivian Corbiere Lavell, Jean Cuthand Goodwill -- and left them quite stuby for the moment so that I can continue with the Pan-American Conference of Women article and its redlinks. Thought I'd mention them in case they interest you, but no worries if you're busy with other things. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rosiestep, I'll take a look at them. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

is this done right?

[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Dyslexia--Moxy (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, I've fixed it. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PERFECT!--Moxy (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good work on the Highbeam project

[edit]

Hi, Nikki, just wanted to thank you for your efforts managing the Highbeam project. I've noticed with myself and others in the requester list that you are really helpful and keep on top of it, and I'm sure this helps expand the use of Highbeam as a resource here. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Winnipeg.png listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Flag of Winnipeg.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Fry1989 eh? 20:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/The Free State of Jones (film)

[edit]

Nikkimaria, I wasn't sure whether you wanted to check this one to see whether the close paraphrasing and copyedit were adequately addressed, since it's been a week since the most recent post. It doesn't look like there have been many changes, but maybe they're enough. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking advice

[edit]

I have been thinking about nominating Visby city wall for GA, but I honestly don't know which category to put it in. I have been looking at similar constructions and I'm none the wiser. I saw that you reviewed the Tower of London for GA, so maybe you have some better insight in the different categories. Where would you suggest I nominate it? All the best, w.carter-Talk 23:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi w.carter, I would tend towards Architecture, but I think a case could also be made for Warfare. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged. I think I'll go with architecture since most of its use have been in peace time. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 00:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/CG 4 redux

[edit]

Nikkimaria, an independent copyeditor came through and appears to have fixed prose issues with the article, but I wanted to be sure that you were satisfied that the close paraphrasing has been dealt with before calling in a new reviewer. Thanks again for checking, both before and now. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another...

[edit]

Heh. Can't say I'm impressed with the whole nonsense. Whatever. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I imagine there would be quite a few instances of that problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Eastern Exit edits

[edit]

Hello. I've re-inserted the wikilinks on Operation Eastern Exit for Somalia, Lebanon, and Kenya. You used "mos fixes" as the edit summary for both edits, but I don't understand why these should not be wikilinked. In fact, the article is undergoing a good article review and the reviewer specifically requested the links to Somalia and Lebanon in the "Background" section of the article (see Talk:Operation Eastern Exit/GA1). AHeneen (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AHeneen, I actually explained the issue on the review page before your reversion - those links are problematic in terms of both WP:SEAOFBLUE and WP:OVERLINK. Could you please restore my edits? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the article is overlinked and will wait for comments by the reviewer. AHeneen (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Library coordinators

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria. I'm considering volunteering to do Wikipedia Library coordination, but I wanted to ask if I'll still be eligible for the account accesses. For example, can I still use Newspapers.com, HighBeam, Project MUSE, etc. if I'm a coordinator? Also, would I still be eligible for the Visiting Scholar program, if another spot opens up? Thanks in advance for your assistance.-RHM22 (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RHM22, yes and yes - volunteers who are already beneficiaries are great because they understand the basics of the program already, and they are welcome to continue to use and request accesses. And yes, visiting scholars can be coords too. I'd love to have you sign up :) Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I've signed up.-RHM22 (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jean Cuthand Goodwill

[edit]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_29&oldid=1125487972"